Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We Need to Break the Mobile Duopoly

a16z.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 117 posts

Re: We Need to Break the Mobile Duopoly

#51

Post by aceperry »

msturgill wrote: post #4

Windows Phone is not that bad. Google has done a good job trying to starve WP users of their services, but I think we can all survive without Hangouts (Telegram, etc) and Google Voice (who cares anymore) at this point.

"Google has done a good job trying to starve WP users of their services"

I don't think Google has done anymore than MS to cripple WP. With WP, you can use Bing maps, Outlook, skype, cortana and all of the other MS apps that MS fanbois love. Only thing is, the implementation of their own services isn't as good as Google's services. A friend of mine is a MS fanboi, and he was shocked at how bad WP was.

Re: We Need to Break the Mobile Duopoly

#52

Post by aceperry »

pjmlp wrote: post #14
lovelearning wrote: post #3

Tizen, Firefox OS and Ubuntu are probably the candidates, but I think Tizen has a combination of things going for it: 1) It's not based on AOSP (unlike Firefox OS) 2) Supports both native and HTML5 apps (Firefox OS apps are limited to HTML5) 3) Backed by Samsung, still a powerful hardware player in most markets. Both Firefox OS and Ubuntu [have had/will have] a tough time getting device manufacturers to adopt their O…

Sorry but I don't buy into Tizen. They already did a full native API revamp a few times, with no upgrade path every time it was done. First they threw out the APIs they got from Meego and replaced with straight Bada C++, then they did a facelift, but kept the Bada feeling to the APIs[0], now C++ is out the door and one is supposed to use EFL with C. Also the documentation leaves a lot to wish for. [0] Similar to the…

Yeah, sounds bad. The constantly changing API is just too much to keep up with.

Re: We Need to Break the Mobile Duopoly

#53

Post by aceperry »

lovelearning wrote: post #39
rys wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just on point 3, it's not really a matter of getting device vendors to use it. I think it's pretty clear today that incumbent platforms live and die by the quality of their apps and the app delivery and discovery mechanisms. By extension that means the quality of the developer environment, APIs, device functionality you can use, and related tooling. Tizen is nothing without that. Samsung Mobile picking it up for 1, 1…

It's true that sales volumes are not guaranteed, but what I meant was that because of Samsung, Tizen is in a position to atleast circumvent the chicken and egg problem that dogs any new mobile OS. Manufacturers hesitate to bring out devices with a new OS until there is enough developer and user mindshare, but developer and user mindshare grow only when there are enough competitive devices on the market. Right now, Fi…

The only Tizen phone out in the wild has had some bad reviews. I think Samsung is committed to Tizen for at least a couple more years, mainly as a foil to Google Android, as Samsung has stated repeatedly.

Re: We Need to Break the Mobile Duopoly

#54

Post by levlandau »

This is a classic network effects problem. The two OS's are dominant because they are powerful two sided networks (developers + users) and so breaking the duopoly is that much harder. As is typical with these sorts of networks you really need to solve a problem a user or developer has 10X better than the existing networks do. The few times we've seen this happen on the internet are when the new company focuses on a specific vertical (airbnb to craigslist) and/or is aided by a specific technology wave or breakthrough. I suspect the "third" "mobile" OS will succeed similarly i.e. it will either solve for a narrow use case and blow every alternative out of the water and/or be aided by some new technology. Definitely won't happen via brute force...not 8 years in at least

Re: We Need to Break the Mobile Duopoly

#58

Post by fpgeek »

Think about the type of deep integration that Apple-owned Siri has on iPhones, or Google-owned Gmail has on stock Android phones, for instance. Those apps operate much more contextually and fluidly, and far more powerfully, on those phones than 3rd-party apps downloaded from an app store would.

While I understand the point about Siri, Gmail (of all the Google apps) seems like a terrible example of the same thing on the Android side (Maps and its incestuous relationship with Play Services might be a better fit). What does Gmail do that Microsoft's Outlook app couldn't do if Microsoft were willing to invest the effort? Maybe I'm missing a feature I don't use, but the best I can come up with is being bundled with the device, but even there if Microsoft struck a deal with, say, Verizon, I don't think there's much Google could do about it.

Re: We Need to Break the Mobile Duopoly

#59

Post by Brakenshire »

throwawaymsft wrote: post #30
franciscop wrote: post #18

> "For OEMs/handset makers, choice means the ability to do more with software" Please no, this would only yield to more bloatware. The move of Google is smart, moving the OS away from OEMs. [Most] manufacturers have demonstrated again and again that they cannot be trusted with software, since they only care about profit and putting more and more useless apps into the OS. We might need more mobile OS, but not for this…

Yep. The thesis of this essay is that choice is unequivocally good for users, handset makers, everyone. Experience doesn't play that out. The experience of a curated, pruned garden vs. a wild west scammy bazaar isn't a good one for users. Here's what happens when you search facebook on Windows Store: http://imgur.com/QDHcpG0 Choice is great! You can "choose" to install a scam app or the official one. Incompetent OEMs…

> The experience of a curated, pruned garden vs. a wild west scammy bazaar isn't a good one for users.

But that is a choice. For example, I would prefer to recommend to my parents a system with more granular control over permissions than stock Android, and a market which is more curated than Google Play. It's fairly absurd that they can send off all of their contacts to some random third party server because they installed a flashlight app.

> Choice is great! You can "choose" to install a scam app or the official one.

To avoid that, you want to choose not to have to make that choice, by going to a more curated platform.

I think the key to creating that alternative is by making both Android and HTML5 apps genuinely cross platform. Blackberry, CyanogenMod and/or Sailfish should support the emerging W3C Web API standards and Cordova, and then create a clear target for Android developers to deploy Android apps that don't rely on Play Services.

The real need isn't for a third OS, it's for a real cross-platform development ecosystem, then there will be genuine space for innovation.

Re: We Need to Break the Mobile Duopoly

#60

Post by userbinator »

throwawaymsft wrote: post #30
franciscop wrote: post #18

> "For OEMs/handset makers, choice means the ability to do more with software" Please no, this would only yield to more bloatware. The move of Google is smart, moving the OS away from OEMs. [Most] manufacturers have demonstrated again and again that they cannot be trusted with software, since they only care about profit and putting more and more useless apps into the OS. We might need more mobile OS, but not for this…

Yep. The thesis of this essay is that choice is unequivocally good for users, handset makers, everyone. Experience doesn't play that out. The experience of a curated, pruned garden vs. a wild west scammy bazaar isn't a good one for users. Here's what happens when you search facebook on Windows Store: http://imgur.com/QDHcpG0 Choice is great! You can "choose" to install a scam app or the official one. Incompetent OEMs…

That screenshot is more a product of bad UI design (no indication of the publisher?) than anything else.

You can "choose" to install a scam app or the official one

Those are not the only two categories of apps.

This quote also comes to mind: "Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes."

Post reply on HN