The ENTiPping Point

With the unveiling of the Apple iPad this week, the tech industry is now abuzz with the thought of the way that Apple's device could potentially change the way that we use the internet at home and on the road.  There is no doubt in my mind that there is a segment of the population who will find this to be a very key purchase for their home.  Think of how many casual computer users use their laptops -- searching the web, shopping, browsing photos on Facebook or Flickr -- and other non-text intenstive operations.  The keyboard-less tablet device with wifi and/or a mobile connection is the perfect solution for surfing around the home.

But it is the operating system and the platform of the iPad that I have long-term questions about in the home.  While Apple is going to great lengths to integrate itself into my everyday internet activities with products like iLife and AppleTV, I think I know who will ultimately win our homes and our home-area network -- Google.

Reason #1:  The Android Open-Source OS

Anyone who has ever tried to do something creative and interesting with software will tell you that open-source software provides a tremendous opportunity to expand and enhance functionality that the original developers provided in the official code.  Just look at the way that the Apache web server has developed over time as developers were allowed access to the source code and encouraged to create all kinds of add-ons that would work with the server's core code.  Over time, this made it a better product -- more stable, more robust and the ability to run on all kinds of hardware.

The Android OS, while in its infancy, will mature over time and will be able to support multiple devices, screens, and interfaces.  Having toyed around with basic Android app development, the structure of the code is such that it very logically separates the device its being displayed on from the core functionality.  This will be a key component to its success in the home.

Reason #2: Device Agnosticism

Bill Gates realized at a very young age that success would lie in having your software run on hardware not created by one manufacturer, but a variety.  IBM wanted to buy Gates' "DOS" operating system from him.  But realizing that PC's would be in so many homes in the near future, Gates decided to license DOS to IBM and subsequently made money off of every version sold on an IBM computer.  The future was not in the hardware, but the ability to have control over the heart of the PC -- the software.

Apple has married its OS to specific devices, much like it has done most of its existence with its vertical integration model.  Value can be gained from complete control over the hardware and software, but it can also be the Achiiles heel.  Think back to 1995:  Apple realized that there was an opportunity spread its OS by allowing hardware mandufacturers to enter into the "Macintosh clone program".  Even then, Apple realized that the software was driving their success.

At the 2010 Consumer Electronics Show, one company, Touch Revolution, gave us a glimpse on how the future might look, both from a hardware and channel/software concept.  Touch Revolution (as seen in the video, below) has several appliances that they are embedding Android into for control.  They show us an example of a phone, a copier, a microwave and a washing machine all running Android.  How about an app to cook a tenderloin in the oven?  Download the "linens" app for custom wash cycles.  After all -- hardware is hardware, the heart is in the software controlling it.

What about your thermostat running Android?  Why not?  It has relays and sensors just like these appliances.  There is no reason that Android couldn't control this basic instrumentation.  Pick anything that you have to interface with and control in your home and the possibility exists of basic control using Android.

Reason #3: The Cloud

The iPad announcement got me thinking about how this might change the way consumers used their computers at home.  Many of us already have a laptop that's in the kitchen for surfing while the pasta's boiling or in the livingroom while our spouse watches TV.  That laptop has a hard drive and somewhere to store what we're working on.  The iPad has flash drive ability which, mentally, seems very temporary.

Could tablet devices force people to start thinking "in the cloud" about their applications they run?  If so, then guess who does that very well. 

Yes, Google.  The same Google that makes the Android OS.

Take a look at what the Google cloud offers:  e-mail, word processing, spreadsheet, presentation software, a newsreader, a search mechanism, photo storage and sharing, phone service, YouTube integration, and even health records storage.  While the prospects of storing all of your data with someone else might seem scary, my feeling is that we will soon see the benefits of handing over some privacy outweigh the benefits of not doing so, at least in some situations.

