Google Nexus One Phone Not an iPhone Killer?

[*LTD*]

With as good as the iPhone is, it has yet to kill any other phone on the market. RIM is doing better than ever, and Google is off to a great start. Hell, WebOS is doing good in the US considering the fact it's tied down to a struggling carrier. Why should we expect something to kill the iPhone, when the iPhone has yet to kill anything?

The Droid is an amazing phone, better than the iPhone in many aspects in my opinion. Saturday I went with my girl to the Verizon store and all four salespeople working that afternoon were setting up Droid or Droid Eris phones. My friend who works for Verizon doing customer care said they've been selling those phones like crazy. They won't kill the iPhone, but if Verizon sold 1,000,000 droid phones that means 1,000,000 people were out of contract, had the chance to get the iPhone, turned it down and got Droid instead.

The Pre is nearly dead. WinMo is destroyed, forcing MS to start over, etc. These phones will still be sold in whatever quantities, but clearly, the iPhone has reduced them to irrelevance.

RIM is doing well, but unless they change something soon things will change dramatically for them. And not in a good way.

Android is the only viable competitor, but it aint no iPhone, that's for sure. Which is the problem.

 

[Cleverboy]

With as good as the iPhone is, it has yet to kill any other phone on the market. RIM is doing better than ever, and Google is off to a great start. Hell, WebOS is doing good in the US considering the fact it's tied down to a struggling carrier. Why should we expect something to kill the iPhone, when the iPhone has yet to kill anything?

You bring up a good point, but if you're being honest... iPhone IS a "category-killer" device. When people look for an "iPhone killer", they are not looking for something that "kills off the iPhone" in any absolute sense. They're looking for something that KILLS the iPhone's momentum, and makes competitors rethink their entire strategies. This is precisely what the iPhone has done to the mobile space. An iPhone killer at this point, would be the "category killer" approach on the same level that made the iPhone such an attention grabber.

Apple has significantly raised the profile of smartphones, boosted mobile traffic by leaps and bounds, and rallied everyone in the space to rethink their approach to application deployment (leading NYTimes writer David Pogue to coin the term "App Phones").

An "iPhone killer" would be any device that has the potential or has demonstrated that it significantly dampens demand for the iPhone (by sheer consumer value and appeal) and makes Apple rethink its strategy as a response. While I think the idea is a tadbit Apple-centric, I think its certainly rooted in a worthwhile and useful question.

Blackberry said it wouldn't ship a touch-based phone, and had to "change course" to match Apple's momentum. I think its a very telling way to look at the current struggle.

~ CB

 

[*LTD*]

You bring up a good point, but if you're being honest... iPhone IS a "category-killer" device. When people look for an "iPhone killer", they are not looking for something that "kills off the iPhone" in any absolute sense. They're looking for something that KILLS the iPhone's momentum, and makes competitors rethink their entire strategies. This is precisely what the iPhone has done to the mobile space. An iPhone killer at this point, would be the "category killer" approach that made the iPhone such an attention grabber. Apple has significantly raised the profile of smartphones, boosted mobile traffic by leaps and bounds, and rallied everyone in the space to rethink their approach to application deployment.

An "iPhone killer" would be any device that has the potential or has demonstrated that it significantly dampens demand for the iPhone and makes Apple rethink its strategy as a response. While I think the idea is a tadbit Apple-centric, I think its certainly rooted in a worthwhile and useful question.

~ CB

Excellent post.

 

[zacman]

That's not correct. The iPhone can be uploading an image while you do something else. I've done it many times.

1) I doubt that the iPhone does the stuff the guy needs. It's basically a script that imports the photos from his Panasonic Lumix, geotags them, uploads them, creates a KML file, etc. Plus IRC, plus topo maps navigation etc.

2) The iPhone obviously can mutlitask in some areas. So why not in all areas. Shouldn't it be up to the user to choose which apps he wants/needs to use at the same time?

 

[Shodan]

One word missing in the title: yet.

It's not a iPhone killer yet. But it soon will be.

You can keep wishing too.

 

[deconstruct60]

I love all this chatter about Android being "open."

It is open in that there are is a every growing list of manufacturers rolling out models. HTC, Samsung, Motorola , etc.

What is going to win long term? Last time (Apple vs. PCvendors) the more diverse vendors won in the longer term.

