If there are no compelling apps for Android, nobody will buy the phones.
This is just wrong. It's personal computer thinking from the 80's, and it just doesn't hold in the consumer electronics space. The phone is the killer app. Developers want it to be a "platform" because they want to be the next killer app vendor. But there are very, very few cases I can think of where we've seen 3rd party applications drive significant phone sales. It's certainly not true for the iPhone, which was selling like hotcakes for months before a (non-jailbreak) SDK was even available. The "killer app" is the browser, screen size, and touch interface.
I'm not saying people will never buy 3rd party apps, or that a great one won't arrive. But the idea that you have to have developer buy-in to have a successful phone product is just silly, and disproved by pretty much every successful phone over the past decade of consumer experience.
He's dead wrong. Apple's micromanagement of their platform makes it somewhat unappealing to developers. With Android, I'm not subject to some corporation's whims. If both phones had an equal install base, everyone would choose Android.
And with Android being available for any carrier in presumably all sorts of form factors (from cheap clamshell to blackberryish smartphone to full touchscreen iPhone-like) even just the base OS with a few killer apps (Google Maps, good browser, media player) will sell like hotcakes. Most of the iPhone's install base came before there were any sanctioned third party apps.
I guess I'm an anomaly, as I've opted not to buy an iPhone. I simply don't find closed platforms interesting. The PC industry has already shown us that open is dramatically better for consumers...why go backward?
The mobile industry is already atrocious, with regard to how it handles contracts and services and how it treats consumers, due to its close ties to the old telcos--the only way they know how to do business is abusively. Why make it even worse by choosing a device that enforces even more restrictions and costs?
I'm looking forward to a pay-as-you-go smart phone with Android (or Symbian, since it's now open source). That'll be my next phone.
I'm not an Open Source fanatic...but even Windows Mobile is more open than iPhone, which is pretty tragic.
The chicken/egg problem could be solved by simply supplying a few apps & features of the first phone that everyone wants. If you can hook consumers with one or two apps, then you will attract developers. More openness will also attract developers.
Android seems* to be attracting people who write apps for themselves, while the iPhone seems to be attracting people who write apps to sell.
It isn't yet known if having enough Type A developers will kickstart a pool of Type B developers. But if you are the kind of person who likes Type A applications (for example Firefox/mplayer rather than IE/iTunes - apps by developers for developers) then you are likley to be really happy with Android apps from the start.
This is just wrong. It's personal computer thinking from the 80's, and it just doesn't hold in the consumer electronics space. The phone is the killer app. Developers want it to be a "platform" because they want to be the next killer app vendor. But there are very, very few cases I can think of where we've seen 3rd party applications drive significant phone sales. It's certainly not true for the iPhone, which was selling like hotcakes for months before a (non-jailbreak) SDK was even available. The "killer app" is the browser, screen size, and touch interface.
I'm not saying people will never buy 3rd party apps, or that a great one won't arrive. But the idea that you have to have developer buy-in to have a successful phone product is just silly, and disproved by pretty much every successful phone over the past decade of consumer experience.