Underestimating Google can be disastrous

 

Google's first Android-based phone was announced Tuesday and so far, the response has been mixed.

Some believe it'll be the next big thing in the cell phone business because it adds some basics -- such as a physical keyboard -- that the iPhone is lacking. Others believe the G1 will fall flat on its face because it's not unique and its omissions (Exchange support, for one) will make it lose out in the corporate space.

I tend to agree on both counts. I think Android could be a major hit in the cell phone space, but the G1 won't be able to stand up to Apple or RIM. It's too underpowered and its obvious omissions tell me T-Mobile and Google rushed it before it was ready.

But Android is an entirely different story. At its core, Android is a platform that has tons of potential. It's not only open (which is probably the best feature), it offers full Google integration, which is a key concept in today's age of Google domination, and its touch-screen capabilities mean Apple isn't the only other major company doing something unique in the market.

But my belief that Android will be a success goes far beyond the product itself. Call me crazy, but I can't think of one reason why anyone would underestimate Google. Countless times, companies have ignored Google and let it slip into a market, only to learn when it's too late that it's the leader.

And while it's easy for Apple and the rest to scoff now, you can bet that that's exactly what Google wants.

Who would have thought that Google would become such a powerhouse in the tech industry? Ask.com certainly didn't think it could happen and neither did Yahoo. AOL must have thought Google was just another flash in the pan. Oh how wrong they were.

And what about Hotmail, Yahoo Mail, and the rest? Certainly Microsoft and Yahoo didn't believe that a product called Gmail would make an impact, right? After all, why would anyone actually want to use an online email application from Google when they can use Outlook on any Windows machine in existence? Nice one, Microsoft.

Speaking of Microsoft, where was it when Google was building its online advertising empire? And why didn't it stop Google in its tracks once the company started bringing Google Docs online to compete with Office? Oh, and what about that whole search thing? Didn't Microsoft see that one coming?

Google has its grips in countless markets in the tech industry. It leads the way in search and advertising, but it's a major player in online productivity apps, mapping solutions, and a slew of other places where the leader was supplanted without much worry. And although it's still struggling with YouTube, we can't forget that Google was the only company that had both the money and vision to acquire that site.

The key to Google's success throughout the years is two-fold: it offered superior products because it understood what customers wanted, but it also capitalized on all its competitors that failed to believe that a company with that crazy name could become a powerhouse in any market.

Oh, how wrong they were.

And now, as Android finally hits store shelves next month, companies in the cell phone industry are making the same mistake. Microsoft claims it isn't worried about Android (we've been down this road before, Microsoft), Apple doesn't see it as a worry, and RIM has practically ignored it. All the while, Sergey and Larry have been forming alliances with companies that will see dozens of Android-based phones hit store shelves over the next few years.

Have any of these companies learned anything? Sure, the search and advertising business is much different that cell phone software, but Google's knowledge about what the consumer wants hasn't changed. Worse, Google's understanding of what the market needs has gotten better over time.

At this point, I don't know if Android will lead the way in the cell phone industry and I have no idea if Google will supplant Apple and the rest or face annihilation. But if I had to put money on the most likely outcome, I wouldn't bet against Google. The company has been right too many times to bet against it.

Apple, RIM, Microsoft, and the rest need to wake up and realize that the G1's success isn't indicative of the future success of Google in the cell phone industry. Android is.

Why iPhone developers should defect to Android

Quite a bit has been made lately over Apple's treatment of developers who want to create apps for the iPhone and iPod Touch. The company has consistently played games with developers by keeping them in the dark and ensuring that each time an app is rejected they're given as little information as possible.

Of course, this doesn't come as a surprise to those of us who have followed Apple all these years. The company has always been suspect of third-party developers and has consistently failed to do the right thing even when it's faced with a PR firestorm. After all, if the mainstream doesn't pay attention, who cares?

But it's that kind of mentality that could get Apple into trouble. Sure, it worked fine for the company with Mac OS X and it has every right in the world to stop apps from getting into its store if they're undesirable, but that doesn't stop the onslaught of complaints that Apple is acting in a way that's more than a little "wrong."

Let's see if I can capture the main points. First, Apple announced that the first iPhone wouldn't have third-party apps. It took almost a year for the company to come around and finally let third-party developers create apps for its follow-up. But once that happened, all hell broke loose.

First, developers repeatedly made claims that Apple's excessive restrictions were out-of-hand, only to be followed once the App Store launched with a few notable removals from the store, including Nullriver's NetShare and Box Office.

Since that time, Apple has stayed quiet on what it takes to gain entry into the App store, the company has given poor reasons why it won't accept apps, and now it's believed that Apple's rejection letters are covered under its non-disclosure agreement, which means developers won't be able to help each other gain admission to the store.

All the while, developers across the globe are wondering why they thought Apple would do the right thing, given its history.

For all its troubles, the App Store is still being flooded with applications: Russell Beattie found 450 new applications in the store in just one week.

That number may seem high, but given the outcry from developers, I'm willing to bet that the number of applications denied could be much higher. Once again, Apple won't spill the beans.

So what can developers do? After investing time and money into an application only to be told by Apple that it's not admitted into the App Store can be a bitter defeat. But now that Android is finally shipping in T-Mobile's G1, why not jump to Android?

