Silly smartphone revisionism

Sorry, I just can’t take this lead sentence from page B1 of today’s NY Times:

For much of this decade, the fates of Palm and Motorola were intertwined.

The parallel is just plain silly.

• Motorola invented the handheld mobile phone in the 1970s, Handspring (later bought by Palm) shipped its first phone in 2001.
• Motorola has been exporting phones to Japan and Europe since the 1980s, while Palm has always been a North American phenomenon.
• Motorola was late to digital, Palm was always digital.
• Motorola was late to smartphones, Palm was only smartphones.
• Motorola was a radio company, Palm a PDA company.
• At their peak, Motorola made good hardware and so-so software, while Palm had so-so hardware and good software.
• Motorola phones tended to be slim and light while Palm phones were big and clunky.
• Because of its lousy performance, Motorola’s handset division is (someday) being spun out, while Palm sold itself cheap to HP.

Need I go on?

Yes, as the NYT reminds us, Motorola hitched its wagon to Android in October 2008, while Palm is pursuing its go-it-alone strategy (now with HP’s money.)

Motorola (corporate) revenues continue to decline, but at least this quarter is profitable, and CEO Sanjay Jha hopes to ship 12-14 million smartphones in 2010 — with smartphones accounting for the majority of handset sales and raising the average selling price. (Almost all of those smartphones have been Android.)

So the explanation is pretty simple:

• An open source operating system (like Android) is the ultimate commodity software: free and available to all firms.
• If software is a commodity, then the only hope to differentiate and gain share is through hardware competencies.
• Motorola has those competencies (like Nokia and the Koreans) but Palm doesn’t.

By the way, if software becomes a commodity, that’s not good news for Apple and Research in Motion, whose have convinced consumers and enterprises (respectively) to buy phones because of their software, not their hardware.

Adobe strikes back

To respond to Steve Jobs’ official criticisms of Flash, Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen granted an exclusive interview this afternoon to the Wall Street Journal, which promoted it via a blog and its News Hub online video. Note to iPhone owners: News Hub cannot be viewed without Adobe’s Flash.

While most of its responses fairly presented Adobe’s side, Narayen made two comments that bear response:

We are multi-platform.

Actually, Adobe wants the world’s web developers to write for a single platform — Adobe Flash — that is hosted on top of all the other major platforms.

Flash is an open specification.

That doesn’t make it an open platform — if there’s only one implementation, then the firm gains all the benefits of lock-in and economic rents of a proprietary standard (Adobe’s a little more open with PDF, where it supplied its technology for ISO 32000 standardization, through a process known for allowing firms to retain influence and control.)

So if Adobe’s idea of an open specification is one where everyone can implement what it decides, that’s even less open than an open source company that throws dual-license implementations over the wall while using “fishbowl development” processes that don’t allow for open governance and participation.

In his letter, Steve Jobs was reasonably accurate on this point:

Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe’s Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system.

Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript – all open standards. … HTML5 is completely open and controlled by a standards committee, of which Apple is a member.

Apple even creates open standards for the web. For example, Apple began with a small open source project and created WebKit, a complete open-source HTML5 rendering engine that is the heart of the Safari web browser used in all our products. WebKit has been widely adopted. Google uses it for Android’s browser, Palm uses it, Nokia uses it, and RIM (Blackberry) has announced they will use it too. Almost every smartphone web browser other than Microsoft’s uses WebKit. By making its WebKit technology open, Apple has set the standard for mobile web browsers.

Sharing an implementation provided under a non-viral license (as WebKit is) is today the most open form of platform available. Apple is rarely this open, but for WebKit they deserve credit for sharing code and control, just as IBM shared code and control with Eclipse.

Flash! Steve buries Adobe cash cow

Steve Jobs signed an open letter this morning on six reasons why there is not — and never will be — Flash on the iPhone, iPod and iPad.

His first five points:

1. Instead of being open, it’s single-vendor proprietary.
2. It’s got security flaws, it’s slow on mobile devices and is the #1 reason Macs crash.
3. Adobe says that no Flash means not “the full web” — but most video is now available in H.264, and the iPhone has its own games.
4. Battery life is 2x as good using H.264 as using Flash.
5. It’s designed for mice, not a touch interface.

But, he concludes with the argument that many of us suspected but Apple never stated explicitly:

Sixth, the most important reason.
…
We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers.

This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor’s platforms.

Flash is a cross platform development tool. It is not Adobe’s goal to help developers write the best iPhone, iPod and iPad apps. It is their goal to help developers write cross platform apps.

Jobs concludes — with his usual élan — by suggesting that Flash should be consigned to the dustbin of history in a speech:

Flash was created during the PC era – for PCs and mice. Flash is a successful business for Adobe, and we can understand why they want to push it beyond PCs. But the mobile era is about low power devices, touch interfaces and open web standards – all areas where Flash falls short.

