I feel that these recurring analysis of the OS wars are always ignoring the main factor influencing the markets for these software which is that closed ecosystems are getting less and less competitive with open ones as core OS functionality is maturing and being commoditized.
When you buy into a closed ecosystem, you buy a product that comes with a leash attached to your neck. Because of compatibility issues, you pay now and set yourself up to also pay more later. You agree to give a vendor near monopolistic powers over you in the future. You will have to continue buying from their ecosystem unless you are willing to lose access to all your apps and a lot of your media or buy them all again.
Microsoft does this, RIM does this and of course Apple is the worst offender. A lot of consumers do not want OSs that tie a leash around their necks.
Apple being first to achieve wide success in the market of phones with near desktop level computing power are able to maintain a big share of the market because of a large population already locked in its platform.
RIM and Microsoft's mobile OSs, judged on technical merits, are probably as good as Android and iOS. However, Android has the huge benefit of not locking users and developers with a particular hardware or software vendor.
I'm pretty sure that if Android was not a mostly open OS it would not have gained more traction than the others. I'm also pretty sure that if iOS was released as an open platform, there would be no significant competitors other than iOS forks. Google and its Android partners know this as does Amazon to a lesser extent (although they force DRM on a lot of their content including apps).
In the long run, the only conclusion to this war that makes sense is convergence toward competing Android forks that allow people to change vendors or coalitions of vendors without losing all compatibility with their accumulated apps and media. That is unless the others are willing to open their OSs and allow competing forks like Android does.
When you buy into a closed ecosystem, you buy a product that comes with a leash attached to your neck. Because of compatibility issues, you pay now and set yourself up to also pay more later. You agree to give a vendor near monopolistic powers over you in the future. You will have to continue buying from their ecosystem unless you are willing to lose access to all your apps and a lot of your media or buy them all again.
Microsoft does this, RIM does this and of course Apple is the worst offender. A lot of consumers do not want OSs that tie a leash around their necks.
Apple being first to achieve wide success in the market of phones with near desktop level computing power are able to maintain a big share of the market because of a large population already locked in its platform.
RIM and Microsoft's mobile OSs, judged on technical merits, are probably as good as Android and iOS. However, Android has the huge benefit of not locking users and developers with a particular hardware or software vendor.
I'm pretty sure that if Android was not a mostly open OS it would not have gained more traction than the others. I'm also pretty sure that if iOS was released as an open platform, there would be no significant competitors other than iOS forks. Google and its Android partners know this as does Amazon to a lesser extent (although they force DRM on a lot of their content including apps).
In the long run, the only conclusion to this war that makes sense is convergence toward competing Android forks that allow people to change vendors or coalitions of vendors without losing all compatibility with their accumulated apps and media. That is unless the others are willing to open their OSs and allow competing forks like Android does.