What if it's an Android tablet-type computer like one of these from last month's CES show?  In theory, don't you think that there would be tight integration between the cloud apps from Google and an Android tablet?  We can only hope that Google has thought about native app support for directly accessing the API's for all of their cloud applications.

-----

So if we pause for a moment to recap, we have an open-source operating system that can be run on a variety of devices in the home with our productivity/internet applications existing in the cloud with Google.  We have devices that are mechanical (like washers, dryers, HVAC equipment) and need to be controlled, but we're controlling them with smarts based off of developers worldwide who have customized applications for specific needs that we can choose from. Notice we're talking about electronic devices that use electricity.

In Part 2, I'll paint a picture of Google's ultimate goal of becoming the hub of our home electronic lives.

Let me preface this post by saying that I own neither a Verizon Droid or an iPhone.  You're just privvy to my digital catharsis as I've struggled which way I might go when it comes time to get rid of the Blackberry 8700c (still comes up with the "Cingular" splash screen).  I was but one of two lowly peasants brandishing a non camera-enabled smartphone at one of Peter Shankman's presentations several months back and upon his query to the crowd to find out who in the audience didn't have a camera-equipped smartphone, I realized I might as well have ridden an ox into his presentation.

So, yes, I too am trying to make some decisions about whether Verizon's Motorola Droid is the best next step on the way to smartphone nirvana.  But since I own neither an Droid or iPhone,  I'm going to talk conceptually -- not so much about the products and functionality themselves, but rather about theoretically why one might lean one way or another.  I think I often try to take the "grid approach" and compare products like this side-by-side for specs, but when I reflected on the decision, I realized that there might be more philosophical reasoning behind leaning toward a Droid.

Ayn Rand Would Not Like an iPhone

What's not to like about this gem?  In a shallow way, the appeal of the iPhone to me is very lemming-based.  It's not the typical Jonesing for an iPhone because everyone has one and I don't.  Ironically, there's a peculiar safety in the concept of owning one with everyone else.  After all, that many users can't be wrong.   How can a product be in the hands of so many people and be unusable?  Scrape across the demographic tapestry, and there are bound to be thousands of "me's" out there who want itbecause it's safe. Why not something like the HTC Touch running Windows Mobile?

Because there's not a Scandanavian-esque pretty white store 15 minutes away where connective bliss awaits.  Because there's not a notion attached to it that I could potentially connect my iPhone to my iTunes to my iLife to my iMac to my Apple TV.  My world could be completely seamless with shows, songs, and photos just appearing in midair whilst I simply think of my desires for entertainment and they manifest themselves.  No Windows Mobile phone will give me that feeling of freeing precious time in my life up while media assets self-organize themselves.  Besides, who wants to be the guy in the crowd of people who offers up a phone to a friend for a quick call, but must first hold an introductory course on how to use the interface, whip out a stylus and "get it ready" for my friend to use.  The cost of this -- one "cool card".

There is safety in numbers, and the risk-averse technophile in me doesn't enjoy being an early adopter.  I have never been a beta-version guy.  I want others to work it out for me  Lazy and non-contributory?  Maybe so.  But I also don't like getting frustrated at a $300+ gadget.  I just want it to work...

...but I also want to grow with me and be flexible enough to develop as I push it to do more.  Herein lies the paradox perception of the iPhone for me.  It seems "closed".  No yanking the battery.  No access to a battery.  A big glossy "mystery box".  You touch it and it comes on and you do what it will allow you to do.  It's a perception that I am not in control of the device, but rather have been dropped into a world with mysterious boundaries that as a newbie to the iPhone, will take me a while to find, but will ultimately find.  It's "The Truman Show" and I'm Truman Burbank with Steve Jobs as Ed Harris' character, Christof.  The concept of potential limitation that comes with a 2-year contract.

