Whether the hardware manufacturers can reverse attack platform manufacturers

Absrtact: An article hardware manufacturer's reverse attack destined to be reactive, expressed such a view: Samsung as the representative of the hardware manufacturers can not really threaten platform manufacturers. The next day, the low-key bystander writing article without the support of hardware vendors, the operating system can

An article "Hardware manufacturers of the reverse attack is doomed to no work," expressed the view that "Samsung to represent the hardware manufacturers can not really threaten the platform manufacturers." The next day, the low-key bystander wrote "Without the support of hardware vendors, can the operating system succeed?" "To refute. In the comments section of the latter article I also commented on the view of the evening. Limited by space, comments cannot be exhaustive. Therefore, the paper reviews the history of mobile phone hardware and platform, and discusses the ability of hardware manufacturers to counter attack platform manufacturers.

First, the former "Apple era" hardware and platform

Mobile phone platform is not a very new concept, far from analog signal and GSM era, mobile phone manufacturers have their own software platform, or the quasi operating system-Symbian system predecessor EPOC released in 1980. But the importance of the platform is fully revealed by the advent of smartphones, because smartphones ' "smart" is largely embodied in software. To develop, install, and run a large number of software in the mobile phone, there must be a low-level software to describe or mask the hardware details of the handset, and to dispatch the hardware resources and software tasks, the underlying software is the operating system, or platform.

Prior to the advent of the iphone, the famous smartphone platform included Symbian, Windows Mobile (WM), BlackBerry OS (BlackBerry System), Palm OS and Linux. The platform of this era has the following characteristics:

1. Most of them are introduced by hardware vendors, and the platform and hardware are closely combined.

2. Platform is less open, platform manufacturers are very concerned about the control of the platform;

3. Initially have the idea of building platform ecology, focus on Third-party software support;

4. The software channel is very confusing, or there is no official software store, or the impact of the software store is very small.

The only other is the WM,WM-Microsoft, a pure software company that does not produce any phone hardware. This can be said to be a platform manufacturer reverse attack hardware manufacturers case.

Ii. hardware and platform in Apple era

The launch of Apple's iphone has upended all previous hardware and platform vendors and "redefined smartphones". But Apple is not a different number, it is only the previous platform + hardware natural development. The key to Apple's success is that the product itself is innovative in its unique software and hardware genes, not the hardware or the platform. The Apple platform has the following features:

1. Hardware and software highly integrated, only their own hardware to use their own platform, and vice versa;

2. The platform is completely closed, Apple has full control over the platform;

3. Pay attention to the platform ecology, attaches great importance to the third party software and downstream supporting products;

4. Almost complete control of the software channel, focusing on the unified experience of software.

Iii. Real Differences: Android

The innovation of Apple products swept the market, many mobile phone manufacturers at a time helpless. In this case, Android rushed in, and early on, it had almost no advantage in terms of performance and experience. But Android is free, open, and Google is the big backer, so the handset makers take refuge in Android not because the platform is excellent, just because there is no other Low-cost platform to choose from. In fact, Android is only a semi-finished product bought by Google, in the process of development, the semi-finished products in many of the plans were pushed back again. A large number of mobile phone manufacturers in the selection of Android, but also for the Android contribution to the technical force, to help Google gradually build up and improve the Android system. This causes the current status of the Android platform:

1. High separation of hardware and software, operation of Android system hardware, the model of the complex, far more than all previous mobile phone platforms;

2. The platform is almost completely open, coupled with the high separation of hardware and software in front, which makes it hard for Google to really control the platform, and mobile phone manufacturers are not only users of Android, but also the Android system itself developers, can be said that Android is Google led by the "Open Cell Phone alliance" shared a platform, Google does not have the sole right to decide on the platform;

3. Attach importance to the platform ecology and attach great importance to the third party software;

4. The software channel is confusing, Google has its own official software store, but censorship is not strict, Third-party software stores are countless.

Whose success has Android replicated?

As a mobile phone platform, Android is a completely disconnected from the hardware (WM to the hardware also have strict requirements), but as a general platform, it is actually copying the success of Windows. The success of Windows is a high degree of separation of hardware and software, and almost all PCs can install, run Windows, and bring a consistent experience to the user. But the overwhelming success of Windows on the PC side was built on two important facts: 1 The high standardization of hardware products and 2 the strict normalization of hardware-driven interfaces. As a result, Microsoft, as a platform-only manufacturer, hardly produces any PC hardware, but can exert powerful control over its hardware manufacturers.

Against Android, it replicates the first step of windows, but cannot replicate the second step. Because the handset is always personalized very strong merchandise, hard to achieve a high standard of hardware products, but also more difficult to achieve hardware-driven interface of strict standardization. A person with a bit of computer knowledge can assemble a PC with a screwdriver and install Windows to run smoothly; an X-ray cell phone engineer cannot assemble a cell phone alone and install an Android boot, which is a testament.

