There are three main phone/tablet OS's out there from Apple, Microsoft, and Google which are all US companies. The real question though is why did Google have to step in with Android vs Samsung / Sony / LG etc already having a high quality OS? They had been making quality feature phones for a while, but somehow never made the jump and said the hardware if fast enough for something close to a desktop OS.
I think Apple were exceptional with brilliant vision of how a smartphone should work and the ability to develop from a clean slate without having to support existing platforms before the initial launch. They also left out many features competitors had which I think would have been harder to do with an existing product line.
Google had by that point been sucking in huge volumes of software talent. Once given the iPhone as a template they could develop quickly and then iterate further improvements but they are also exception. They are also a software company and critically a web services company rather than a broad electronics company. They are far from infallible (GoogleTV).
Microsoft were years late to the party despite existing mobile OS. They are also a massive (although fairly broad) software company. They also saw an almost existential threat in iOS and Android devices. They still may fail to reach a position of power in this market.
For a platform to reach the point of positive feedback between developer and consumer feedback needs scale. It isn't surprising that the offer of attractive, cost free platform with developer support was attractive and competition (in the software space) killing. Unless you were confident that you could win in the software space why wouldn't you take Android?
That only five platforms (Symbian and RIM being others) emerged is not surprising, less may survive. Given that who would you expect to have the scale, commitment and capability to develop the best mobile platforms?
Comments
There are three main phone/tablet OS's out there from Apple, Microsoft, and Google which are all US companies. The real question though is why did Google have to step in with Android vs Samsung / Sony / LG etc already having a high quality OS? They had been making quality feature phones for a while, but somehow never made the jump and said the hardware if fast enough for something close to a desktop OS.
I think Apple were exceptional with brilliant vision of how a smartphone should work and the ability to develop from a clean slate without having to support existing platforms before the initial launch. They also left out many features competitors had which I think would have been harder to do with an existing product line.
Google had by that point been sucking in huge volumes of software talent. Once given the iPhone as a template they could develop quickly and then iterate further improvements but they are also exception. They are also a software company and critically a web services company rather than a broad electronics company. They are far from infallible (GoogleTV).
Microsoft were years late to the party despite existing mobile OS. They are also a massive (although fairly broad) software company. They also saw an almost existential threat in iOS and Android devices. They still may fail to reach a position of power in this market.
For a platform to reach the point of positive feedback between developer and consumer feedback needs scale. It isn't surprising that the offer of attractive, cost free platform with developer support was attractive and competition (in the software space) killing. Unless you were confident that you could win in the software space why wouldn't you take Android?
That only five platforms (Symbian and RIM being others) emerged is not surprising, less may survive. Given that who would you expect to have the scale, commitment and capability to develop the best mobile platforms?