The Anti iPhone: Google's Android

On January 24, 1984 Apple introduced Macintosh.

It was a revolution. We had all had a tantalizing taste of graphical interfaces through Apple's $10,000 Lisa computer. But it seemed to most of us more like some unattainable device from a science fiction movie than something any of us could actually own one day. No one imagined it could really be brought down to $2,499. The introduction of the Mac was an extraordinary moment in the history of computers. At the time there was no Microsoft Windows, only MS-DOS. And there would not be a usable Windows for years.

We all thought Apple would rule the world. But it did not work out that way.

Apple could not figure out how to sufficiently broaden the appeal of its products outside its core audience. Part of the problem was philosophical. Apple had no interest in powering hardware from other manufacturers. Part of the problem was resources. When Microsoft finally did get Windows together, there were dozens of companies making Windows compatible hardware. They hit every possible price point, form factor and configuration. They hit every form of distribution. They hit every possible marketing channel. It is very hard for one company to compete with dozens, and to end up being the majority product. Ultimately Microsoft trounced Apple by outflanking it.

Transport to present. Enter the iPhone.

The same outlines are repeating themselves in the phone market. This time its Apple's iPhone vs. Google's Android. Apple's iPhone is "slicker". It is more polished. It has personality. But Apple has never been interested in playing nice to build its market. The iPhone is and will always be on Apple's own private island. There will be no "iPhone compatible" phones from other vendors. There will be no iPhone with a keyboard. There will be no iPhone for Verizon, or Sprint, or T-Mobile. There will be no $100 iPhone. As Henry Ford said, you can have your car in any color... as long as it's black.

And so, Android is the anti-iPhone. Google offers an *open* operating system. They play nice. They provide features that developers ask for. Google *wants* hardware manufacturers to use their platform. They have made compromises to the design to support different form factors, and this will make it less slick. As with Windows, Android sacrifices design in service of ubiquity. History has shown this is a great business decision.

There are dozens of companies out there that want to play and too much territory for one company to cover, let alone dominate. There are just too many price points, too many complicated distribution issues, and too many form factors. More than a billion phones a year are sold and even in the most optimistic of scenarios, Apple will only be able to sell a small slice of those. So, while there is a lot of well deserved excitement about the iPhone, people should be clear that it is almost structurally impossible for Apple to have the dominant phone platform.

Of course none of this means that the iPhone will not be wildly successful, just as the Mac is. It just means that it will ultimately not be dominant. The iPhone is already is a huge hit, and in the near future it will be a big part of Apple's revenue mix. If Jobs' goal is to make lots of money for Apple, as it should be, the strategy is sound.

But despite what I expect to be a huge and growing financial success, Android will be the Microsoft Windows, to Apple's Macintosh. Android will hit every conceivable mix of features and channels. Google will court developers, while Apple will fight with them, as they always have.

And in the end the more things change, the more they stay the same. When industry historians look back at the history of this era, 2008 will look very much like 1984.