Therefore, for the time being, the success of Windows on the PC side cannot be replicated to the handset side. Or, according to current thinking, Google has neither the ability to really solve the problem of fragmentation nor to gain substantial control over Android platforms and hardware makers. Andrew can only be a big coalition of the warlords, and the biggest danger of the alliance is a powerful vassal, seeking to confront the leader, to establish their own hegemony.

There is no doubt that the potential candidate for this vassal is Samsung.

Platform important, but not unique

The Symbian platform was a huge success, as was the WM platform, but they were all overturned by a later person. It is hard to say that Apple's success depends on the platform, because Apple does not authorize its own platform for others to use, do not know whether the platform out of the Apple hardware can achieve the same success; it's hard to say it depends on hardware, because Apple's hardware is exquisite It's also impossible to know what the Apple hardware will be like on other platforms. The industry is recognized: Apple's success depends on the integration of software and hardware innovative experience, hardware and platform inseparable.

Apple's case also shows: "Only with users directly at the system level of the long time to deal with the platform manufacturers can have enough sense of smell to deep grasp of the demand from users" is not tenable: Apple did not have a mobile platform before, and rely on what "with users directly at the system level over the ages? As for" Like Apple, the upstream-and-all business, only standing in the industry to create a period to capture refresh user awareness, education, consumer market opportunities, the previous history shows that the smartphone before the advent of the iphone has existed, the creation of smartphones even if not the era of Saipan, is generally considered a WM-era. The advent of the iphone only propelled smartphones into the popular era.

So history tells us nothing. The combination of the soft and hard Symbian has been the soft and hard separation of the WM threat, while the two are soft and hard one of the Apple subversion, Apple was soft and hard separate Android reverse attack. The brief history is only in circulation, without clear clues. This may be because there is nothing to look at only the platform.

Is the platform naturally superior to hardware?

The previous historical review, just want to explain theoretically, think from the historical experience can get: "The hardware manufacturer's reverse attack is doomed to be reactive and return" the conclusion is not tenable, the history does not exist pure hardware manufacturer attempt to reverse attack platform manufacturer's fact, also does not matter "the historical experience". And an important argument: "Smart phone is a highly mature, technology-oriented market to the service-oriented market, ... (So the hardware manufacturers are trying to) rely on a short period of time to replace the monopolistic position of the user's choice of platform goals, is not the case. "From an innovative perspective, this subversion is more appropriate to go from the top down." "There is also a point of discussion.

In terms of trends in IT development, software and services overwhelm hardware and production, which was a clear clue. Only this clue exists in the PC industry--PC hardware manufacturers have withered is a proof. But that does not mean that hardware vendors are more difficult to penetrate into software than software vendors have to penetrate hardware, the famous IBM case is a testament to the shift from hardware to software and services that began in the Gerstner era (the 90 's), and now (to 2011) its software and services revenue has reached 80% per cent, Days are better than most software and hardware companies.

And in the mobile phone industry, the assertion that software and services will overwhelm hardware and production is broken by "redefining smartphones"-as mentioned earlier, industry insiders agree that hardware-software integration (or one) is the right path, relying on hard-ware to capture the market and gain a premium on software and services. For Apple and Samsung, it's hard to say whether software is more important or more important, and if "software is more important," Why didn't other Android vendors succeed like Samsung?

In this context, what evidence do we have to prove that "from an innovative perspective, this subversion is more suitable for the Top-down"?

Can Samsung succeed?

Smartphones are far from being as mature as PCs, and at best it is still in the PC's the 1990s (because it is far from being standard and may never reach this state), and winner is unknown. If at this time a hardware company like IBM at that time, the power of software and services, to achieve the advantages of software and hardware integration, may not be able to replicate the success of Apple and reverse attack on the Android platform, at least theoretically can not be strongly prohibited.

Specifically to Samsung, can it attack Android? Simply put: It's possible, but it's difficult. The reason is: its success depends more on the hardware, or on the soft and hard integration of software Short board. But it should also be seen that its short board in software is not necessarily bigger than Google's hardware short board--Google may not be able to take on a decisive overall advantage. Of course, Samsung needs to strengthen its own short board, which requires continuous high-intensity exerting force. To build their own software genes to match the hardware capabilities, not overnight things, IBM after nearly 10 years to complete this transformation. In the process of any mishap may lead to naught, so can only say that it is possible, but very difficult, the future depends on Samsung's originality and determination, but not necessarily "doomed hopeless."

Viii. Conclusion

To discuss whether the hardware manufacturers can reverse attack platform manufacturers, implied an important prerequisite, that is, in a very long period of time, we believe that the mobile phone world is software-led, or software and hardware-led integrated?

If the former, the conclusion is of course impossible, if the latter, the conclusion is naturally possible. The disagreement is not the conclusion, but the presupposition.

So, the statement is complete.