Pixel Pushing Monkey

I can't take credit for the title of this post, it's really just a part of the discussion on one of the TWIT podcast this past week (or was it the week before? I can't remember). Last week Google announced an astonishingly underwhelming software platform. I mean, it's not horrible or anything, it's just disappointing that a lot of people were expecting Google to throw their hat in a complete consumer product, rather than a half-assed promise to deliver some sort of product nine months from now which may or may not be any good.

Well, Google released the Android SDK today. The SDK was pretty impressive, giving us a good preview of the the OS user interface (via Engadget). However, one can't help notice how much the "mockup" looks like a Palm Centro, or any myriad of Palm or Windows Mobile device that's been available so far. One also can't help but notice how the UI takes many lessons from iPhone's UI. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I suppose, but didn't everyone expect a *lot* more from Google than just another software platform that looks just like any other software platform?

I listen to podcasts when I bike to work every morning (my form of reading the newspaper while having breakfast?), and one of the panelist on TWIT made a lot of sense, although I can't recall it verbatim (and I'm too lazy to listen through a one-hour long podcast to find the exact quote). Whenever Google can't conquer a market, they fragment.

Take for example, the "OpenSocial" initiative that Google just started. Google had their own social networking property (www.orkut.com), which was almost completely forgotten as a footnote to all their other services. Facebook became the monstrosity that overtook MySpace, which long before had overtaken Friendster. Orkut, however, was nowhere in anyone's distant memory. By introducing OpenSocial, Google is undoing Facebook's dominance in building web applets specifically for their service. In away, it seems like a move that benefits every developer, who can now develop for every social networking site (other than Facebook) and support many "platforms" at once. Of course, the "side" benefit is that Google has planted the seed that could possibly unseat Facebook from its dominance at the top, and also insert themselves as the tour-de-force of any social networking site that may eventually take the throne.

Taking a look at what they've done with Android, they've essentially fragmented any previous mobile Linux development, again inserted themselves at the helm of the movement. Furthermore, they've even fragmented the Java development community as well. CNet's Crave blog has a great post on this, which touches on some of the issues with Android's SDK and overall Java development. Of course this isn't all bad, since Java in itself is a platform that has failed to satisfy anyone. However, once again it shows Google as a very shrewd company at being able to project themselves as a kind, gentle company that can do no evil; and at the same time, position themselves as the titan that is able to undermine an entire industry in one fell swoop.

Who does that sound like? You know it, it's on the tip of your tongue, you know exactly who I'm talking about.

Yup, Apple.

Google's Open Handset Alliance is exciting, because geeky programmers around the world just all simultaneously orgasmed and are now struggling to hold their drool inside what is presumed, to be their oral cavity. To be frank, that was not my first response to the announcement. I had a really, really busy day at work when Google hit the press; so my first impression was, "Oh, there are some new info on the Googlephone, great!"

It was another day of soul-searching later, that I said to myself, "Wait, is that all there is to this news? That's it? Really? You mean, I didn't miss anything? I mean.. I combed through my RSS reader for hours and hours looking for more detailed information, something more exciting, something with actual substance.... and... really? That's it?" For at least a few hours, I thought I was caught in some sort of temporal anomaly and was missing vital information that Google has apparently announced to the entire world minus little ol' me.

The truth is rather, disappointing? Underwhelming? Indeed, the news outlets were positive on Day 1, and almost all universally speculative and introspective on Day 2. How many times have we been promised a "mobile phone OS based on Linux & open-source"? This harkens back to the Linux PDA days, and we all know how that went. The only difference between Google's announcement and all the other dozen open-source mobile OS initiative, is that Google has a lot of money. Shitloads of money. Certainly a lot more money than open source Linux companies that's been trying to figure out how to make any money at all by doing, anything and everything?

Of course you'll see an impressive list of partners, it's Google for god's sake! Everyone jump in the pool! The question is, how many of those partners really have any product development plans? How many of those partners will be looking for their own competitive advantage once the SDK is out? How many of those partners will actually, actively contribute to the initiative once they realized that they are at very high risk to put themselves out of business?