The avalanche of media outlets offering their content for Apple’s mobile devices demonstrates that Flash is no longer necessary to watch video or consume any kind of web content. And the 200,000 apps on Apple’s App Store proves that Flash isn’t necessary for tens of thousands of developers to create graphically rich applications, including games.

To my ear, this seems reminiscent of Mark Antony in Shakepeare’s Julius Caesar (“I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.”)

Whether one agrees with Jobs on the specifics — and a few examples seem stretched to make a point — the entire posting is a clear articulation of why Apple is not only blocking Flash on its platform, but seeking help from others to replace it with open standards where it controls the implementation.

Note to readers: Normally I avoid posting two major articles in one day, but the recent Apple and HP announcements were too important to ignore.

HP's curious acquisition

I’m still not sure why HP spent $1.2 billion to buy Palm, other than it can. Yes, it has a minimal presence in mobile phones and other mobile devices, leading MarketWatch’s Therese Poletti on March 2 to predict an HP purchase of Palm:

Surely numbers-driven Chief Executive Mark Hurd is looking for ways for H-P to take advantage of the boom in smartphones. Buying Palm could be a way for H-P to get into the market for lower cost devices. It might have to abandon Windows, or offer two families of devices. H-P has often juggled competing product lines, diverse chip architectures and operating systems.

With its cash and global reach, HP can certainly do more with Palm’s technology that Palm has been able to do. And yes, Palm was available cheap, losing 73% of its market cap since its recent peak stock price of $17.07 last October.

It was a great victory for Palm and its investors, which despite good technology has been given up for dead for nearly two years. Elevation Partners, which took 25% sake in Palm three years ago, cashed in its (now) $460 million investment for an estimated $485 million — suggesting that it was worried about further deterioration rather than optimistic about a future upside. (Wednesday, Palm revealed Q2 revenues were expected to be 40% below analyst expectations, which would have punished the stock further.)

Obviously HP has been looking forward to the day when smartphones and other devices start to eat away at the Windows-based PCs that account for a nearly a third of the company’s revenues.

HP claimed the acquisition is even about the post-smartphone world:

"Smartphones are a part of this, but this is really about the Web operating system," Shane Robison, HP's chief strategy and technology officer, told Forbes. "It's a change in our business model to a connected device model." HP, he said, is assuming a world in which almost everything needs at least the potential to connect to the Internet.

But by taking on Palm and its webOS, HP is going down path it’s almost completely avoided during its 40+ years as a computer maker — as a sponsor of a proprietary computing platform.

Yes, it sold proprietary 16-bit mini computers in the 1970s, and it also bought two leading proprietary minicomputer companies: Tandem and Digital Equipment (when it bought Compaq).

However, its PCs have been DOS and Windows, and its servers Windows, Unix and Linux. The Unix (HP-UX) had its own development group, but the recent trend by HP and its customers has been away from HP-UX to Linux.

Of the world’s top five PC makers — HP, Dell, Acer, Lenovo and Toshiba — all have made mobile devices based on Windows Mobile (now Windows Phone) and Android. HP now seems to be abandoning this model and casting its lot with the leading proprietary vendors: Apple, Nokia and Research in Motion. (Yes, the operating system Nokia controls is open source, but its competitors are largely ignoring it.)

This also means that HP hopes to use webOS to differentiate its mobile products, rather than merely shave pennies off of operating costs as CEO Mark Hurd loves to do. Perhaps the thought of competing against commodity Taiwanese and Chinese firms in the mobile segment prompted him to do something different.

It’s really too soon to say whether HP will have any luck here. However, in the short-term, I think the biggest negative is for Google. A lot of people have been assuming that Android will take over the world, coalescing all the various carriers, vendors and users into a single platform. Instead, fragmentation of mobile phone platforms — as well as tablets — will continue.

It‘s also bad for Microsoft and Dell. Perhaps this will be the nudge that gets Microsoft out of the handset OS business, or it may cause it to more aggressively ally with Dell (which previously aligned with Android.)

But in a perverse way, I think in the short-term it will be good for the other proprietary platform vendors. Together, Nokia, RIM, Apple and HP will be able to hold off Android, and may cause the other phone makers to reconsider whether they want to hand control of their future to Google.

The one sure thing is that the number of webOS applications is going to explode. The iPhone (nearly 200,000) and Android (around 40,000) application stores are already crowded, while webOS only has a few thousand. Developers looking to get noticed will flock to webOS, hoping to get in on the ground floor now that its survival is no longer an issue.

Because of this demand — and because the webOS tools are very friendly — I predict that HP/Palm will have more than 5,000 apps by the end of the year, and perhaps closer to 10,000 apps.