There is a trade off. The device churn is great and a non 100% uniform experience. However, if they have those so they can kill off WinMobile that is a reasonable tradeoff to make. Roughly (with some changes in order ) it is in terms of operating systems numbers:

Symbian
RIM
WindowsMobile / Danger-Sidekick
iPhoneOS
Palm (and transitioning WebOS )
Android

If Android jumps past WinMo that is a big win. Killer isn't the issue it is growth and ecosystem development. Many of the WinMo hardware vendors are scrambling toward Android. The other competitors have problems in that they are tied to their hardware competitors (or not available at all in the case of RIM, Sidekick, and iPhoneOS )

It is not that Nexus one , G1, Droid , or any other single Android phone is "killer". The strategic shift though will be if a sustainable ecosystem with multiple hardware vendors comes into existance. At that point it is Apple vs. 4-5 linked competitors and RIM vs. 4-5 linked competitors. As much as core OS costs can be distriubted over a larger base of phones that will lead to those folks having a better cost structure which is relatively easy to turn into larger overall revenue base (e.g., Windows vs. MacOS X revenue. And also Linux gradually consuming the proprietary Unix server and embedded systems market. ).

 

[cmaier]

One word missing in the title: yet.

It's not a iPhone killer yet. But it soon will be.

Not as long as everyone keeps aiming at iPhone instead of ahead of iPhone. It's not like iPhone 3GS is going to be the final SKU.

 

[saturniphone]

You clearly don't understand the culture at Apple.

And this is an Apple fansite, in case you didn't notice. if you necessarily have a problem with that you'll need to forward it to the site's owners.

Oh, I forgot that Steve Jobs develops all things out of sense of duty to society and receives no payment of any kind.

You clearly don't understand how companies, including Apple, really work.

 

[str1f3]

Firefox?

I'd hardly say that FF is taking the world by storm when IE controls 63% of the market. The iPhone is pulling in 33% of all smartphone sales behind RIM at 40%. Android has a long way to go from the 1% they are currently at.

 

[lex750]

Hmm, don't you have an iPod???

Yes I have an iPod touch, and I had a iPhone until my contract was over and I was offered a 3GS with a new two year contract. I decided the upgrade was not worth it, and that AT&T was even worth less. So I changed phone, and carrier and I will never looked back. I like Apple and Apple products, I'm just not "in love" with the company. I love gadgets from any vendor that can give me the best product with the highest specs, and the best service. I don't limit myself or my choices, just to carry a Apple logo in my pocket.

 

[marcfogel]

it's just the stupid competition played up in the press - any new smartphone has to be an "iPhone killer," just like a few years ago every new mp3 player was an iPod killer.

Currently there is only one iPhone killer and it has been around a long time. It just happened to show its ugly face to the masses in the summer of 2007.

AT&T is the only iPhone killer

 

[saturniphone]

You bring up a good point, but if you're being honest... iPhone IS a "category-killer" device. When people look for an "iPhone killer", they are not looking for something that "kills off the iPhone" in any absolute sense. They're looking for something that KILLS the iPhone's momentum, and makes competitors rethink their entire strategies. This is precisely what the iPhone has done to the mobile space. An iPhone killer at this point, would be the "category killer" approach on the same level that made the iPhone such an attention grabber.

Apple has significantly raised the profile of smartphones, boosted mobile traffic by leaps and bounds, and rallied everyone in the space to rethink their approach to application deployment (leading NYTimes writer David Pogue to coin the term "App Phones").

An "iPhone killer" would be any device that has the potential or has demonstrated that it significantly dampens demand for the iPhone (by sheer consumer value and appeal) and makes Apple rethink its strategy as a response. While I think the idea is a tadbit Apple-centric, I think its certainly rooted in a worthwhile and useful question.

Blackberry said it wouldn't ship a touch-based phone, and had to "change course" to match Apple's momentum. I think its a very telling way to look at the current struggle.

~ CB

I largely agree with your post. I said (as did many others since it was relatively obvious) that the biggest thing Apple did was convince the average person that they "need" a smart phone, or App Phone as you put it.

I really have a hard time believing that any company will create one phone that redefines the segment like the iPhone did at least for a long while. However, at the same time I wouldn't be surprised that if in a few there were more Android devices sold than iPhones.