The answer for now is, "It's Google, they'll make it work." We'll see what develops in the coming months. I see it as Google just throwing a piece of SDK out there, and allowing the sharks to battle it out for supremacy. After all, taking this strategy really means they have very little stake in any particular company. It's a smart way to position themselves, as a software platform provider that doesn't really care which hardware wins out. If Sony Ericsson develops something great and put HTC out of business, so be it. If Nokia collapse (well, they haven't made a commitment to the consortium at all yet, probably a smart move at this point for them), it really doesn't matter to Google either.

I'm starting to see a bunch of executives & software engineers from companies gather at a coliseum built in Google's backyard (or maybe by naval airbase or something), and someone from Google is sitting atop in the Emperor's seat and just giggling at the bloodshed that's about to happen.

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the way that Google is going about this. In fact, it's probably the smartest thing they could do to get into the mobile device arena without actually becoming involved in it. The style just disagrees with me on a personal level. I like companies that design end-to-end solutions that satisfies consumer needs. For example, Tivo is a great company that threw themselves into the heat of the battle, and forever changed the way we interact with televisions.

That kind of a company earns my respect. Google's Open Handset initiative makes me wonder, "Is this just going to be a Linux version of Windows Mobile?"

Since I got my iPhone, I've been buying a lot of TV shows on iTunes, so I can carry them with me and watch them wherever I am. Most of the time that watching is done when I'm in my room, right before bed (I don't have a TV in the bedroom right now). However, the freedom of watching a TV show or a movie when I'm out eating dinner (by myself, of course, that would just be rude in the face of other company), or waiting in line at some place, is quite priceless.

So I was a little disappointed when NBC decided to have a bit spat with iTunes, and decided to pull all of their shows off of iTunes by the end of the year. What really gets to me, is how senseless the arguments the media companies are raising against Apple. This doesn't pertain to just NBC, but all media companies dealing with iTunes as a whole.

Think back to when Universal was negotiating with Apple for their new music agreement. Their argument was that they're not making enough money from iTunes Music Store, they want more control over pricing. Similar arguments has been brought up over the years with Apple multiple times, and they're all along the lines of more control over DRM, more control over pricing, more profit for the record labels. Time and time again they insist that they can't make enough money from iTunes Music Store alone.

Yet, look what happened these past few months. EMI started selling DRM-free tracks on iTunes, and doesn't seem to be hurt by it as much as bolstered by it. All the other studios started offering completely DRM-free tracks on Amazon MP3 that sold for as little as $0.89 per track, depending on albums (although the misconception is all tracks are available at $0.89, they are not. Most out-of-print album tracks are $0.99, similar to how such albums costs more than new releases at record stores). They have agreed to sell less restrictive & less expensive music on Amazon, meanwhile telling Apple this is precisely what they cannot ever afford to do.

Now with this NBC deal, they're complaining about revenue, about not making enough money. Same arguments as the record labels had with iTunes. At the same time, they're going to be bringing out their own video service that allows you to watch entire shows for free (albeit with advertisements) and even embed videos on other sites in a very web 2.0-friendly fashion. So now they're just serving up bandwidth and going back to relying on advertisement-based revenue models. Do they really make that much more money from webcasts compared to selling the shows? I'm sure the studios makes a huge amount of money from DVD sales of TV shows. Meanwhile iTunes' sheer volume may not be as much as DVD sales now, it is a developing market that will probably grow bigger over time as we steer away from solid-state mediums for media delivery.

Furthermore, NBC's little tirade about how much they've helped the iPod, and how they should get a share of that iPod sales revenue, is utterly ridiculous. Has RCA, Sony, Sharp and other TV manufacturers been sending part of their revenue to television stations? Obviously TV as a delivery medium wouldn't work without the TV stations. So why isn't NBC charging TV makers a fee for delivering their shows to millions of homes everyday?

We'll see how this whole thing plays out. In the end, AmazonMP3 might take over iTunes Music Store, but that's only because iTMS was there to pave the way first. Maybe Hulu.com will succeed, or maybe it'll be a massive failure. Whatever happens, the end result probably wouldn't impact iPod sales a slight bit. After all, no one's stopped buying TV's because NBC doesn't have any interesting shows on Wednesday nights, right?