Google will win the smartphone victory

Core Tip: Apple's licensing model of “either listen to me or get out of the box” may eventually annoy potential partners.

I once suggested that Apple's top-down, designer-centric product development process makes it very good at creating great user interfaces. However, this approach became a burden when establishing scalable network services. For this type of task, Google's bottom-up, engineer-driven organizational structure can be even more effective.

A good way to visualize this idea is to think of the computer platform as a funnel. Users are at the narrow mouth of the funnel and their ability to absorb information is extremely limited. The wide mouth of the funnel is the “world”—a collection of entities that websites, electronic devices, people, companies, or other users want to exchange information with. The function of the computer platform is to connect these two ends—filter the information on the wide-mouth side and organize it into user-digestible forms on the other side.

Google and Apple like to start working from different ports of the funnel. This trend is reflected in their respective mobile operating systems. Apple starts from a narrow mouth and makes the user interface as simple and intuitive as possible. For this reason, it strictly controls as many technology "stacks" as possible. Because iPhone, iOS, iTunes Store, Mac OS X, and iCloud are all developed by a company with Apple, its excellent production and smooth interoperability are unmatched.

In contrast, Google is focused on the wide mouth of the funnel. It focuses on how to make Android system as close as possible to the "real world." When Apple was developing its own hardware, Google was in cooperation with countless hardware manufacturers. When Apple negotiated exclusive cooperation with AT&T to gain absolute control over the user experience, Google proposed that all wireless operators be allowed to participate in the free license agreement. Google not only has more relaxed application store rules, it also allows third parties to develop their own application store. As Eric Schmidt said last year: "They don't want it, we'll fight for it."

This method has great disadvantages. I once wrote that the user experience of Android is not as good as the iPhone. Google's Android operating system is not as sophisticated as iOS, and the problem is even worse. Google has allowed its partners to modify the Android system they sell, making the situation even worse. Similarly, the variety of hardware configurations makes developing application software for this operating platform more complex because software developers cannot make assumptions about the functions that the hardware can support.

In a nutshell, Google's focus on the funnel wide mouth means that its narrow mouth - the user experience - will suffer. The cost of interoperating with a range of third parties is that Android is sometimes forced to present users with seemingly "half-a-kind" features. Many of the natural features of the iPhone, such as music synchronization and email client configuration, require the care and attention of Android users.

The problem with Apple is the opposite. To avoid iPhone users experiencing "half-baked" features, Apple insists on controlling the entire technology stack. This has spawned a simple, intuitive user interface, but it is difficult for third parties who are reluctant to give orders to Apple to interoperate with them. In other words, Apple's attachment to the narrow mouth of the funnel limits the width of the other end.

This explains why, although most people agree that the iPhone is the best smartphone on the market, iOS’s share has been eroded by Android. There are tens of millions of people who are most concerned about the narrow mouth of the funnel. They want the best user experience and are willing to make concessions in other ways. Most of these customers will choose iPhone. But there are thousands of other users concerned about other factors. They want a favorite operator, a physical keyboard, a removable battery, an app store they like, not subject to long-term use contracts, prepaid packages, and so on. No mobile phone (wireless operators, hardware manufacturers, etc.) can meet the diverse needs of all users at the same time. Only mobile phone operating platforms that can support different types of mobile phones from different hardware manufacturers and different types of networks can cope with this diversified demand.

With the globalization of the smart machine market, Apple will face more and more challenges. Most of the customers in the potential smartphone market are outside the United States. The relatively free licensing model of Android makes it easier for overseas partners to adapt Google’s software to the needs of the local market, and Apple’s licensing model of “either listen to me or get out of the box” may irritate potential partners. Especially in Asia, which has the majority of the world's population, the lower average income there makes consumers more price-sensitive. As the smart machine market becomes more and more complex, Google's focus on the wide mouth of the funnel will give it a systematic advantage.