Rob Enderle On The State Of The Smartphone Nation

[Nurhisham Hussein]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.conceivablytech.com/1200/business/iphone-4-vs-android-vs-wp7-the-battle-of-201011/' target='_blank'>http://www.conceivablytech.com/1200...ttle-of-201011/</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"This week I was attending Microsoft's TechEd conference and was covering Apple's WWDC remotely for a number of services. Strangely enough, both Microsoft and Apple seemed more focused on Google as a competitor than they were on each other. In fact, they seemed closer to embracing each other than I have seen them in a decade with Apple supporting Bing and Microsoft indicating that much of what they were showcasing would run on coming iPhone applications. There's a big battle ahead in the smartphone space and the artillery is put into place. Here is how the rivals stack up."</em></p><p><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/wpt/auto/1276046194.usr14226.jpg" style="border: 1px solid #d2d2bb;" /></p><p>Rob Enderle sums up the pros and cons of each of the major smartphone offerings (and their backers) going into next year. I think it's a little flattering for WP7 to be included since it isn't on the market yet, but it's also a testament to the quality and usability of WP7 (what we've seen of it anyway) that its considered a contender. The only thing I think Rob is wrong on is the throwaway line at the end about HP and Palm - HP are already on record as saying they didn't buy Palm to get a leg up in the smartphone space.</p>

[Russ Smith]

Apple: To me, the most disappointing thing in the smartphone market has been Apple's self-fulfilling prophecies. When the iPhone appeared, it was worse than most other offerings on the market. I'd have to say their success was about 85% marketing and only 15% actual product strength. That poses an interesting point to all the other phone makers/sellers/etc: If apple can make it virtually on marketing alone, what would a reasonable successful marketing campaign do for a truly decent product? Further, I'd have to agree with the author that Apples weakness and strength lies in the dearth of it's offerings. (He didn't say it that way, but I will.) Apple used to sell only one product line. (Still does, if you don't count the iPAD 3G.) That gives them focus, but limits the consumers ability to pick what they want. The single carrier (especially since it's AT&T) is more of an albatross. Oddly, I've been using an unlimited data plan under AT&T with my HD2 and been reasonably happy with it, but I understand that's the exception rather than the rule.

Android: I'd have to disagree with the gist of the argument here. Android appears to me to be a richer OS than iOS. The sheer fact of it's openness is both a strength and weakness. It means that it's far easier to get apps in place on Android. It also means that the Android experience is markedly different for different users. For instance, HTC Android phones look more like HTC's sense UI until you drill down. On the other hand, it also means the users have far more control over the look and feel of their phone experience, which, in turn means they need to do more learning if they want to do so. I'd also disagree with the App Store comparison. The Android store may have physically fewer apps, but it has a lot of better ones. There is nothing on the iPhone that even remotely compares to Google Goggles and Sky Map (both from the OS originator no less). Android also does far better at cloud computing with direct integration with Google Calendar, GMail, and so on. Where other OSes rely on the user or carrier to back up PIM and messaging, Androids backup is as easy as adding a (free) Google account. This is far better than ActiveSync/WMDC syncing in that it's both fast, automatic, and can be viewed/edited on any web-able device.

Windows Mobile/Phone: The "late to the game" charge really misses the fact that WP7 is a major revision, but still a revision, of Windows Phone OS. That said, the massive changes in WP7 (I've said it before: No cut-and-paste. No multi-tasking. No support for memory cards. No legacy app support.) make it so much like a new OS to me that I'm treating it that way. Conceptually, I like the OS, but I find that the things that drew me to Windows Mobile in the first place no longer apply. I'll have better success in cross-grading applications to an Android phone than I would "up"-grading them to WM7.

As usual, time will tell (possible much better than I), but, for now, I'd give the win to Android.

