My Take On Android’s First Year

Yesterday I got into a bit a of a debate with @schwiz about Nancy Gohring’s article “One Year On, Android’s Not Quite There Yet,” that was published in MacWorld.com this week. While Schwiz argued that the article was a bit biased, I disagreed. I think Ms Gohring got it right and could have gone further. It has to be said that any criticism of Android that appears in MacWorld is suspect, but just because it’s published there doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

I support open platforms. I think what the Open Handset Alliance is doing is important. I think the Android OS is great and I love the HTC G1. All of that being said, I do think that the platform has a long way to go and that time may be running out.  I will tell you why I think this, but a little background first.

I’m an early adopter. I’ve invested in technology, large and small platforms, big and small devices, with some success and some failures over the years. In the 1990s I started a successful special effect and editing company in Boston. Early on, I bet on the Avid non-linear editor and Discreet Logic’s special effects/graphics system, Flame, but before I invested in those products, I tested Data Translation ’s Media 100 and SGI’s Matador. Why do I mention these products? Avid and Media 100 were non-linear editing software systems operating on Apple computers. The Flame and Matador were graphic/special effects software packages operating on SGI (Unix) computers. So these were basically applications running on an off the shelf computer. Of course there were some modifications made to the hardware, to optimize the operation of the software, but essentially, the concept is not dissimilar to the Android model. (Except that I spent a lot more money on the hardware and software in each case.)

When I bought these systems, I was convinced (and I still think the same) that technically the Media 100 and Matador were superior products. The engineering was top notch and the video being output was better than anything on the market. So why did Avid and Flame become big successes and why did Media 100 & Matador fail? The reason is simple, Discreet Logic and Avid Technology knew how to market their product to the editors and artists that would use their products and very importantly, to the clients that those users would sell their services to. Data Translations and SGI took the approach that the best product should and would win, and, if you build it, they will come. They tried to sell the products to the managers and engineers that ran the companies, but not to the operators or the clients of those companies. By the time they figured out they needed to change their approach, it was too late; Avid and Discreet Logic owned the markets. Data Translations and SGI took a Product Orientation rather than Marketing one. They failed Marketing 101 by not informing and persuading existing and new communities that their products and services could fulfill existing and newly identified needs.

So what’s my point? I think the Android based HTC G1 is an amazing phone. It’s faster and technically better than the iPhone in so many ways, but Google, T-Mobile and HTC have failed at marketing the device and concept to existing and new consumers of mobile devices. Google has done a decent job of selling the device to application developers, but they haven’t done much else. To quote a friend, “Dear God. There has to be a better use of the Android platform than tower defense games.” He is right. If you browse the Android Market on the phone or on the web, the type of games that appeal to geeks are what you will mostly find.

Speaking of the Android Market, it’s terrible. Go to http://www.android.com/market/ and try to search for an app. You can’t. Google, the leading search engine in the world, does not have a search function in their market. (I wonder what happens if you Bing for an Android App?) The Android Market fails to be innovative when the Apple App Store defines innovation in the same market. The search on the mobile version of the Market is a little better, but if you were considering buying a phone and went to the website, you would be under whelmed.

In the nine months since we have had the G1, I have only met two other people that own the phone. In each case, both also own other phones and both are complete tech gear-heads. I have not seen one person standing in line at a Starbucks flashing their G1. How many iPhones can you count when you go to Starbucks? I know that is casual anecdotal data, but the data quoted in Gohring’s article pretty muchbacks me up. Of course until recently, there has only been one phone available and I hope with the upcoming release of several new phones that will expand the consumer base.

In his response to me @schwiz suggests that while Apple markets apps for the iPhone it should not be up to Google to market apps for developers. I think he sees it wrong. Apple does not market apps for the iPhone. In a brilliant move, Apple uses all the amazing apps out there to market the iPhone. Apple uses the innovation of thousands of creative developers to identify new consumers for their product. Apple identifies new needs, promotes applications to fulfill those needs, thereby selling it’s technology.

Most people perceive Apple as a technology company that uses amazing marketing to sell its products. I think Apple is an amazing marketing company that happens to sell technology. Google needs to change its Product Orientation approach and take a Marketing approach if it wants the Android to succeed.