The Format War in Smartphone Operating Systems

The Format War in Smartphone Operating Systems

Name

Institution Affiliation

Date

The Format War in Smartphone Operating Systems

Executive Summary

In technology, superiority means comprehensiveness. For the Smartphone industry, there has been abrupt pressure for researchers to develop decisive technologies that are responsive to the nature of the market. The goal of every company is to edge its rivals in all means possible. However, Apple has edged its rivals in terms of releasing quality software and hardware. Apple offers decisive technologies way ahead of its closest rivals: Google is emerging as the market leader. This research will prove that the format Wars in OSs has forced Apple and Google to be responsive to the nature and demands of the market. The research will further clarify that Apple’s Os is widely being copied because of its versatility in responding to customers’ needs.

Apple and Google’s Android phone versus Windows and RIM

Recently, Apple reported that Samsung was copying feature after feature. However, the real battle has been centered on the formatting scale. Traditionally, Microsoft and RIM who were processing mobile-based operating system dominated the market. Nonetheless, on June 29 2007, Apple introduced the iPhone first-generation phone running iOS 3.1.3 and had relatively simpler features. In contrast, Open Handset Alliance (OHA) seconded by Google developed android 1.0 mobile operating system, released on September 23 2008. The two operating systems (iPhone and Android) have been realized ever since their inception.

iPhone and Google are beginning to dominate the market as determined and enhanced by various factors. iPhone, ‘which many consumers believe is the mother of Smartphone’, centered its campaign in developing a product that had a unique feature. This does not mean that Windows or RIM did not produce similar and competitive products, but iPhone placed itself as the mother of Smartphone innovation. The phone displayed superior features and was widely accepted by many users (Kenny, 2011, pp. 239).

Rivals copied Apple’s strategy

For subscribers, it came a time where mobile phone usage was expected to run superior operations similar to those in a personal computer or a laptop. Bellman (2011, pp. 193) argues that while a laptop may seem a superior device in operating basic and complex operations, it portability is still a problem. Thus, Apple developers envisioned a possibility of encouraging application development that operated on a junior device. This emphasis was vital since it encouraged the development of the mobile application that could handle superior operations comprehensively and hence substitute for a laptop (Bellman 2011).

In microeconomics, sustainability is the key. Selling a onetime product is not a desirable approach: this means that business has ended at that point. Apple is trying to achieve superior sales platform while the subscribers are capable of customizing their devices based on their tastes and preferences. With time, android, windows, and RIM have copied this strategy since it best suits their market. The goal is providing a comprehensive device that enables the usage of complex applications (Edward, 2010, pp. 60).

While Blackberry (RIM) and Windows (Microsoft) are developing applications in-house, android and Apple have provided developers with a remote app development policy by sharing the API with developers. App orientation is the key to mobile phone competition. In fact, in a real market environment, the number of free and commercial apps justifies the popularity of the product. Apple boasts of one million + apps; android has two million apps while windows apps store possess 160,000 only and RIM trails with 120,000.

Thirdly, in relation to hardware, iPhone and Google have managed to develop hardware compared to windows. Until recently, Windows or Blackberry phones did not pose superior hardware preferences compared to the list of iPhone or Google. For instance, the newly latest Blackberry Z3 released in February 2014 is heavily outcompeted by a rivaling phone like Sony Xperia Z1. While the Blackberry will supply the consumer with 3G technology, 1.5 GB ram, 8MP Camera, and 1.2 GHz processors, the rivaling Xperia phone will have a superior 4G technology, 2GB ram, 20.7 MP camera,’ and 2.2 GHz quad core. In perfect networks, the Xperia mobile phone can function as a router by reaching a speed of 42 Mbps. Additionally, iPhone and Android are managing to orient superior features; for instance, face detection, gear, and waterproof hardware.

Apple Sells the devices and the OS as bundle whereas Google does not make devices it Licenses its Android OS

The mode of launching the product was widely responsive to the requirement of the consumer. Traditionally, iPhone uses its technical personnel to launch a product and not necessary the marketing department. The reason is that Apple makes hardware, Apps and Operating System. In contrast, Google provided an operating system that could be operated on the several device manufacturers. Currently, there are well over six hardware manufacturers running Google’s android operating system. They are Samsung, Huawei, Sony, Alcatel, Techno, and HTC and over a hundred companies involved in merchandising of the technology. As a result, Google licenses its Os to various developers.

