Просмотр

In 2005, on Googleâs sprawling, college-like[http://wsodownload.co Free Wso, Get Wso, Wso Warrior, Wso Marketing, Wso Offers, Wso plr, Wso Special Offer, wso downloadï»¿] campus, the most secret and ambitious of many, many teams was Googleâs own smartphone effortâthe Android project. Tucked in a first-floor corner of Googleâs Building 44, surrounded by Google ad reps, its four dozen engineers thought that they were on track to deliver a revolutionary device that would change the mobile phone industry forever.
As a consumer I was blown away. I wanted one immediately. But as a Google engineer, I thought âWeâre going to have to start over.â

By January 2007, theyâd all worked sixty-to-eighty-hour weeks for fifteen monthsâsome for more than two yearsâwriting and testing code, negotiating softÂware licenses, and flying all over the world to find the right parts, suppliers, and manufacturers. They had been working with protoÂtypes for six months and had planned a launch by the end of the year . . . until Jobs took the stage to unveil the iPhone. 
[http://wsodownload.co Free Wso, Get Wso, Wso Warrior, Wso Marketing, Wso Offers, Wso plr, Wso Special Offer, wso downloadï»¿]
Chris DeSalvoâs reaction to the iPhone was immediate and visceral. âAs a consumer I was blown away. I wanted one immediately. But as a Google engineer, I thought âWeâre going to have to start over.ââ

For most of Silicon Valleyâincluding most of Googleâthe iPhoneâs unveiling on January 9, 2007 was something to celebrate. Jobs had once again done the impossible. Four years before heâd talked an intransigent music industry into letting him put their catalog on iTunes for ninety-nine cents a song. Now he had convinced a wireless carÂrier to let him build a revolutionary smartphone. But for the Google[http://wsodownload.co Free Wso, Get Wso, Wso Warrior, Wso Marketing, Wso Offers, Wso plr, Wso Special Offer, wso downloadï»¿] Android team, the iPhone was a kick in the stomach. 

âWhat we had suddenly looked just so . . . nineties,â DeSalvo said. âItâs just one of those things that are obvious when you see it.â

***

The cell phone industry in 2005 was the perfect example of a hairy Google-size problem. The software industry for mobile phones was one of the most dysfunctional in all technology. There wasnât enough wireless bandwidth for users to surf the Internet on a phone without frustration. Phones werenât powerful enough to run anything but rudimentary software. But the biggest probÂlem, as Jobs had learned, was that the industry was ruled by an oligopoly: Few companies besides the carriers and the phone makers were writing software for phones, and what existed was terrible. Wireless bandwidth would improve and phone chips would get more powerful; but back then it looked as if the carriÂers and phone makers would control it all.
âWe had a closet full of over 100 phones [that we were developing software for], and we were building our software pretty much one device at a time.â

âWe had done a deal with Vodafone [the big European carrier] to try to get Google search on their phones,â said one top Google executive who would not give his name. âBut the search they offered us was that we could put some results on, but that they would control most of them, and that our results would be at the bottom of every query. They didnât have a good mobile browser. Ring-tones [that they were selling] sometimes got prioritized in search results. All the carriers were doing this. They thought they could provide all the services inside a walled garden [as AOL had in the 1990s], and that this control was the best way to make money.â
The reason few developers built software for mobile phones was because anytime they tried, they lost money. There was no standardization in the industry. Virtually every phone ran its own software and set of applications, meaning software written for a Samsung phone often wouldnât run on a Motorola phone, which wouldnât run on a Nokia. Software platforms  were incompatible even within companies. For example, there were a handful of different versions of Symbian. Put simply, the mobile industry screamed âmoney pitâ to any enterprising developer. Most stayed away. The most lucrative business was not writing apps for phones. It was owning a testing company that would make sure  your apps worked on all the phones in the market. Larry Page has never been shy talking about how frustrating those days were for him and Google.
 
âWe had a closet full of over 100 phones [that we were developing software for], and we were building our software pretty much one device at a time,â he said in his 2012 report to shareÂholders. In various remarks over the years he has described the experience as both âawfulâ and âincredibly painful.â
 
On smartphones, few rules governed how fiercely Microsoft could compete. It didnât have a monopoly.
 
But Page and the rest of Googleâs executives knew that someÂone would figure out the mobile business eventually, and they were particularly concerned that that company would be Microsoft. Back then, Microsoft was still the richest and most powerful technology company in the world, and it was finally getting tracÂtion with its Windows CE mobile phones and software. Windows CE smartphones  were still a niche market, but if consumers took to the platform en masse as they did later with the iPhone, Googleâs entire business could be in jeopardy.
 
This wasnât an exaggeration. Back then, Microsoft and Google were in the midst of a nasty battle of their own for dominance in search, and for top dog in the tech world. After two decades of being the first-choice workplace of top engineering talent, Microsoft was now losing many of those battles to Google. Chairman Bill Gates and CEO Steve Ballmer had made it clear they took Googleâs challenge personally. Gates seemed particularly affected by it. Once or twice he made fun of the way Page and his Google cofounder Sergey Brin dressed. He said their search engineâs popularity was âa fad.â Then, in the same breath he would issue the ultimate compliment saying that of all his competitors over the years Google was the most like Microsoft.
 