[Dyvim]

Apple: To me, the most disappointing thing in the smartphone market has been Apple's self-fulfilling prophecies. When the iPhone appeared, it was worse than most other offerings on the market. I'd have to say their success was about 85% marketing and only 15% actual product strength. That poses an interesting point to all the other phone makers/sellers/etc: If apple can make it virtually on marketing alone, what would a reasonable successful marketing campaign do for a truly decent product?.
Your opinion is clouded by the fact that you're a tech-loving smartphone-enthusiast. Yes, based on specs etc. the original (and current) iPhone is way behind what other current (and previous) smartphones were capable of. But that's missing the point entirely. While Apple does rule at marketing, I think the success of the iPhone has been based on one thing: User Experience. They came out with what was a (for the most part) new UI metaphor and were the first one out with a really nice multi-touch capacitive touchscreen for a finger-friendly UI. They still have one of the best (most responsive and accurate), if not the best, touchscreens out there. They also put out a really great and easy to use mobile browser (pretty commonplace now, but was stand-out in 2007). Yes, it couldn't do a lot (from a power-user perspective), but it could do most of what most people needed it to do (phone, email, browser, contacts, calendar, media playback) and it did those things in an intuitive, easy-to-use, highly polished way. That might not be for you, but don't assume others are mindless zombies confused by Steve Job's reality-distortion field just because they might prefer that over the competition.

Anyway, I was a WM enthusiast for years, and never really knew how frustrated I was with the kludgy, clumsy WM UI until I spent some time setting up an iPhone for my wife. Within a week, I had my own iPhone and have never looked back.

[ptyork]

The only thing I think Rob is wrong on is the throwaway line at the end about HP and Palm - HP are already on record as saying they didn't buy Palm to get a leg up in the smartphone space.

Funny how stupid things, once said, are rarely noticed (or believed) when they are retracted--even if it is only a day later.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/03/hp-says-its-in-the-smartphone-market-after-all/

All of the Palm developer defections of late are a bit disconcerting, however. Any new hardware from Palm would go a long way towards making folks believe that they are here to stay. The longer they remain quiet about future devices in this amazingly dynamic market, the deeper they dig a hole from which even HP's deep pockets can't help it escape. Another six months without significant new hardware on the order of an EVO-like device and I think they will become so irrelevant that Hurd's original statement will become inevitable reality.

[ptyork]

Windows Mobile/Phone: The "late to the game" charge really misses the fact that WP7 is a major revision, but still a revision, of Windows Phone OS. That said, the massive changes in WP7 (I've said it before: No cut-and-paste. No multi-tasking. No support for memory cards. No legacy app support.) make it so much like a new OS to me that I'm treating it that way. Conceptually, I like the OS, but I find that the things that drew me to Windows Mobile in the first place no longer apply. I'll have better success in cross-grading applications to an Android phone than I would "up"-grading them to WM7.

I agree with most of what you write here, but what MS does have going for it is the development tools. The tools are familiar to most large developers and very good. They also allow for multiple "write-once-publish-everywhere" scenarios (i.e., Silverlight and XNA). Long term, this is Apple's #1 downside--and they continue to push it further and further. Do I think it is enough to make WP7 into a "player"? Well, no, I don't. At least not for the consumer market in the near term. However, I don't discount it as a major decision point for the corporate market. And I don't discount it as a possible factor in the 2012-2015 time frame.

Until then, Android and Apple are the clear front-runners for consumer dollars. And I disagree with you. Apple is clearly the near-term winner, despite my personal hatred of Apple and preference for the Android model. They aren't blowing anybody away with their upgrades, but they don't need to. They've got lots of supply AND demand momentum and are clearly running downhill. And, they are Apple who've managed to apply teflon to their public image--no matter how evil they are, no bad press sticks.

[Fritzly]

I still do not understand clearly how WP7 will sync with a PC; Zune software only? If so good luck having it installed on Corporate computers.

[Nurhisham Hussein]

Funny how stupid things, once said, are rarely noticed (or believed) when they are retracted--even if it is only a day later.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/03/hp-says-its-in-the-smartphone-market-after-all/

Thanks pt, I didn't catch that one.

You're right - HP had better get a move on, or Palm and WebOS will be history in the smartphone space. The glacial pace they've been developing their slate device doesn't give me any confidence though.

[Janak Parekh]

I just want to point out that Rob Enderle is easily the worst tech analyst ever. If you look at his past columns, almost all of his prognostications are dead wrong, so take everything he says with a huge grain of salt. :)

Re HP: it remains my steadfast belief, that unfortunately, they will drive Palm into the ground. They already did it with the Jornada and iPAQ; why would this one be any different?

--janak