Tuesday, 5 June 2012
Monday, 4 June 2012
The Uniqueness of Android – The Mobile Platform from Google
There is a huge furore and expectation in the mobile industry, after the
announcement of “Android”, the mobile platform (consisting of an
operating system, middleware and key applications), by Google last
November. Its ripple effect in the developer community and the services
industry is also pretty palpable.
In Google’s typical way, the 10 million dollar awards towards the best android applications had added the required momentum to bring the large developer community into its fold, and at the same time, harvest collective intelligence.
What is so unique about Android?
We have had many mobile OS like the Symbian, Windows Mobile OS, Mac OS X and Linux based Palm Nova, ALP etc, already flooding the market and fragmenting it.
So, why is another OS required?
If we are talking about something very radical, iPhone did it all. It took the market by storm with its mind-boggling features.
With all these in the market, isn’t android late? Still, why the interest?
Market Buy-in
Google has first of all roped in most of the players in the mobile market be it mobile operators, handset manufacturers, mobile application providers or software companies and even some commercialization companies.
The only significant players who are missing from the list for obvious reasons are:
1. Microsoft
2. Apple
3. Nokia
4. Palm
Two Major National US carriers missing are AT&T and Verizon.
Google is planning to keep it open source, the most happening way to get the acceptance in the market
Technically,
1. It is the only OS so far that allows integration / use of the basic phone features with any externally developed mobile application,
2. It is designed to simplify the reuse of components. Any application can publish its capabilities and any other application can use it. Taking the cue from the enterprise world on service oriented architecture, android has built it into its fundamental architecture
3. It is built on the open Linux Kernel
4. It will be open source
5. Mashup-ready: Embed browser and map views directly in your applications
To the End User:
1. Choice will be unlimited. The end user is not tied to using the basic features of the phone as provided by the handset manufacturer. He could use his own choice from any third party provider as the default feature of the phone
2. The ability to seamlessly integrate core and new applications will produce a new generation of unheard-of applications that are going to change the way the mobile would be used. Like for example, the ability to alert friends who are in the vicinity about your presence or the ability to be notified of all the shops that have a product you are looking for, as you enter a mall.
3. The open platform should provide more cheaper and innovative mobile devices and services
4. Application life cycle and automatic process management frees the end user from worrying about what applications are active
5. Location based services and notifications
6. Standard 2d and 3d graphics with optional acceleration
7. High quality audio/video support including H.264 (AVC).
8. Low power operation
In Google’s typical way, the 10 million dollar awards towards the best android applications had added the required momentum to bring the large developer community into its fold, and at the same time, harvest collective intelligence.
What is so unique about Android?
We have had many mobile OS like the Symbian, Windows Mobile OS, Mac OS X and Linux based Palm Nova, ALP etc, already flooding the market and fragmenting it.
So, why is another OS required?
If we are talking about something very radical, iPhone did it all. It took the market by storm with its mind-boggling features.
With all these in the market, isn’t android late? Still, why the interest?
Market Buy-in
Google has first of all roped in most of the players in the mobile market be it mobile operators, handset manufacturers, mobile application providers or software companies and even some commercialization companies.
The only significant players who are missing from the list for obvious reasons are:
1. Microsoft
2. Apple
3. Nokia
4. Palm
Two Major National US carriers missing are AT&T and Verizon.
Google is planning to keep it open source, the most happening way to get the acceptance in the market
Technically,
1. It is the only OS so far that allows integration / use of the basic phone features with any externally developed mobile application,
2. It is designed to simplify the reuse of components. Any application can publish its capabilities and any other application can use it. Taking the cue from the enterprise world on service oriented architecture, android has built it into its fundamental architecture
3. It is built on the open Linux Kernel
4. It will be open source
5. Mashup-ready: Embed browser and map views directly in your applications
To the End User:
1. Choice will be unlimited. The end user is not tied to using the basic features of the phone as provided by the handset manufacturer. He could use his own choice from any third party provider as the default feature of the phone
2. The ability to seamlessly integrate core and new applications will produce a new generation of unheard-of applications that are going to change the way the mobile would be used. Like for example, the ability to alert friends who are in the vicinity about your presence or the ability to be notified of all the shops that have a product you are looking for, as you enter a mall.
