The expectation of an emerging dominant platform for smart phones comes from general experience with the PC industry, where there has been virtually a single platform for decades. However, the cell phone business is very different from the PC business: while market forces pushed the latter towards platform consolidation, there are several factors keeping mobile platforms distinct. Factor in Google’s self-stated motivation for entering this market in the first place and it becomes clear that the current fragmentation of smart phone platforms isn’t going to go away any time soon.

1: Cell Carriers Discourage Platform Consolidation

Partially by design and partially by nature, it’s plain impossible for a single platform to become dominant today. Cellular companies make exclusive deals with handset manufacturers, keeping phones out of the hands of consumers who would otherwise purchase them in a heartbeat. The exclusive AT&T and Apple deal comes to mind, but cell companies have been in this practice long before there was an iPhone. Hip devices draw new customers, and the manufacturer receives generous financial kickbacks to keep things exclusive. Additionally, some carriers use different radio technologies, which means that device manufacturer must develop different hardware to support all the different radio technologies around the world, adding expense and slowing hardware rollouts. This isn’t a factor which will go away soon.

2: The Market Has Legs

In 2009 a smart phone sales exploded. According to Gartner, there were sales of 172 million smart phones in 2009, a 24% increase from 2008, and that growth is expected to continue. This means that every company in the market can sell more units than the previous year without competing directly for customers. As long as this continues to be the case there is plenty of room in the market for multiple platforms. For some context, the ceiling for this growth is high. If all cell phones sold were smart phones (not an unreasonable long-term perspective) there would be 1.2 billion every year, so there’s quite a bit of room to grow.

3: Consumers Aren’t Sticky

In stark contrast to the PC market, smart phones are relatively simple to operate. Since the learning curve is lower, consumers are less likely to be afraid of switching to a different platform. Other factors gain relative importance. For example, consumers don’t put a high value on the shape and color of their desktop PC or laptop (beyond the basic form factor), but industrial design plays a more important role with smart phones. In part this is because OS tie-in is less important.

Consumers are also likely to switch between cell carriers every year or two, and when they do they are more likely to purchase the most cost-effective smart phone available with the new carrier. Statistically, this depends mostly on the promotions running at the time, if the same platform is even available. Apple’s exclusive AT&T contract, and Microsoft’s major revision to Windows Mobile are cases where users may not even be able to stick with the same platform if they wanted to.

4. Google Isn’t in the Mobile Phone Business

Surprise. Here’s a quick recap from Eric Schmidt from when Android was first announced:

The fundamental problem with most phones today is they don’t have full-power browsers. We’ve been taking our mobile services and use specialized engineering to get them on other devices. No longer … Imagine not just one Gphone, but a thousand Gphones as a result of the partnerships … I’m a very happy iPhone user. It’s important to say that there will be many, many mobile experiences, and Android will be used on many other kinds of devices…

Remember that when Android first came out, there was really no viable mobile web browser aside from Safari on the iPhone. Google makes their money on web search. Lots of people had phones, but couldn’t realistically use them to search, and Google therefore couldn’t make money from them. Google solved the problem by giving away a smart phone OS to any device manufacturer who wanted it.

So, while Google does have a bottomless wallet, there’s no reason for them to spend significantly more on cell phone development. Android simply has to be “good enough” to motivate smart phone competitors to improve the browsers on their phone. Google makes the money whether a user searches via an Android phone, an iPhone, a Symbian phone, or potentially even a Windows Mobile phone (should mobile IE ever become a reasonable browser). That’s why the pace of Android development has slowed as its uptake has accelerated. Google doesn’t need to dominate the market, because they don’t care which phone or browser you use, as long as you use one. To put it another way, Android is a stick they can use to herd the cell phone market in the direction Google wants.

Conclusions

The public likes competition, and the Internet will never stop pitting different platforms against each other. At first glance, Android and iPhone OS look like they compete against each other. However, the motivations behind their development are very different: Apple wants to sell hardware, while Google wants to spur users to browse the web from their phones. These goals aren’t mutually exclusive, which is why Eric Schmidt sat on the Apple board of directors until well after Android was released. Because of their respective philosophies, Google and Apple will never compete in the mobile phone space — Apple will never license their OS to other device manufacturers, and Google will never shift their revenue base to hardware sales (The Nexus One is another stick to hit device manufacturers with, not an attempt to make a profit for Google).

So, to answer my friend’s question, “who will win the mobile phone wars: Apple or Google?” I don’t think either will win, because there isn’t really a war – at least not between those two. Palm, Microsoft, Nokia, and Research in Motion are different stories altogether. Until the market hits the ceiling though, none of them are going to achieve market dominance anytime soon. It has become a game of staying power, and the only platform in any real danger is Palm.

http://www.sdtimes.com/ORACLE_TO_BUY_SUN_PENDING_APPROVAL/About_ORACLE_and_SUN/33425

Most people know to encrypt their Wi-Fi router, for example. That’s because there’s been lots of press about it, and many people like to tell stories about how they bum internet service from their neighbors.

A few people know the difference between a regular website and an SSL-encrypted web site. That little lock icon in your browser means that communication between you and the site is relatively secure. However, few people know what it actually means. I won’t go down the road (in this post, anyway) of the value of SSL certificates and whether they actually do the job they are supposed to.

And that’s about it. SSL and WiFi is the limit of what most people deal with encryption. I’m talking about personal use here, not business. Of course the average IT worker uses a terminal session called SSH which is quite secure, and most businesses have secure VPN’s in to their private networks, which are generally also secure. Like WiFi encryption, the what I find interesting there is that the businesses use this mainly for protection of their own internal networks. Their outside communications are generally via email or IM, just like most people’s private ones.

