I think you'll be surprised at what openness can do when it is competing on a level playing field (or close to it). In the second (16 bit) personal computer war, the PC compatible won not because it was better, or cheaper, but because it was more open than Apple, Atari, and Commodore machines. And, you can't get any more open than Open Source. The fact that the OS here is free for manufacturers, and very nearly as good in every way as the iPhone OS, means that manufacturers will do the marketing for Google. They have to market their phones already...Samsung tried to convince us that the Instinct was as awesome as an iPhone, and spent millions doing it. Nobody was fooled because the Instinct is a Windows mobile device, and it actually sucks really hard. But it won't be long before there are a half dozen really good Android phones, and at least some of those manufacturers will push it as hard as the Instinct was pushed. And, in the case of Android phones, consumers won't be deeply disappointed by what they see.
Microsoft didn't have to advertise DOS or Windows very aggressively to beat Apple, Commodore and Atari back in 1985 and 1986 (when the market leader for the next twenty years was being decided and it was all still up in the air) in the market. Their army of OEMs did it for them.
I agree that we are entering into a highly competitive landscape for mobile, device and gadget operating systems. In fact, there are more choices than ever and that is a good thing. With a long history (~13 years) Microsoft is going to continue to push forward with new versions of windows mobile, windows phone, windows ce, windows embedded, etc. They have a huge footprint in this space and from what I can tell are really taking the mobile OS space very seriously. They are aggressively marketing to OEM's an attractive licensing plan and so this will be very interesting to see how Google Android does in this new space for them. In the end, it is all good for the consumers as we get some really cool toys and gadgets.
But all of those early microcomputers were competing for the extreme market, the nerd market, the early adopters and 16-year-old kids (with rich parents or verrrry successful after-school jobs).
Android can't beat the iPhone that way.
Also, used a G1 much? Android sucks, it's hard to use even for a person who has a clue (aka me), and its touch UI is bizarre.
There's no way a soccer mom will buy one and then buy one for her spoiled tween, unlike with the iPhone.
Yes, I have two of them (developer and standard). I love it. The hardware is kinda crap, but the OS is awesome.
But all of those early microcomputers were competing for the extreme market, the nerd market
1986 was not merely the nerd market. It was also the business market. I think we're sitting at the very same point in history with smart phones (the point at which they become really useful and usable for a whole new class of user).
Anyway, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I happen to love Android. It's reliable, fast, and does everything I want it to in a very intuitive manner. But, not only that, I think the fact that Google is enlisting dozens of manufacturers to work on their behalf to establish and grow the platform is an unbeatable strategy, unless Google (and their partners) completely screw it up. Apple can compete with one company making a cool phone. Apple simply can't compete with a dozen companies making cool phones...because history tells me that the dozen standards based companies will be able to make them cheaper, faster, and occasionally better. Apple just can't be everywhere (and in fact, part of their plan has been to remain exclusive to one carrier...people like cool products, but they also like to have choices).
Microsoft didn't have to advertise DOS or Windows very aggressively to beat Apple, Commodore and Atari back in 1985 and 1986 (when the market leader for the next twenty years was being decided and it was all still up in the air) in the market. Their army of OEMs did it for them.