3. The open platform should provide more cheaper and innovative mobile devices and services
4. Application life cycle and automatic process management frees the end user from worrying about what applications are active
5. Location based services and notifications
6. Standard 2d and 3d graphics with optional acceleration
7. High quality audio/video support including H.264 (AVC).
8. Low power operation
Web 2.0 for the software services industry?
Here are some of my thoughts on what Web 2.0 would mean to the software services industry.
The five main principles that qualify for calling and application / site Web 2.0 is:
1. Web as a Platform and Software as a service
2. Architecture of participation for harnessing collective intelligence
3. Own or create hard-to-recreate data sources
4. Software through multiple channels and devices
5. Rich User interface or Rich Internet Applicaitons
While the principle 2 seems to be attracting the most attention in Web 2.0, for the services industry, principle 1 holds the key.
Let me elaborate what I mean. In terms of implementation, principle 2 stands for creating and enhancing the network of people visiting your applicaitons and using them or adding value to them through blogs, wikis, social networks, susbscription of feeds, provide permalinks and trackbacks, allowing tagging or folsonomy as some call it. Now, providing or building these features is a breeze. Most of them can be just configured by using many available off-the-shelf, open source software.
Also, practically speaking, if an organization does not have a core business around which to implement web 2.0, just providing the above is not going to be of any value add to itself.
The crux continues to remain that any organization must have a core business model that needs to adapt itself to Web 2.0. By this I mean, they must be providing some service in the real world and that should preferrably have already made its presence on the web through the Web 1.0 way. Even if not, it needs to be morphed to be provided as an online service, in the first go.
This is nothing but extending the web service model to the real "web". While the former was more often than not, within the walls of an enterprise or extended mainly to business partners, the latter would be real services maintained for the public use on the web by anyone who subscribes and pays for it. This would mainly help the smaller business of both types: the providers of such services as well as the consumers of such services.
There are enough successful models over the last couple of years like the salesforce.com which are thriving on this business model, a model of revenue generation that did not exist inherently in web 1.0. This may be one of the main causes for a potential success of Web 2.0, as I see it.
The five main principles that qualify for calling and application / site Web 2.0 is:
1. Web as a Platform and Software as a service
2. Architecture of participation for harnessing collective intelligence
3. Own or create hard-to-recreate data sources
4. Software through multiple channels and devices
5. Rich User interface or Rich Internet Applicaitons
While the principle 2 seems to be attracting the most attention in Web 2.0, for the services industry, principle 1 holds the key.
Let me elaborate what I mean. In terms of implementation, principle 2 stands for creating and enhancing the network of people visiting your applicaitons and using them or adding value to them through blogs, wikis, social networks, susbscription of feeds, provide permalinks and trackbacks, allowing tagging or folsonomy as some call it. Now, providing or building these features is a breeze. Most of them can be just configured by using many available off-the-shelf, open source software.
Also, practically speaking, if an organization does not have a core business around which to implement web 2.0, just providing the above is not going to be of any value add to itself.
The crux continues to remain that any organization must have a core business model that needs to adapt itself to Web 2.0. By this I mean, they must be providing some service in the real world and that should preferrably have already made its presence on the web through the Web 1.0 way. Even if not, it needs to be morphed to be provided as an online service, in the first go.
This is nothing but extending the web service model to the real "web". While the former was more often than not, within the walls of an enterprise or extended mainly to business partners, the latter would be real services maintained for the public use on the web by anyone who subscribes and pays for it. This would mainly help the smaller business of both types: the providers of such services as well as the consumers of such services.
There are enough successful models over the last couple of years like the salesforce.com which are thriving on this business model, a model of revenue generation that did not exist inherently in web 1.0. This may be one of the main causes for a potential success of Web 2.0, as I see it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)