This article from Business Insider got me started. Since I have to time to address potential fanboy arguments let’s go this way. For each time you think I am a fanboy I’ll think of you one of the following:

- troll
- user who has time to loose with lower quality devices/experiences
- user who likes to accumulate stress

Right now that Eric Schmit is promising that Android will soon beat iOS (whatever is the meaning of beating in this context), Android’s throat is getting more and more exposed. I can’t provide evidence but I started to feel a while ago that Android has found his way: more and more devices released and much buzz around the topic. But I always got in mind a few key aspects:

1. Fragmentation: it is not easy at all to build an homogeneous experience across many different devices
2. Too much fanfare about the number of devices activated per millisecond
3. Nobody has ever revealed how many dollars has Google shared with developers

While the second is mainly related to marketing and the too much diffused tendency to reveal meaningless numbers, as a UX designer, developer and entrepreneur I am pretty sensitive to points #1 and #3. The first is pretty a technical reason: developers have to write more code and carry more stress with respect to iOS. The third point is pretty a mystery to me: Apple is known to be pretty secretive, especially when prototyping, but is proud to reveal key numbers to attract more on their platform. Rhetoric questions for developers/entrepreneurs: which market would you dive in? the one where you know the current volume or the one you don’t know anything about? While reflecting on this please don’t fall into the childish thought that “more devices more potential buyers”, unless you are a rookie. Just consider that you are making money by selling applications, and a higher number of devices does not imply a higher number of sales. The key value is the “willingness to buy”, and the internet is full of articles supporting the idea that iOS users are more prone to buy applications than androiders.

Getting back to the main point of this article the new announcement from Samsung, that won’t allow upgrades to the new version of the OS on old devices, is really exposing Android’s throat to attacks. While it was relatively easy to copy (umm … take inspiration from) iOS and its ecosystem, now I think that Android has reached a pretty unsolvable issue: the one of upgrades. People who bought an iPhone 3gs (released in June 2009) can still happily use it today with iOS5 and the iCloud. Can you find a similar example in the Android world? I doubt so. The reason is exquisitely technical: relatively young devices have not enough hardware power to run new versions of Android OS. It is just a physical limit, and I think there is nothing to discuss. My opinion is that it is due to lack of vision. One of the few upgradeable devices is the Galaxy S2, because it is a flagship product, and preventing an update on that would mean users migrating to other devices in a hurry.
I am not a fan of Microsoft but if you bought the first model of Windows Phone you can still happily run the latest version of the OS on that. This means being on track.

Besides technical reasons I think that there is an issue related to the approach. While it was possible to “decouple” hardware and software on the desktop (and Microsoft has built his empire on that) this is much less doable in the mobile world, where hardware power is limited.

Here are a few suggestions for Google, makers and users.

Makers

HTC, Samsung and colleagues should follow Amazon approach. The only way to attack a well established market are a few. You can work on:

• the best product
• the best solution
• the best price

Amazon, to attack the tablet market, is betting on the best price. I don’t see a simpler way for competitors to undermine Apple’s iOS ecosystem. Building the best product or solution would take a lot of time.

Google

Google should close the gates, reorganize all the code to be more tightly coupled with hardware. They should put a lot of effort in rendering, demanding that (when possible) to the hardware. They should also devise crystalline rules about installation and updates. In 2012 I should not connect my phone to a computer to update the OS and I should not be forced to buy a new device to have the latest version of the OS. The recent acquisition of Motorola
is going toward that direction. If I were HTC or Samsung I’d be a bit worried, for I suspect new versions of Android will be super optimized for Motorola hardware. That’s the only solution I see for Android to resurrect.

Users

In the current situation, my suggestion is to go cheap. If you buy a $500 Android phone which is not OS-upgradeable it is not easy for you to afford a new purchase. If you have bought a $200 one, you have saved $300 (with respect to an iOS device) and you can think of using that money to buy a new model in one year.
Of course it is not easy to spot which models are upgradeable before you buy them (see crystalline rules above).
In general, we are told that a Google-approved Nexus device, should be eligible for upgrades (my addition: provided that hardware is powerful enough). So if you really like to buy an Android phone/tablet I strongly suggest to stick with those models or buy the new ones which will be released by Motorola in 2012.

