In thinking about this more I actually do think that Google isn't really in competition with Apple and Palm as much as Microsoft.

Google doesn't need one particular piece of hardware running Android to be a hit in the way that Apple and Palm, (and RIM to the extent that they go after the consumer market), do since they don't make the hardware or make money on the hardware or licensing.

As all phones become smartphones, Android could be positioned as the choice of OS for manufacturers who are not Apple, Palm or RIM simply because it is free and modern and there. Your HTCs, LGs, etc. might just migrate to it as an enabling technology so that they can stay in the game.

Microsoft is sort of in the same position but Windows Mobile doesn't seem to be appealing to people so much these days and comes with licensing fees attached.

Android is going to be running on netbooks which would otherwise be running Windows.

So maybe Android never has the same brand in-your-faceness but could quietly emerge to capture a large segment of the market.

I wonder about Nokia. Will they continue to push Symbian? A combined Nokia and Palm would be interesting…

My point being that the make-or-break for Palm will be if it can get enough buzz so that people who are not geeks want to buy it. Its the reason android may have some difficulty. “heck, my phone already has google”

Im really not sure what the name Palm means to people anymore. is it still a positive association? Can webOS/Pre get in enough hands to get it back there?

I'm a little surprised actually how much brand power Palm still has. I had kind of written them off a while ago yet have relatives asking about the merits of the Pre vs. iPhone weeks ago.

Contrast that to Android who I doubt many non-tech people are aware of at all…

However, on “The Microsoft Way” I have to strenuously disagree. That way has worked exactly once in history. Look what happened to Apple when it tried to go licensing – it almost collapsed the company. Or look at what happened to Palm when it tried that. Heck, look at what happened to Microsoft when it tried Plays-for-sure – it's dropped that for the Apple Way and Zune (which while not a success, is a raging success when compared to plays-for-sure). Or look at the lack of success for WinMob. Successful companies like RIM, Apple, Danger (to a degree) and even Palm of old (as well as of new :) control everything.

But I agree with your point that Google is in a unique position with Android (and Chrome, too on the web side) to not really be too worried if Android doesn't rule the world. Although, they'd certainly like it to be in order to have a greater say in the evolution of the smartphone (and browser).

Nevertheless, Android's committee of enemies seems like it will be ever more burdensome the more successful the product is as each member strives to cram in that which will help it the most and block that which will help it's competitors. I think '09 and '10 will see a bunch of Android phones hit the market, but I'll be curious to see if it doesn't achieve mainstream brand awareness what will happen in '11.

There are advantages to having a really clear and controlled product line. This is “The Apple Way”. There are also advantages to being ubiquitous, not worrying about the hardware so much and just the OS, “The Microsoft Way”.

I think the iPhone/Android battle may be a regurgitation of the Apple/Microsoft battle in the early days.

Plus, I'm not sure if this is an advantage or not for Google but they are not actually trying to make any money on licensing fees since Android is open. On the one hand that sucks 'cause they won't be making money but on the other they don't care 'cause they're rich and are going at it more obliquely for mindshare or whatever…

It doesn't really matter ultimately whether it works or not since you're not going to be using Bing or Wolfram anytime soon regardless of the phone you've got. The worst case scenario for GOOG is basically neutral.

It might be naive but I almost believe it when Schmidt says he doesn't think they are in competition. The iPhone has actually been great for Google, after all. Pre will be great for Google. The rise of the smartphone in general is great for Google. If they can shape that future to whatever degree is possible with Android they will do it, but no matter what they win if the phone is an Internet device.

Do you really think that Android has any chance to get in the way of the iPhone juggernaut in the foreseeable future? I suppose it's because I don't see the need for netbooks in general, but I even ever more so don't see the advantage of Android on netbooks. And if it does get on netbooks, what advantage does it have for Android as a platform? It will require completely different apps – given the difference in screen size, processor, input… so it will actually serve, I believe to confuse the Android Marketplace.

I've been thinking alot about this in general – what does Android gain from being an open, embedded system in relation to its fight for smartphones? Does it gain anything for getting used on digital frames? Embedded in a toaster? It certainly isn't bad, but I'm not clear that it is all that good.

I'm going to stand by my thought that the medium term battle for second will come down to Android and WebOS after RIM starts it's nosedive.

Will it unseat Apple? No chance.

As you alluded to I think RIM has more to fear from Palm, (and Apple and Google/Android), than Apple or Google/Android do from Palm.

Apple loses some in the sense that they don't get to run away with the market, but that was not going to happen anyway.

I disagree with your Android vs. WebOS matchup though. I think the matchup is between Apple and Android, especially when Android netbooks arrive and if/when Apple releases a tablet.

I'm wondering if a Pre hit makes Palm attractive to RIM or Microsoft or Nokia…