 

[*LTD*]

Oh, I forgot that Steve Jobs develops all things out of sense of duty to society and receives no payment of any kind.

You clearly don't understand how companies, including Apple, really work.

Obviously they're all out to make money. No kidding. But Apple's commitment to certain standards when it comes to tech is unique in the industry. Steve Jobs is concerned with quite a bit more than just doing a job and making a buck. I should certainly hope that the industry's best and brightest, hand picked by Jobs, are the same.

At Apple it isn't just about about making money. It's about making great products and redefining markets. it's about the product, not the dollar. The by-product, naturally, is profit. But Apple's spectacular success doesn't come from making the quickest buck from the least effort possible. That's for the Acers and the Dells.

if you think Apple is no different than any other tech company, then you (like so many) are somehow baffled by the secret of Apple's success (there really is no secret), or are being deliberately blind in order to effect an air of mock objecitivity.

Currently there is only one iPhone killer and it has been around a long time. It just happened to show its ugly face to the masses in the summer of 2007.

AT&T is the only iPhone killer

Hehe, so true.

 

[ipoddin]

From the story:

The Nexus One is a Google branded phone running their Android operating system. The promise of such a phone was a no compromises phone that would presumably be poised to take on the iPhone.

Who made that promise?

 

[deconstruct60]

I'd hardly say that FF is taking the world by storm when IE controls 63% of the market.

Given that it is competing with a competitor that used to have 90+% of the market and is typically PREINSTALLED by default. The 20-30% of FF is extremely respectable.

IE had huge marketshare because of monopolistic practices by Microsoft; not because it was a better user oriented solution . It is non existent on Mac OS and anywhere else where Microsoft doesn't dominate.

The iPhone is pulling in 33% of all smartphone sales behind RIM at 40%.

That is revenue. If talking platform ecosystems then have to talk numbers of units. If want to talk corporate profitably then maybe that's more relevant. Much Android's base development costs though are spread over numerous entities (Linux , and other open source components ) . So the argument about how any one corporate entity is critical to the OS survival is muted.

Android has a long way to go from the 1% they are currently at.

Chuckle, about 10-12 years ago folks it was

"Linux has a long way to go from the 1% they are currently at. "

If the strategy takes 5-6 years to come to fruition where they are over a 12-16 month period isn't the most significant attribute.

 

[MacFly123]

Late 2011, I believe. Hopefully they will have canned Ballmer by then.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME I was thinking mid to late this year, but even that is WAY LATE and PATHETIC!

It honestly BOGGLES MY MIND that Ballmer has not been fired yet. What will it take for the share holders or any leadership there to see he is an absolute moron?

Sucks to be Microsoft nowadays. They have everything to lose and are already well on the way!

 

[*LTD*]

From the story:


Who made that promise?

Ahhh . . . NOW we're getting to the heart of the matter, aren't we.

Good question.

 

[*LTD*]

ARE YOU KIDDING ME I was thinking mid to late this year, but even that is WAY LATE and PATHETIC!

It honestly BOGGLES MY MIND that Ballmer has not been fired yet. What will it take for the share holders or any leadership there to see he is an absolute moron?

Sucks to be Microsoft nowadays. They have everything to lose and are already well on the way!

Apologies, it was Q1 2011. It was assumed, however, that if MS announces it for Q1 2011 that it would be pushed back to later that year, as per MS fashion. Some of the loyal WinMo sufferers, however, claim Q4 this year, and a few of them are claiming "any time in the next couple of months", and that "it will be mind-blowing."

LOL. That's really all that can be said at this point: LOL.

 

[ChazUK]

LTD, you didn't get back to me on why the Nexus UI was "an alpha build of a touchscreen UI no one really wanted".

Do you have any more to clarify on that statement?

(Off topic: Is it my shoddy British Telecom internet connection or are these boards slow loading tonight?)

 

[deconstruct60]

So why is Android marketplace growth slower than the iPhone App Store growth? Why do the numbers not show this trend?

Because Android hasn't quite reached critical mass in number of deployed phones. You can only sell to instances of the platform that have been deployed.

Android is on multiple service provider networks now in the US. Tmobile, Verizon, etc.

Unless you are revising history there were no Apps for the iPhone until it got to year 2. So there was a whole year of deployed phones to sell into from the jump. WebOS and Android are selling into the markets as they deploy. Those will exhibit two different growth rates and is an apples to oranges comparison. At this point holding back the SDK until there is a sustainable ecosystem to sell into will just draw a steady drumbeat of doom and gloom from impatient folks so understandable why release early.


