Why we'll all soon forget about Google's Android

San Jose Mercury News (MCT) - Jui Tan, a partner for BlueRun Ventures who is based in Beijing, happened to be in Silicon Valley for a meeting a couple of weeks ago when Google finally unveiled the first Android mobile phone.

The international mobile market is a main focus for Tan and BlueRun. Which is why, when I asked him for this thoughts on Android, I was surprised that he shrugged and said:

"Coming to Silicon Valley (that) week was the first time I heard about it."

But isn't Android, the latest wonder to come tumbling out of the Google Innovation Factory, going to change the world? Or at least the world of mobile phones?

Nope. And Tan's response provides a little perspective on the immense hype Android has generated in Silicon Valley. Around the globe, Android is barely a blip on the radar. And that's unlikely to change.

Instead, expect Android to remain the latest in a long list of Google curiosities introduced amid great fanfare, only to quietly fade into the background.

To review: Rumors had been swirling for more than a year that Google was developing a phone to counter the iPhone. Not true. Instead, the company developed Android, an operating system that is open source and free for any company to use to build a smart phone.

That's a crucial distinction. Google is not building a phone. It's giving away software and encouraging other folks to use it. The first Android phone is being built by HTC of Taiwan and will be available from T-Mobile on Oct. 22 for $179. Early reviews were generally positive, though they noted the phone had a ways to go to catch up with the iPhone in terms of functionality and elegance.

Among those rumored to be working on Android-based phones are Sprint-Nextel, LG, Samsung and Motorola. There's also some chatter that China Mobile is thinking about selling one.

But there are several challenges I don't see Android overcoming.

First, it starts off way down the list of operating systems for smart phones. At the top of the heap are BlackBerry, Windows Mobile, the iPhone and Symbian. This last one is produced by a consortium of the largest cell phone manufacturers in the world, including Ericsson and Nokia.

And it was recently announced that Symbian will become open-source. Throw in the fact that a group called the LiMo Foundation is developing a Linux-based operating system for mobile phones, and Android becomes just one of three open-source options.

Yes, you say, but this is Google. To which I say: Yes, but this is Google.

The company has been churning out countless initiatives in every direction, but they seem to have no coordination. A year ago, it launched the Open Social initiative to counter Facebook. Heard anything about that lately?

Find the best Christmas presents at Catholic Online Shopping

Another more recent example: You'll have to wait a while before Google's new Chrome browser can be used on its Android phone.

CNET recently reported that co-founder Sergey Brin noted the two high-profile initiatives were developed separately. "We have not wanted to bind one's hands to the other's," Brin was quoted as saying. He went on to add: "Probably a subsequent version of Android is going to pick up a lot of the Chrome stack."

If you were developing two big products to be released just weeks apart, wouldn't you want them to work together right from the start?

And that leads to the next question, one that applies to Chrome as well: Why, exactly, is Google doing this? There appears to be no revenue model around Android. There's no requirement that an Android phone use Google search.

Maybe Google is just trying to make the world a better place. But given all these issues, if you were building a smart phone, how much would you bet on Google continuing to improve Android? And how long would it take just to get it to match the iPhone?

The last problem is a big one. To be competitive, Android must attract developers. Smart phones, whether the BlackBerry or the iPhone, are increasingly going to be defined by the applications that third parties build to run on them.

On the surface, Android has an appealing pitch: It's open source, so anyone can develop any application for these phones.

Sounds great in theory. But many of the widgets I've seen built for Open Social are fairly useless. And remember what happened to Facebook when it threw open its platform last year? Developers rushed in with a lot of trivial junk.

To its credit, Facebook reformed that program to use both the carrot and the stick to promote higher-quality applications. And while developers are often annoyed over Apple's restrictions for iPhone applications, having fewer apps to choose from is better for consumers.

Tally up this sizable list of hurdles, and I wouldn't be placing any bets on Android.

___

(Chris O'Brien is a columnist for the San Jose Mercury News. He can be reached at cobrien@mercurynews.com or (415) 298-0207.)

___

© 2008, San Jose Mercury News (San Jose, Calif.).