Conclusion

While Google and friends are just chasing the highest number of activations per day, exposing his throat to competitors’ weapons, Microsoft and Apple are pointing on good experience, simplifying data migration and assuring compatibility with old models.

I’d like to conclude with a set of questions:

• where is all the “freedom” that Android supporters claim?
• do you realize that openness and (supposed) freedom, in the long run, are more costly than “closed-source” competitor solutions?
• do you see all the ifs you are going to face buying an android powered device?
• do you know that all this is due to a business model

?

• Not convinced yet? Have a look at this graph.

I will try to argue why the current discussion on open vs closed source is a non sense for the final user. Honestly I am try trying to figure out why Apple and its steersman sometimes bring the topic up. They usually care of design. I am not the first to say that Apple is a design company. There is no mention of technical specs in Job’s presentations. Devices have to the be disassembled to find out components. So I wonder why Jobs mentioned this “low level” topic about closed vs open source. Probably it is a marketing technique.

My first (and almost only) claim is that end users care of experience. I am trying to put myself in their shoes. When they enter a shop they want to buy something that works and that they like. When they ask a friend a suggestion about a phone/tablet, they wanna know whether it works, it is fast/reliable. Probably the only low level detail that is worth asking is the memory, but not in terms of gigabytes. A common user usually asks: “how many pictures/songs I can put in there?” If you are a developer this is non sense to you, but I mentioned it exactly to give you an idea of how far we are from the open/close source topic.

MacOSX is based on an open source kernel. Try asking an Apple maniac why he bought a Mac. I am pretty sure the answer won’t be “because the source code of the kernel is available”.
Experience is a relation between a user and a tool. A great user experience can be achieved regardless of the availability of the source code. In this case Apple looks (and just looks) as a contradiction: MacOSX has success and it is partly based on open source code. The iPhone has success and it is based on closed source code.
Another example: Ubuntu. The adoption of Linux on the desktop is growing and it started growing when somebody put effort on its user experience. Remember how was KDE 2? Check it out know.
So the question “is open better?” has many answers. If I need to set up a fast, secure and reliable server to build my next killer project the answer is “yes”. Yes, because I can check the code to detect flaws, to tune it to my hardware, etc. In this case I am not an end-user, I am a developer or a system administrator. If I am a masseuse from Brooklyn and I want a smart tool to make calls, browse the web, listen to my music and take pictures the answer to “is open better?” is “I don’t know/care”. I will never try to recompile the OS, at most I can install some application, so I am not really interested if my geeky neighbor can change the behavior of my phone.

Now a few words about open. I am an insider and I like open source. I have released some opensource code and I use opensource code almost daily. In my career I have learned that there is “Open” and “open”. This is a very inspiring post about this difference. In general open does not mean that everybody can get in. The door of a hotel is usually open but there is a concierge. If you are staying there you can get in, otherwise you can’t. The Linux kernel repository has a well-know doorman: you can write patches/modifications but if he does not approve them you are not in. Open is a very overrated term, sometimes used to make a good impression. Like when there is a party but you cannot get in, let’s say you can stare at an open door/window.
Moreover, those who can get it are not allowed to do whatever they want. For example the Android OS has a governance philosophy, so you have to adhere to a compatibility program. This is great. I am sure that anarchy would not lead anywhere. My only objection is: the focus of that document is just on compatibility, not experience. You are not allowed to change the scheduling of threds as you like, but you can do whatever you want with user experience!
I am not saying that to achieve a great user experience you have to close your source. I am saying that “do whatever you want” is not a good strategy to achieve it. To build user experience you need focus, vision, discipline, measurements.
For example one of the features of experience is recognizability (the ability to recognize an object and its intended usage). I am not saying that the iPhone and iTunes store are the only/best way to distribute applications. I am saying that they are consistent and recognizable. So after a few interactions I get familiar with them and if Apple does not revolutionize their interface I will feel familiar also with next versions. Can we say the same of the Android ecosystem?

My conclusion is: an open source product is better only when it can compete with the user experience of its closed source counterpart.

Flash running on the android platform? Yes. Flash was already been demonstrated as running on android. Now Bsquare has been charged to make the porting of the flash technology to the android platform. I started the study of the iphone sdk a while ago, and so did many flexers/actionscripters. But this news makes me mumble. I like learning new languages/frameworks a priori but I probably will have to set a preference: android or iphone?

I have set up a poll here. State your opinion!