Google executives were convinced that if Windows on mobile devices caught on, Microsoft would interfere with usersâ access to Google search on those devices in favor of its own search engine. The U.S. governmentâs successful antitrust trial against Microsoft in the 1990s made it difficult for the company to use its monopoly on desktops and laptops to bully competitors. It could not, for example, make Microsoftâs the default search engine in Windows without giving users a choice between its search engine and those from Google, Yahoo, and others.
 
However, on smartphones, few rules governed how fiercely Microsoft could compete. It didnât have a monopoly there. Google worried that if Microsoft made it hard enough to use Google search on its mobile devices and easy enough to use Microsoft search, many users would just switch search engines. This was the way Microsoft killed Netscape with Internet Explorer in the 1990s. If users stopped using Googleâs search engine and began using a competitorâs such as Microsoftâs, Googleâs business would quickly run aground. Google made all its money back then from the search ads that appeared next to its search results. âItâs hard to relate to that [fear of Microsoft] now, but at the time we were very concerned that Microsoftâs mobile strategy would be successful,â Schmidt said in 2012 during testimony in the Oracle v. Google copyright trial. 
 

***

On the day Jobs announced the iPhone, the director of the Android team, Andy Rubin, was six hundred miles away in Las Vegas, on his way to a meeting with one of the myriad handset makers and carriers that descend on the city for the Consumer Electronics Show. He reacted exactly as DeSalvo predicted. Rubin was so astonished by what Jobs was unveiling that, on his way to a meeting, he had his driver pull over so that he could finish watching the webcast.

âHoly crap,â he said to one of his colleagues in the car. âI guess weâre not going to ship that phone.â

What the Android team had been working on, a phone code-named Sooner, sported software that was arguably more revoluÂtionary than what had just been revealed in the iPhone. In addition to having a full Internet browser, and running all of Googleâs great web applications, such as search, Maps, and YouTube, the software was designed not just to run on Sooner, but on any smartphone, tablet, or other portable device not yet conceived. It would never need to be tethered to a laptop or desktop. It would allow multiÂple applications to run at the same time, and it would easily conÂnect to an online store of other applications that Google would seed and encourage. By contrast, the iPhone needed to connect to iTunes regularly, it wouldnât run more than one application at a time, and in the beginning it had no plans to allow anything reÂsembling an application store.
âWe knew that Apple was going to announce a phone. Everyone knew that. We just didnât think it would be that good.â

However, the Sooner phone was ugly. It looked like a Black-Berry, with a traditional keyboard and a small screen that wasnât touch-enabled. Rubin and his team, along with partners HTC and T-Mobile, believed consumers would care more about the great software it contained than its looks. This was conventional wisdom back then. Revolutionary phone designs rarely succeeded. The Nokia N-Gage, which in 2003 tried to combine a gaming system with a phone and email device, often gets mentioned here. RIM had become one of the dominant smartphone makers on the planet by making BlackBerryâs unadorned functionality one of its main selling points: you got a phone, an incredible keyÂboard,  secure email, all in one indestructible package.

The iPhone, in contrast, was not only cool looking, but it used those cool looks to create entirely new ways to interact with a phoneâways that Android engineers either hadnât thought posÂsible or had considered too risky. By using a virtual keyboard and replacing most real buttons with software-generated buttons on a big touchscreen, every application could now have its own unique set of controls. Play, Pause, and Stop buttons only appeared if you were listening to music or watching video. When you went to type a web address into the browser, the keyboard appeared, but it disappeared when you hit Enter. Without the physical keyboard taking up half the phone, the iPhone had a screen twice the size of virtually every other phone on the market. It all worked the same way whether the user held the phone in portrait or landscape mode. Apple had installed an accelerometer to use gravity to tell the phone how to orient the screen.

A lot was wrong with the first iPhone too. Rubin and the AnÂdroid teamâalong with many othersâdid not think users would take to typing on a screen without the tactile feedback of a physiÂcal keyboard. That is why the first Android phoneâthe T-Mobile G1 from HTC, nearly two years laterâhad a slide-out keyboard. But what was also undeniable to the Android team was that they had underestimated Jobs. At the very least, Jobs had come up with a new way of interacting with a deviceâ with a finger instead of a stylus or dedicated buttonsâand likely a lot more. âWe knew that Apple was going to announce a phone. Everyone knew that. We just didnât think it would be that good,â said Ethan Beard, one of Androidâs early business development executives.

Within weeks the Android team had completely reconfigured its objectives. A phone with a touchscreen, code-named Dream, that had been in the early stages of development, became the focus. Its launch was pushed out a year until fall 2008. Engineers started drilling into it all the things the iPhone didnât do to differentiate their phone when launch day did occur. Erick Tseng, then Androidâs project manager, remembers suddenly feeling the nervous excitement of a pending public performance. Tseng had joined Google the year before out of Stanford business school after Eric Schmidt, himself, sold him on the promise of Android.

âI never got the feeling that we should scrap what we were doingâthat the iPhone meant game over. But a bar had been set, and whatever we decided to launch, we wanted to make sure that it cleared the bar.â
[http://wsodownload.co Free Wso, Get Wso, Wso Warrior, Wso Marketing, Wso Offers, Wso plr, Wso Special Offer, wso downloadï»¿]