Andrews difference in the pain of innovation

Abstract: With the increasing share of Android and the evolution of system versions, handset makers are increasingly facing the same dilemma as PC makers. Product differentiation is only reflected in several areas: upstream hardware, equipment manufacturing, operating systems and application services, the current Andrews hard

With the growing share of Android and the evolution of system versions, handset makers are increasingly facing the same dilemma as PC makers. Product differentiation is only reflected in several aspects: the upstream hardware, equipment manufacturing, operating systems and application services, the current serious homogenization of Android hardware, but the software can not form a difference, instead of falling into a big circle of price war, which The plight of PC makers and the situation is similar.

Since you can not distinguish between hardware and software, then it can only form a difference in the system, which is also the original intention of Android open source. Because Android's open source, OEM manufacturers can be personalized custom, of course, these customization is above the system, otherwise it will damage its compatibility. For Android's "customizable" and "non-customizable", I think there are several reasons.

First, differentiating on the same platform is inherently paradoxical, just as Microsoft never allowed OEMs to make changes to Windows, and unscrupulous changes to Android would not enjoy Google services, and it's clear that Amazon has long been deeply involved Angered Google, Google exclusion in the open outside the Union, Google's Amazon customization is not a branch of Android, but not the problem of Andrews. At the beginning of Android, Google provided additional software and cloud services in addition to providing systems. It was not clear to people four to five years ago whether this was a big business, but now without them, basic Is a functional machine, in the opinion of ordinary consumers, have the ability to provide these services (except in mainland China), and only Amazon (assuming it) and Microsoft.

Based on the above background, Android mobile phone manufacturers can only differentiate customization on the system, but can not modify the underlying system, in addition, there are more reasons.

Most vendors are not good at software and services: the ability to develop systems requires high, not overnight. If the software services they add are really good, they will compete directly with third-party applications, so even if they are really good at the software and really do something good, they clash with other third-party applications. The crux of the problem is that the freemium innovation of the Android community does not need to be approved by the coalition. Well, in that case, Android manufacturers just add something to innovate, how to deal with those who can not uninstall the user's own application, why not give the right to choose to the user? If OEMs over-modify the underlying system, it will lead to terrible compatibility problems, many of the software will not run on the modified system. As the largest maker of Android camp Samsung, unscrupulous Samsung regardless of compatibility and modify the underlying words, it is estimated that no one to buy. So OEMs can only do that.

Differentiation reflected quietly changed place, from one to another (and possibly to a new layer), in the past, OEM manufacturers own software is often the core selling point, Nokia S40 is holding this selling point . But to the increasingly unified platform today, the level of differentiation has changed, manufacturers are unwilling to show their talents in the software, but also in the system layer, in the face Google has more voice.

There are also mobile operators that are struggling with OEMs. If time goes back to the year 2000, they will certainly be aware of the trend of mobile Internet. In fact, they are very accurate predictions of this great change, but they are overconfident in thinking The reform will be dominated by them, erroneously estimating the situation and moving the differentiated layers of innovation upward without any access. As a result, they face the same situation as OEMs:

Bad business operators they are good at these services, but the opponents do better than them, and many of the rivals operators have become pipeline operators, driving other people's cars, stepping on your road

Operators are in a much weaker position. The Internet is not at all a battlefield they are good at. They can not compete with apps that can not build a video-sharing site or a messaging app, even if they do, Opponents of the product buried. For example, there is a well-reputable water plant, ready to enter the business of Coke, it thinks there is a water pipe, a waterwheel, even if it can provide a great coke, it is only a different container of cola, essence or ordinary cola.

A vertical analysis of an industry shows that innovation can differ at different levels. In this great world, innovation can only be achieved by having one's own unique personality at one level. To this end, Samsung's layout of the upstream components can be described as well-thought-out, providing almost all the necessary components of their own cell phones, from the Exynos processor to the SA screen, Samsung can be self-sufficient, cost and personality advantages and opponents, and The opposite is Dell, diligently in accordance with the standard Wintel production stereotypes compatible, the main focus on efficient channels.

PCs and smartphones as terminals, systems are the most differentiating innovations that consumers face directly, and OEMs have been fighting system providers for that. This is a very tangled issue, it is necessary to be consistent with the system, but also reflect their own unique personality, it is difficult to measure. All in all, this is OEMs and operators who thought that this should be done by themselves and are now done by Google, which have their own grievances, in vain for system providers to provide plumbing and hardware.

There are still many OEM manufacturers to provide interesting differences in price and geographical location, many mobile phones hovering mid-range, but the emergence of more and more as low as 100 US dollars in the past two years, mobile phones, and geographical, operators such as Micromax, Karbonn Blu and Wiko are also doing well in their own country. In fact, this is also Dell's strategy, never join hands not good business, only focus on areas of expertise.

These make me think of Facebook, Facebook's integrated social platform by the smart phone vertically classified according to the social map, and gradually replace the traditional desktop dependence, Facebook built social platform, any software can choose Facebook as a pass, Therefore, those who custom service to kidnap users, although they provide great service, but indirectly deprived of other services with the same choice. Creating such services does not require too much power and does not require any type of company. Creating a win-win situation while providing good service imposes strict requirements on the type of company. Obviously, the portal provided by Facebook indirectly creates many excellent products , But so far no product has been socially applied to Facebook as a Coke for another container.