Microsoft hosts Android platform

Earlier this month, Microsoft Research in Silicon Valley hosted a seminar on Android. I tweeted live from the event:

Serious irony: here at Microsoft Research (Mountain View) waiting for talk on Android, using the Internet via GoogleWiFi (free in Mtn View).
6:53 PM Apr 13th via Tweetie

At Android event http://bit.ly/dym6ff local IEEE CompSoc vice chair installed Android on his AT&T Tilt phone (originally Windows Mobile).
6:58 PM Apr 13th via Tweetie

This is not to say that Microsoft and Google can’t find occasional common ground in their fight for Total World Domination. (For example, Microsoft said Wednesday it will license patents (under royalties) to its customer HTC to defend against allegations that HTC Android phones infringe iPhone patents.)

However, in this case the seminar — “Android: A 9,000 Overview” — was organized by the Santa Clara Valley chapter of the IEEE Computer Society. It had a unique two-part format: a business overview by Mike Demler and a technical tutorial by Marko Gargenta.

Android Platform: An Ecosystem View

Demler is a semiconductor engineer (with a MSEE from SMU) who I met when he was getting his MBA at San Jose State. He summarize his own talk on a blog post that includes his slides:

This presentation provides a quick overview of the participants in the rapidly expanding Android ecosystem; from software to semiconductor companies, wireless providers, handset manufacturers and app stores, to the numerous opportunities in consumer electronics beyond smartphones.

He was seriously limited for time, but Mike provided a very clear overview of the ecosystem, complete with information about recent trends (part of a his planned update to his $200 report on Android trends.)

To readers of this blog, some of his basic points were familiar: Android has won support by all four US carriers, the rate of new devices is increasing, and it’s going to have an impact beyond cellphones. Because (unlike the iPhone), all four carriers are carrying multiple Android devices, Mike is among those who are very optimistic about its future US/global market share.

Two tidbits were specifically interesting to me:

• Cellphone manufacturers and carriers are mobilizing their developer support organizations to back Android, through programs like MotoDev and third party tools like DeviceAnywhere.
• In products beyond mobile (to use Bill Weinberg’s phrase), Android licensees are pushing the platform in an area that’s not a priority for Google. Examples include not only the Nook (and an e-reader rival named Alex), and various notebook-type computers from HP and Acer, but also settop boxes on at least two continents.

Android Platform: Technical Overview

From both his talk and website, Marko Gargenta clearly spends a lot of his life helping programmers understand the Android platform. He posted his slides to his LinkedIn profile which points to SlideShare, but similar earlier talks (particularly “Android Internals”) can be found as PDFs via Google.

Marko’s tutorial looked fun to this former programmer, including the Eclipse tools that make it (relatively) easy to target multiple platforms: Android 1.1, 1.5, 1.6, 2.0, 2.1. It was also fun to see that Android adopt a 25+ year old Apple concept of resources, both to hold program data and also to support a non-procedural definition of user interfaces and other program structure.

Marko identified two aspects of the technical architecture that provided insight into Google’s business strategy.

First, Java fanatics were excited to hear that the programming APIs are in Java, but Sun was disappointed that Android doesn’t use its standard Swing or other J2ME (Java ME) libraries, but instead has its own unique user interface APIs. The equation Marko put on the board was:

Android Java = Java SE – AWT/Swing + Android API

and he got a few laughs for his Trumanesque newspaper headline.

On a related note, Google didn’t want to pay royalties (in its free OSS distribution) for Sun’s Java Virtual Machine, so Java code is translated from Java bytecode into .dex files to run on Google’s own Dalvik Virtual Machine.

Secondly, the message-based Android APIs allow a third-party application to handle any function that an Android-supplied one can: browser, email, calendar, mapping, etc. Like Windows (or the iPhone), the Google code cannot be deleted from an Android device, but unlike the iPhone (or other platforms) the third-party software can supplant the built-in application, fully integrated into the phone operations and the user experience.

Finally, from a technical standpoint, Google is allowing native development of C/C++ source code using its NDK. Unlike Java, this code is no longer processor independent (thus requiring bundling separate code for ARM-licensed and Intel processors), but it does allow high performance for things like image or audio processing algorithms.

The availability of such information — and the overflow crowd of programmers eagerly seeking it — shows one of the strengths of Silicon Valley. With nearly 40,000 Android apps available, we in the audience were not exactly the leading edge, but there is a huge pent-up interest in Android here that seems to be approaching that of the iPhone.

The interesting question is: how much longer can new entrants into either ecosystem make money? I think it will play out like the PC, Mac and other software platforms. In a year or two (if not today), the the only ISVs making money on either platform will be either the pioneers (who shipped one of the first 10,000 apps) or the big boys (EA, eBay, Amazon).