Unlike Apple's draconian policies, Android is an open platform and Google and the rest won't spend time trying to stop as many third-party developers from producing apps for the platform.

But the main problem with developing for Android is that the hardware isn't uniform. Some Android-based phones will sport touch-screens, while others will not. That makes developing applications far more difficult, considering the possibility of dealing with a wide array of hardware. But then again, who cares? Rejected iPhone app developers can still create touch-screen Android apps and for those that don't have a touch-screen Android phone, well, they're out of luck.

But perhaps the most compelling reason why developers should defect to Android is because it will finally wake up Steve Jobs and company. Right now, I don't know why Apple should even care about all these developers crying about their beloved apps. The way I see it, they need Apple; Apple doesn't need them.

But if they defect to Android and the Android market becomes a real powerhouse, the whole game will change. Suddenly, Apple will need to take notice and realize the error of its ways.

It might be a long-shot and Apple may not even care that Android is taking its leftovers, but it's worth a shot, isn't it? For developers who invested their time and money into an application that they thought was worthwhile, being rejected by Apple is difficult. But they need to realize that Android is out there and available if they're willing to put the time in and create the app on that platform.

And if enough developers do create Android apps, it'll force Apple to take notice and hopefully change its ridiculous policy of keeping basic and useful information secret, while making it more difficult than it needs to be on developers.

There's always one other option for rejected developers: they can try to go it alone and offer their apps themselves. That will work for, oh, about 10 minutes until Apple finds it and shuts it down.

Android can be a refuge. Developers shouldn't forget that.

Google's Android: It's not just for phones

The first phone using Google's Android operating system will debut Tuesday, a model from T-Mobile, and more are set come. But some Android partners say the software will use more broadly than just phones.

"We're starting to see Android get designed in on devices that extend way beyond the phone--things that might go in the automobile or things that might go in the home," said John Bruggeman, chief marketing officer at Wind River Systems, a Google ally that helps phone makers build and customize Android for their phone hardware.

It's not clear yet whether Google shares this broader Android ambition--the emphasis today is for mobile phones--but extending into new areas could increase both the prominence and competitive threat of the project. However, projects that spread wider also can be stretched thinner, and advantages such as broader developer interest could be offset by incompatibilities other drawbacks.

Bruggeman declined to share specifics about which Internet-connected devices might employ the operating system, but he did mention TVs and set-top boxes as well as cars. And he was confident some will arrive next year.

"I don't want to pre-announce any design wins," he said. "I think you'll see them in 2009. I would be shocked if you didn't."

Google didn't immediately responds to a request for comment.

Of course, Android is mostly open-source software, so there's nothing stopping people from doing anything they want with it. But Wind River is a notable member of the 34-company Open Handset Alliance that Google gathered to build, support, and use Android.

Wind River has years of experience with so-called embedded operating systems, starting with its own VxWorks and eventually extending to include Linux, which underlies Android. It's also got a lot of customers, and to beef up its Android support services, Wind River acquired mobile Linux firm Mizi Research in August for a price it said could reach $16 million.

The Android business "was significant enough for us that we acquired a company so we had additional resources," Bruggeman said. Mizi is based in Korea, as are LG Electronics and Samsung, two notable phone makers in the Open Handset Alliance.

Much depends on how Google sees the effort. It's got a lot of engineering resources, of course, but perhaps more important, it has a powerful brand, some pull with the programmers it's enlisting to write Android applications, and a strong will to spread Internet access far and wide.

But embedded computing is a tough nut to crack. Wind River, along with MontaVista Software and many others, have tried to spread Linux to embedded devices. And while they've had significant success, there's a lot of fragmentation, with nothing as universal as Windows or as standardized as the iPhone.

Google has come up with a prominent brand and strong developer program for Android, which brings compatibility issues to the fore. With a brand comes an implicit promise that everything sporting the brand works well together. The broader the Android brand spreads, the more complicated it gets. For example, what if a programmer wants to take advantage of the considerable computing horsepower in an Intel mobile Internet device (MID) for a game--would that work on an comparatively feeble feature phone with a smaller screen, no keyboard, a low-capacity battery, and inferior graphics?

One convenient element Android brings to the compatibility challenge is that software doesn't run on the Linux component of the operating system. Instead, it runs on a Java layer from Google called Dalvik. That means programmers writing applications for Android need not concern themselves with the underlying hardware, such as whether a device is running an ARM-based processor or an x86.

Here again, though, there are some compatibility issues. Sun Microsystems' Java, already used widely in mobile phones, is a slightly different foundation. Software may transfer more easily from one domain to another, but there won't be any guarantees of compatibility.

One of the big elements of the Android sales pitch is openness, though, and that could have appeal in other markets.

Perhaps a developer might want to sell an application that shows nearby Flickr's geotagged photos on in-dash navigation device without having to obtain General Motors' permission first. Perhaps a user might want to download a TV game from Google's Android Market without requiring clearance from Sony.

And of course, people might want to use Google to perform an online search. Which is why Yahoo, Microsoft, and Nokia probably shouldn't be too complacent about the possibility of Android might spread beyond phones.