Open Question for iPhone and Android

Tinyfool's recent missionary work has been very hard (in virushuo's words: the classic position). Yesterday I published an article titled my views on the iPhone platform development ecosystem.
.

However, I am not familiar with the iPhone or Android, but I have all played with the machines of my friends. For people like me who only call and send text messages and get the most out of the Internet, smart phones are dispensable, A mentally retarded mobile phone is enough. So I am not very interested in both of them.

But since we talk about the open topic, especially about the Open history of PC, I 'd like to say a few words.

Tinyfool believes that PC development is not because of openness, but because of the absence of the CPU and operating system. But I don't think so.

Looking back on that history, we can see that it was because of the PC hardware architecture opened by IBM that caused the emergence of compatible hosts and finally caused the popularity of PCs. The so-called compatible machine is now the so-called shanzhai
. In addition, the OS was also open at that time, not MS is a single large, in addition to msdos in the market there are pcdos, COMPAQ-DOS, drdos and other pc OS. Even the least open cpu is compatible with AMD.

It can be said that there is no PC today without a shanzhai-we will know about the early fruits that are not open.

As for why IBM has not made any money, MS and Intel are obviously not necessarily related to openness.

Intel
This is because of the patent issue of instruction sets, and the technical threshold for having to copy the CPU is very high. In the later stage, amd also had its own extended instruction sets incompatible with Intel, while the 64-bit Platform
Not to mention that Intel's IA64 is superior to ia32 because of its compatibility issues. It can be seen that success is never guaranteed even when the standards are mastered, as long as one step is wrong at the key point.
What's more, Intel has made a mistake in Rambus's first battle without learning the lesson-Rambus and IA64 are relatively less open. Visible, not open, and more likely
Do not make money.

Like the PC architecture, the OS is home to the DOS era. The reason why ms is developed is windows. At that time, it did have a prominent advantage, so it took up
As for the Standard upgrade, Ms has achieved the actual monopoly of pc OS. Ms's success lies in its successful monopoly on PC
The OS market only occupies a monopoly position. It is possible to make more money by not opening up. This is the same as the idea of fruit-expanding market share, gaining a monopoly on facts, and then making money by not opening up. Not occupied
It is said that the monopoly status is not open before, and the consequences are unknown.

The failure of IBM lies in that it occupies the lowest technical threshold and is too easy to be copied.
That set of MCA is not compatible with the original architecture. In addition, the post-Development Technologies of PC architecture are actually developed by shanzhai manufacturers, and there is nothing to do with IBM. No matter whether it is open or not, IBM is always absent in the PC market.
What's the future, because in such a market with no technical content, it certainly cannot compete. It can only be said that IBM is not suitable for doing this, or to get your promising enterprise-level service.

It can be seen that the history of PC may not prove the success of the iPhone's non-open strategy as evidence.

If a program written on a Dell PC can run on Lenovo PC, what if a program runs on Windows and runs on Linux? From another perspective, some programs written on PC can also run on Mac, for example, platform-independent programs written in Python.

Tiny also said that the iPad can replace the schoolbag within five years, but I still think that the replacement of the schoolbag in five years is more likely to be a Kindle-type E-paper book-it is unlikely to replace the iPad, however, the copybooks have come out.

From shanzhai (compatible) PC to shanzhai mobile phone, history once and again proves that Shanzhai is mighty.

So what is the current success of the iPhone?

Before
As mentioned above, this is similar to Windows's success-not because it is successful without opening up, but because it has been in the past few years, fruits have been far ahead of competitors in terms of technology and creativity.
Hand. This brings a large number of users to it, and enough users can attract enough developers. Developing more applications will further expand its leading edge, this positive feedback loop pushes fruit from success
To be more successful.

But on the other hand, as tiny said, it does have a certain relationship with the hardware and software standards of fruits.

Why is the opening of a PC successful, but the opening of a mobile phone fails?

(This section has been modified)
I think this is mainly because the result of the Open Mobile Phone platform is full of flowers and lacks unified standards. For example, some people like the full keyboard, some like the digital keyboard, some like the full touch, but the PC has the keyboard (No
And so on ). The reason why PC does not have such a problem is related to the private nature of mobile phones. In most cases, PCs are public or semi-public-for example, a family uses an electric device.
Brain, school data center, Internet cafe ...... However, mobile phones are almost private, and few people share a mobile phone (the reason why the iPad and other mid have changed so much with the traditional PC is also due to the actual situation of such PCs
Strong private ). This means that the compatibility between mobile phones and mobile phones is not that important, so the world of mobile phones has been open and diverse from the very beginning, even on the MTK, a relatively unified shanzhai machine platform.
So. The diversity of mobile phones is a nightmare for developers. In contrast, the iPhone's unified hardware and software platform saves a lot of trouble-the fruit is like a PC. This is what tiny said before.
Reason-a unified platform saves a lot of effort for developers to develop fruits.

Another possible concern is scalability. In addition to memory cards, mobile phone scalability
Limited. You cannot insert a gravity sensor, GPS, or multi-point touch on your phone. Therefore, software dependent on specific hardware is not a problem on the PC. You only need to buy a corresponding device and plug it in on the mobile phone.
No. Therefore, the iPhone, which has the same hardware and software standards, also has an advantage in this regard-other mobile phones other than fruit cannot be like PCs, so they are not as successful as fruit.

But I still recognize
It is still very promising for andriod. In time, it should be able to solve all kinds of problems currently faced (such as implementing sufficient abstraction at the software level for application software development, then
Don't drop fruit, at least it can also be divided into competitions. Nokia's white market shares the largest, but it's not a general failure to make a scene like fruit.

I do not want
The fruit family has at least two reasons: first, I don't want a group of people to sit down and pull out their cell phones and put them on the table one day, and nine of them are iPhones, the other one is not next to the iPhone.
There is an itouch, and that world is really a cup of cake. Second, this is a personal hobby. I still like the feel of the keyboard. It can be a full keyboard or a digital keyboard.

Finally, I thought of Ruan Yifeng's recent criticism of Android. Unlike Tiny's opinion that andriod is too open to succeed, Ruan Yifeng believes that andriod will fail because it is not open enough.

This comparison is very interesting.