Thirdly, in relation to Application, iPhone and Google’s android beat Windows and Blackberry on a ten-nil basis. In fact, Apple closely being copied by android is attempting to achieve a liberal market in app’s development. For android, app development is completely becoming open-source. This reduces internal cost of hiring app developers and thus, the overall cost of operating a firm is reduced significantly. Secondly, open-source apps enable the request of creativity to the main app development. Edward (2010, pp. 60) further argues that while requesting internal programmers to make apps might seem a decisive methodology, it should be noted that the external users have the best opinion on what to be developed and what should be ignored. Since android is an open-source software, developers have heavily explored the apps, and to date, there are over two million apps (freeware and shareware). Google market is in Apps and not hardware, whereas Apple is attempting to fit in hardware, OS and App development.

Microsoft Merging with Nokia

In contrast, Microsoft with the Windows OS is a competitive hardware developer but fails to improvise create apps. Microsoft whose patterning with Nokia seems a lucrative strategy is still losing out in the App war. Until recently, Microsoft is heavily considering the integration of android apps on its own Windows nine mobile platform. On the other hand, Nokia through its recent release Nokia X, is demonstrating that market leader android seems a decisive strategy. This means that Microsoft are slowly losing out in the OS and Apps, and hence posing a significant danger to the future of application. Furthermore, android is proving viable because most of its open source developed apps can freely be downloaded from the play store with a minimal process. In summary, android and iPhone can be justified as user friendly.

Additionally, modern businesses prefer to operate their business on smart devices. For instance, a company ERP is preferred if the various users can log in at a remote platform and perform their services. Hence, the constrained Nokia/Windows environment is not appealing to app development. As a result, copying Apple/ android business approach seems a decisive approach in providing business with what they would prefer actively because of App compatibility. In fact, Apple in response to business needs provided the iPad. This was soon copied by the android, and windows tablet. The iPad/ Tablet is a proactive innovation that enables open source app developers to provide customized products to their subscribers. Now based on the nature of market, Microsoft and Nokia are heavily losing out. Thus, there is a need to develop more free apps by taking the apps development to open source markets.

Google Licenses its O.S to hardware manufacturers for free why this

In relation to the above argument, it is wise to note that Google distributes its O.S code to prospective hardware manufactures named in earlier sections of this report. The goal is to develop an OS that is compatible to several hardware platforms to enable creativity. Additionally, main market for Google is in Apps and not necessary hardware development. It should be recalled that hardware development is an expensive and tedious process, and it is better to relieve the central duty of developing hardware to more experienced hardware developers like Sony, HTC, Samsung or Tecno.

The Future of Smart phone market

The future seems competitive and more rapid. In ten years times, this report envisions complete independence of Hardware, OS and Apps. It will come at time when the consumer prefers to buy Nokia hardware and run an Apple operating system. In addition, the hardware competition will take a decisive strategy with developers opting to equate superior features on the hardware. Samsung gear seems the recent and most versatile piece of hardware; however, for corporate expectations, developers will need to go an extra mile. For example, an all rounded phone that has a projecting eye suitable for presentations.

Conclusion

This research has attempted to prove that Apple is being copied for its market leadership abilities. The research has well asserted that apps ‘ market is aiding Apple and Google to outcompete rivaling Windows and Blackberry RIM since an open-source apps approach enable various developers to use the OS API to customize their own apps, and consequently, resell them as independent software. In summary, Smartphone competition is based on the quality of innovation that each firm pursues. The technologies could be adopted or in-house made: this makes innovators examine whether the choice of the technology is responsive to market demands.

References

Bellman, S., Potter, R. F., Treleaven-Hassard, S., Robinson, J. A., & Varan, D. (2011). The Effectiveness of Branded Mobile Phone Apps. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 25(4), 191-200.

Chi, L., Holsapple, C. W., & Srinivasan, C. (2008). Digital Systems, Partnership Networks, and Competition: The Co-Evolution of IOS Use and Network Position as Antecedents of Competitive Action. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 18(1), 61-94.

Edwards, C. (2010). Tug of war as apps take off [mobile network]. Engineering & Technology, 5(16), 60.

Kenney, M., & Pon, B. (2011). Structuring the Smartphone Industry: Is the Mobile Internet OS Platform the Key? Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 11(3), 239-261.