The "gold rush" on iPhones is because there are lots of phones to deploy to and a roughly even playing field for developers because it is new. AppStore is loosing a bit of the second. Plus folks hearing lotto-ticket stories of folks getting an app swept up into an Apple ad and printing money for a couple months.

 

[cmaier]

Because Android hasn't quite reached critical mass in number of deployed phones. You can only sell to instances of the platform that have been deployed.

Android is on multiple service provider networks now in the US. Tmobile, Verizon, etc.

Unless you are revising history there were no Apps for the iPhone until it got to year 2. So there was a whole year of deployed phones to sell into from the jump. WebOS and Android are selling into the markets as they deploy. Those will exhibit two different growth rates and is an apples to oranges comparison. At this point holding back the SDK until there is a sustainable ecosystem to sell into will just draw a steady drumbeat of doom and gloom from impatient folks so understandable why release early.


The "gold rush" on iPhones is because there are lots of phones to deploy to and a roughly even playing field for developers because it is new. AppStore is loosing a bit of the second. Plus folks hearing lotto-ticket stories of folks getting an app swept up into an Apple ad and printing money for a couple months.

As a developer, the reason I've avoided android is rampant piracy, and their free trial policy.

 

[thetexan]

As a developer, the reason I've avoided android is rampant piracy, and their free trial policy.

Don't develop crap, people won't "return" it. As a consumer, I love Android's trial policy. I download a program that costs money and my credit card isn't charged for 24 hours. If I uninstall the program within 24 hours I'm not charged for the software. I think that's fair, and that's one reason Android's software store isn't full of $0.99 cent fart applications.

Piracy can't be anymore rampant than it is on the iPhone. I've pirated applications on the iPhone with little work on my end. I did it to trial the software, if I decided it was worth buying I'd go and pay for it otherwise I'd uninstall it. With Android I don't have to pirate to try out software.

 

[*LTD*]

LTD, you didn't get back to me on why the Nexus UI was "an alpha build of a touchscreen UI no one really wanted".

Do you have any more to clarify on that statement?

(Off topic: Is it my shoddy British Telecom internet connection or are these boards slow loading tonight?)

It looks like crap and there's no multitouch.

This is interesting . . .

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=105925

Sales of the Motorola Droid haven't yet flavored the smartphone satisfaction rankings yet, but Android users overall (the vast majority of whom were early adopters of HTC models) ranked their platform highly, with 72% saying they were "very satisfied" with their current phone. That's nearly as high as those "very satisfied" with the iPhone (77%) and well ahead of those assigning the same ranking to the Palm Pre (58%), RIM Blackberry (41%), classic Palm OS (29%), and Windows Mobile (25%).

I wonder which segment of the market bought those Android phones and if that segment is enough to maintain momentum against the iPhone. If it's mostly male tech-heads it doesn't look too promising. There are plenty of WinMo users who are "very satsifed" as well, but thank God the smartphone market isn't up to them.

 

[cmaier]

Don't develop crap, people won't "return" it. As a consumer, I love Android's trial policy. I download a program that costs money and my credit card isn't charged for 24 hours. If I uninstall the program within 24 hours I'm not charged for the software. I think that's fair, and that's one reason Android's software store isn't full of $0.99 cent fart applications.

Piracy can't be anymore rampant than it is on the iPhone. I've pirated applications on the iPhone with little work on my end. I did it to trial the software, if I decided it was worth buying I'd go and pay for it otherwise I'd uninstall it. With Android I don't have to pirate to try out software.

The issue is that many people use and enjoy an app for 24 hours, get well more than 99 cents of value out of it, then return it.

As for "don't develop crap," I don't take advice from someone who admits to being a pirate/ thief and attempts to justify it.

 

[CrackedButter]

Once you "EXIT" it's closed, even if it's just for a moment. The iPhone does not multi-task unless you jailbreak it. I know I had one and know many people who do. A smartphone should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. The iPhone does not.

There is a difference between me saying Apple apps work in the background enabling one to multitask and you saying the iPhone doesn't multitask.

In the example I gave you, the iPhone is clearly multitasking. Safari works in the background as I have stated, check your facts again.