And yet there are plenty of free, and not terribly difficult ways you can encrypt your emails and IM’s, and even phone calls so that only you and the receiver can communicate. Yet, hardly anyone uses them. In fact, so few people were interested that PGP, one of the best methods for sending emails securely, completely failed as a commercial product even before they started charging for it. Luckily, there is a free GPL replacement, so that the solution is still generally available for anyone who wants to use it (I do).

What am I talking about here? Well, any message you send over the Internet can be read by just about anybody. Any Email. Any IM. Any Skype call. Any message board posting. Now, I’m not paranoid. I agree that statistically speaking, no one really cares about the chain letter of jokes I forwarded to my cousin last week. Right?

Well, maybe not. But what if I sent a bank account number to my wife, so she could check it? You can bet there are bad people on the internet who are on the lookout for such information. What if my friend asks me for my phone number and address so he can send me a party invitation. How do I know it was really him, and that I’m not sending my information to an impostor? What about the government? I mean, you don’t have to be paranoid to be worried when the FBI calls their email surveillance system CARNIVORE. For Cripe’s sake! They couldn’t call it “PEACE” or “LOVE” or something? CARNIVORE?! And before you think that we don’t need to worry about this sort of thing anymore, CARNIVORE was initiated by the Clinton administration, not Bush.

So, I’m thinking about creating a blog for encryption-related stuff. Encryption for the lay-person, as it were. I’m not saying everyone is out to get you, but people buy car insurance even though they don’t plan on ramming anything.

Would anyone out there find something like that useful? Like easy how-to’s to set up encryption in different mail and IM clients, layman-level articles about how encryption works, and why you’d want to use it? It’s a bit of work to set up a new web site (and write for it), so I’ll only do it if people want it. Leave comments here! (http://2robots.com/2009/01/23/encryptonomicon)

It implements a simple terminal emulator, and can be used to connect to any standard telnet server including Linux, BSD, Solaris, OS X, Cisco, or even Windows as long as telnet services are enabled.

You can choose which host and even which port to connect to, which makes this useful for debugging web and mail servers.

Works over WI-FI or your Carrier Network.

You can play a free demo online. The online version has simpler graphics and gameplay than the full version. It works both on a PC web browser and from the iPhone.

You can get the full version through the iTunes Store. It has much better graphics, sound effects, and more!

That was a while ago. Now I have a job. And I don’t pirate any more. Partially, this is because I’ve been a software developer, and I see things more “from the other side.” But mostly, its because I can. I have $50 to my name so that I can go out and buy that game I wanted, or the box set dvd’s, or whatever (not to say I don’t think they are overpriced).

That’s why I’ve always thought that the piracy numbers given out by the movie (MPAA), music (RIAA), and software (BSA) industry groups have been complete garbage. I mean, Billions of dollars? Common, that’s rediculous. Just because someone has pirated your software/song/movie doesn’t mean they are willing to pay for it. That’s always been my assertion, but of course I could never prove it.

Luckily, Russel Carrol, Director of Marketing at Reflexive (a PC game company) has done it for me. In an article posted at Gamasutra, he lays out a very data-driven and scientific analysis of the company’s piracy rates both before and after taking steps which reduced piracy. Read the article. Really.

His conclusion: Only 1 in 1,000 pirates are actually willing to purchase the product.

Does it still seem worth suing college kids, guys?

This software is capable of both making sure that only the recipient can access the email you send them (pretty good when using a public mail server, like Google or Yahoo, for example), and also to guarantee that the person  in the “from” field is actually the person who sent the email.

In fact, if GPG became a part of the SMTP standard protocol (or even became used commonly), it would serve to thin out the majority of spam mail, as well as phishing email attempts.

So, in an attempt to get GPG used a little more often, you should read the book Cryptonomicon. Aside from providing excellent information on what GPG is and why you should use it, it is an excellent adventure story.

Then, take a look at the following guide to add GPG support to OS X Leopard.

And, for anyone who wants to contact me, here is my GPG public key. This key will both confirm that you are really receiving an email from me, and also give you the ability to send me encrypted email or files that only I can open, as long as you install GPG (which is free).

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: SKS 1.0.10
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=HfPD
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

Both of these events are tragic. Our hearts and condolences go out to the family members of the Spaceship Company who were hurt or injured. Now that the sabotage has been found, it should be relatively straightforward to catch the culprit at the NASA contractor, and ensure that no other components are effected.

Both of these events prove yet again how difficult space flight is, both technically and from the home front. There’s a reason “Rocket Scientist” is a compliment.

However, what makes this week such a sad day for manned space travel is a recent report that NASA has been allowing astronauts to show up drunk at the space shuttle launch, and then continue as if nothing was wrong. While NASA doctors and astronaut co-workers were raising flags about inebriation during the pre-flight checkup, NASA administrators were turning a blind eye.

Let’s not even go into the responsibilities that US astronauts should have to their fellow crew, or their country. Let’s not even go into the lack of respect they show the taxpayers when we pay nearly $2 billion for each and every Space Shuttle launch. Or the fact that these people are supposed to be the heroes and role models of the modern age.

No, let’s just mention the hundreds of thousands of people who would like a chance to ride into space, but have no choice but to watch this select core of “professionals” flaunt their status by not even having the decency to do their jobs sober.

I wonder what Burt Rutan could do with $2 billion? SpaceShipOne only cost $20 million, and that includes designing it.