Logo

Android vs iOS: abierto vs cerrado o fragmentación vs integración, la real diferencia según Jobs

La última conferencia de Apple, desarrollada para presentar los resultados financieros del cuarto trimestre fiscal, le ha servido a Steve Jobs para hablar sobre el estado actual del mercado de los dispositivos móviles inteligentes y de los tablets.

“Los sistemas abiertos no siempre ganan”

Básicamente se enfocó en Android, el sistema abierto de Google, y mostró su optimismo de seguir liderando el mercado de los tablets con el iPad.

“no importa cuántas veces Google quiera etiquetar al iOS como plataforma cerrada, estamos seguros que triunfaremos frente a Google y su fragmentación”

Notar el énfasis de la palabra abierto al referirse a la estrategia usada por Google en la plataforma Android:
- Apple activa 275 mil dispositivos iOS al día, con picos de 300 mil. Google aún no ha anunciado más nada de los 200 mil ya conocidos y sus cifras no son confiables.
- Apple tiene cerca más de 300 mil aplicaciones en la App Store, mientras que Google 90 mil aplicaciones.
- Google suele vender a Android como abierto, mientras que al iOS se le ve como plataforma cerrada. Este Open vs Cerrado, es una cortina de humo… es lo menos importante
- La verdadera diferencia entre Android y el iPhone es la fragmentación vs integración
- Ya es conocido el problema de Android, la fragmentación. Diferentes dispositivos móviles, incluso de la misma compañía, se ejecutan en diferentes versiones del sistema operativo “fragmentado”
- ¿Qué es mejor para los clientes en integración vs fragmentación? La integración, estrategia de Apple, proporciona a los usuarios justo lo que ellos buscan.
- el iOS es como Windows, la mayoría de equipos vienen con la misma interfaz de usuario desarrollada por Microsoft y ejecutan las mismas aplicaciones… muchos fabricantes de equipos Android, incluyendo HTC y Motorola, instalan interfaces de usuario personalizadas para diferenciarse
- Los desarrolladores tienen que escribir varias versiones de sus aplicaciones para que puedan llegar a diferentes dispositivos móviles Android. En el iOS, los desarrolladores sólo tienen que preocuparse en ser innovadores en vez de escribir su misma aplicación en 100 versiones.
- En el iOS, la aplicación se escribe una vez y se despliegua a todos los dispositivos. Los usuarios no pierden al tratar de averiguar si es compatible con su dispositivo,
- Continuando con la fragmentación, Android tiene muchas tiendas de aplicaciones, incluso por fabricante móvil y operador de telefonía, esto es un desastre.
- El único competidor real del Apple en lo referente a dispositivos móviles es Android. Jobs dijo que RIM, fabricante de BlackBerry, ya ha sido pasado por el iPhone con y difícilmente volverán a recuperarse en un futuro cercano (cuarto trimestre: Apple ha vendido 14.1 millones de móviles iPhone, mientras que RIM 12.1 móviles BlackBerry)
- RIM tiene el reto de crear una plataforma realmente competitiva y convencer a los desarrolladores a escribir sus aplicaciones en esta plataforma… siendo preferidas el iOS y Android.

El audio de las declaraciones de Steve Jobs

[...]Transcripción de Jobs respecto a Google y Android

But what about Google? Last week, Eric Schmidt reiterated that they are activating 200,000 Android devices per day, and have around 90,000 apps in their app store. For comparison, Apple has activated around 275,000 iOS devices per day on average for the past 30 days, with a peak of almost 300,000 iOS devices per day on a few of those days. And Apple has 300,000 apps on its App Store.

Unfortunately, there is no solid data on how many Android phones are shipped each quarter. We hope that manufacturers will soon start reporting the number of Android handsets they ship each quarter, but today that just isn’t the case. Gartner reported that about 10 million Android phones were shipped in the June quarter, and we await to see if iPhone or Android was the winner in this most recent quarter.

Google loves to characterize Android as “open,” and iOS and iPhone as “closed”. We find this a bit disingenuous, and clouding the real difference between our two approaches. The first thing most of us think about when we hear the word “open” is Windows, which is available on a variety of devices. Unlike Windows, however, where most PCs have the same user interface and run the same apps, Android is very fragmented. Many Android OEMs, including the two largest, HTC and Motorola, install proprietary user interfaces to differentiate themselves from the commodity Android experience. The user’s left to figure it all out. Compare this with iPhone, where every handset works the same.

Twitter client [TweetDeck] recently launched their app for Android. They reported that they had to contend with more than a hundred different versions of Android software on 244 different handsets. The multiple hardware and software iterations present developers with a daunting challenge. Many Android apps work only on selected Android handsets, running selected Android versions. And this is for handsets that have been shipped less than 12 months ago! Compare this with iPhone, where there are two versions of the software, the current and the most recent predecessor, to test against.

In addition to Google’s own app marketplace, Amazon, Verizon, and Vodafone have all announced that they are creating their own app stores for Android. So there will be at least four app stores on Android, which customers must search among to find the app they want, and developers will need to work with to distribute their apps and get paid. This is gonna be a mess for both users and developers.

Contrast this with Apple’s integrated App Store, which offers users the easiest-to-use largest app store in the world, preloaded on every iPhone. Apple’s app store has over three times as many apps as Google’s marketplace, and offers developers one-stop shopping to get their apps to market easily, and get paid swiftly.

You know, even if Google were right, and the real issue is “closed” versus “open,” it is worthwhile to remember that open systems don’t always win. Take Microsoft’s “Plays For Sure” music strategy, which used the PC model—which Android uses as well—of separating the software components from the hardware components. Even Microsoft finally abandoned this “open” strategy in favor of copying Apple’s integrated approach with their Zune player, unfortunately leaving their OEMs empty-handed in the process. Google flirted with this integrated approach with their Nexus One phone.

In reality, we think the open versus closed argument is just a smokescreen to try and hide the real issue, which is, “What’s best for the customer – fragmented versus integrated?” We think Android is very, very fragmented, and becoming more fragmented by the day. And as you know, Apple strives for the integrated model so that the user isn’t forced to be the systems integrator. We see tremendous value at having Apple, rather than our users, be the systems integrator. We think this a huge strength of our approach compared to Google’s: when selling the users who want their devices to just work, we believe that integrated will trump fragmented every time.

And we also think that our developers could be more innovative if they can target a singular platform, rather than a hundred variants. They can put their time into innovative new features, rather than testing on hundreds of different handsets. So we are very committed to the integrated approach, no matter how many times Google tries to characterize it as “closed.” And we are confident that it will triumph over Google’s fragmented approach, no matter how many times Google tries to characterize it as “open.”

3 comentario realizado... y tú qué opinas?

Realizar comentario