Android: A House Divided

[harv2000]

I think we will find that there is a balance to be struck between rights (freedom) and responsibility. If we were all willing to assume perfect and complete responsibility for all aspects of our use of technology, including accepting the complete consequences of any decisions made, then no governence would be necessary. As soon as we want something like "support", "warrantee", or "protection" we begin to accept governence in exchange for giving up those "rights".

Additionally, nothing in this world is free. It is not always clear where your "financial payment" occurs, but don't be fooled, it does occur. Many times, it is so abstract that you don't think about it. There is altruism in this world, but no one is capable of nothing but free production. If nothing else, there needs to be enough "pay" for the acquisition and consumption of food.

Okay, enough with the highflying conceptual stuff, the bottom line is that the more protection the consumer base wants on their marketplace, the fewer rights the consumer base will have over what that marketplace contains. There will always be an open marketplace, even if that marketplace is completely underground and known as the black market.

[kodiak799]

Isn't apps being part of the differentiation process a problem?

Absolutely not. Apps will increasingly be viewed as part of the overall service paid for. Here we are lamenting the supposed disinterest from developers because people can't find their apps and here's a deep-pocket multi-billion dollar company willing to throw resources behind it because they recognize it as a future source of competitive advantage. Ultimately I would expect to see tiered pricing, maybe your plan comes with included apps free but if you are on another network they might cost $10 each. And you'll still have a market for free and open competition.

You can't purchase and transfer an IPhone app to a Droid, so how are VZW-only apps any different?

To put it simply, which is better: a market with the addition of VZW supported apps, or one without it? The former clearly will offer more choice and quality. If you don't want VZW service then it's no different than if the VZW market never existed in the first place.

[Michael Heller]

If you don't want VZW service then it's no different than if the VZW market never existed in the first place.

If that is true, then so be it. The problem I see is what we've already seen with Skype, where apps that once were available to everyone will suddenly become Verizon only.

[kodiak799]

If that is true, then so be it. The problem I see is what we've already seen with Skype, where apps that once were available to everyone will suddenly become Verizon only.

Fair enough. I understand the concern. I'm sure it will make financial sense for some developers to do exclusivity agreements. That's not necessarily a negative you have to think in terms of net benefit. You might have some Skype-type scenarios, but the resources will probably yield numerous other applications. And anything successful/good is going to quickly be replicated if there is a market for it.

More than anything I'm saying the Android app development lacks leadership, and VZW & Moto getting into the game will provide leadership that should be far more beneficial than some apps not being open platform.

[Michael Heller]

More than anything I'm saying the Android app development lacks leadership, and VZW & Moto getting into the game will provide leadership that should be far more beneficial than some apps not being open platform.

Agreed. There needs to be leadership, but I think it needs to be central leadership, not factions. Verizon and now Amazon can and probably will make intriguing markets that are better than the standard Android market, but I still think Android needs to be unified, not split apart.