In a somewhat deviant move by Apple, they seem to have abandoned their traditional "second to market" (STM) strategy with the iPhone.  Before the iPod, there was the Rio.  Before the Mac, there was the IBM PC.  STM products so often benefit from all of the bleeding-edge, early-adopter complaints and are released as the saving-grace solution to all of the woes of a first-to-market product.  The iPhone might've been so advanced and revolutionary, that it actually became a second-to-market and first-to-market product at the same time and has situated it in an awkward market position.

The RIM BlackBerry was the dominant smartphone prior to the iPhone.  Corporations embraced the BlackBerry and it began to make inroads in the casual smartphone environment as more business-class users became accustomed to it and sang its praises.  The iPhone seemed to come along as the savior for all of the BlackBerry users who longed for an easier user interface, touch screen, integration with music/video libraries and other added features.  In the process, Apple seems to have created an entirely new market -- one in which they awkwardly find themselves as the "first-to-market".

A Droid in an Uncharted Forest

So why all of the buzz about the Motorola Droid and specifically this new Android v2.0 OS?  And why do I want this phone suddenly?  I've never seen one in person.  I don't personally know anyone with one.  So what it makes it so appealing to me?...

...Potential.  It's the same reason that for years, I have considered the 3Com corporate logo one of the most moving in corporate America.  It doesn't just represent what is 'now'.  It represents what could be.  The Droid has the potential to be a great product because of a) the hardware, b) the OS and c) the timing of its entry into the market.

Google has been backing the Android OS along since acquiring Android, Inc in 2005.  And the beauty of what they're doing is moving its developing along in an open-source fashion, but releasing the source code of Android under the Apache Software License.  What does that mean?  It means that people are free to develop off of the source code as they see fit, and if they want to release what they develop as open-source (i.e. free), so be it.  However, if they want to make a buck off of it, so be it.  It provides promise of an opportunity for those wanting to create a business around the product, but open enough to satisfy most hackers who want to tinker with the code.

With the backing of one of the largest "cloud computing" proponents in the world in Google, the Droid is also establishing itself as a vessel for something bigger and more overarching than what pops up on the screen.  What I'm using isn't here in the palm of my hand, but "out there" in a central spot that I can access from anywhere using any kind of device.  This may seem right down the line of the Apple concept I highlighted earlier, however, Apple has created that structure for me.  With Google's Android, the OS seed is being planted and the direction will most likely be determined by the open-source developers who want to push the product to be more and more.  Google's theory of making API's to their products available and promoting their use in various mashups and combinations with other products gives me hope that what is happening before our eyes is a new dynamic of interactivity between desktop and smartphone worlds.  If I were the Microsoft Office product manager, I would be very, very concerned about where Google Docs is going to go.  It is apparent that Android development is seeing a swell.  Just last week, Pandora's Tom Conrad posted the following tweet:

Just saw Pandora's Android install numbers for the day. Wow! There may not be lines, but Droids are very much among us - and running Pandora

In one of my favorite sets of quotes from a movie, actor Michael J. Fox's character in "The American President" tells the President, played by Michael Douglas:

People want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand

The President then responds:

People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty; they drink the sand because they don't know the difference.

And in my opinion, this is where we have arrived in the current smartphone debate.  It isn't about the Droid being a better device than the iPhone.  People are ready for a product that offers them the promise of salvation from the shortcomings of the current, dominant product in the marketplace.  The market needs competition -- competition that is the foundation of product improvement and enhancement.  Without it, product excitement stagnates and progress stalls.  The key is having viable competition in the market -- something that pushes the dominant iPhone team to keep developing and progressing.  To date, other options haven't seen quite as promising as a total package as the new Droid.  There were always nitpicks here and there that kept the masses away.

I think we've found it now, however.  This may not be the product to take over the iPhone as the leader in the market, but I DO think it will make it become a better product.  In turn, the Android OS and the hardware it lives on with refine to catch up and the cycle begins again.

But if the market does not attempt to embrace the Droid or similar alternatives and start at least implying a need for open-source-like flexibility, we should subtlely suggest Apple code name the next iPhone product, Anthem.