Application Platform Strategies Blog

Why Microsoft Loves Google Android, Take 2

Blogger: Richard Monson-Haefel

Ed Burnette wrote a rebuttal to my blog post, "Why Microsoft Loves Google Android", which was high-spirited. Reputation bashing aside, I like high-spirited debates. My favorite quote these-days is, "Argue as if you were right, listen as if you were wrong" by Karl Weick. It's a good ground rule for any debate. It allows you to be passionate while also giving serious consideration to your opponent's arguments.

I want to apologize for my imprecise language in my original post. Ed’s misunderstanding of my thesis makes it clear to me that I didn’t explain myself very well, and I must admit that I used terminology inconsistently. I’d like to take another try at it, and this time I’ll make sure that I clearly explain the subtleties of forks, platform compatibility, and platform fragmentation. I also want to make it clear that I’m not trying to bash Android. I like Android. I’m just saying that Android is a threat to Java standards.

Is Android a fork?
First let me differentiate the Java Programming Language from the Java Platform. The Java Programming Language is a programming language syntax. The Java Platform includes the Java Language, but it’s much more than that. The Java Platform is a three-legged stool consisting of the core Java APIs (packages, frameworks, and libraries), the Java bytecode (the compiled, executable format), and the Java Virtual Machine (the runtime system that executes bytecode). Note that the language syntax is actually the least important aspect of the Java Platform. Other language syntaxes (e.g., Groovy, JRuby, JPython) can be used to write Java bytecode applications that execute in the JVM.

In order to qualify as a Java-compatible platform, a platform must implement all three of these legs as required by the Java SE or Java ME specifications. (I'm leaving Java EE out of this because it’s not germane to this discussion.) If a software distribution does not depend on or implement all three legs of the stool (APIs, bytecode, and virtual machine) then it’s not a Java Platform – it’s a fork. 

Android uses the Java programming language and some of the Java ME and SE APIs, but it uses a different executable format (i.e., not bytecode) and a different virtual machine (i.e., not a JVM). You cannot take Java bytecode generated using a Java ME or Java SE environment and execute it on Android. Therefore it is a fork. That is not a value statement; it’s a fact. Perhaps "fork" is an overloaded term these days. If there is a better word for implementing some, but not all, of the required parts of a software platform – any platform - then please tell me.            

Compatibility vs. Fragmentation
Java compatibility is very different from Java fragmentation, but the differences are subtle enough to confuse anybody.  The primary value proposition of Java is “write once, run anywhere.” Sun Microsystems and the JCP attempt to fulfill this value proposition through compatibility testing. When a vendor (commercial or open source) implements a Java standard, they have to submit their implementation to compatibility testing if they want to use the brand and say that the product is compatible. This is the role of the TCK, which is a required part of any JCP Java standard.  Android, which uses only a subset of the Java ME and SE APIs, and is compiled into something other than Java bytecode and does not run on a JVM, is incompatible with both Java ME and Java SE. 

Fragmentation is different. Fragmentation refers to what specific set of APIs a developer can realistically expect to find in any compatible implementation of a platform. Java ME, for example, is fragmented and the reason for that is the plethora of optional APIs defined by the JCP. A Java ME-compatible platform is required to implement the core Java ME APIs, but optional APIs are – well, optional. Vendors (device manufacturers and mobile network operators) are free to implement whatever optional APIs they wish and still be Java ME compliant. (They are also free to implement proprietary APIs unique to a specific device or provider.) The result is that applications that depend on optional APIs only work on devices that support those APIs. Sadly, so much of Java ME is optional that it makes it difficult to write an application that can run on any mobile device. But that is a different problem from compatibility. For example, RIM provides a compatible Java ME implementation for BlackBerry. The BlackBerry implementation passes the compatibility tests – no problem. But, Blackberry supports a subset of the optional APIs, plus it provides a bunch of proprietary APIs. A Java ME application that uses an optional API not supported by BlackBerry devices won’t run on a BlackBerry. Also an application written that uses a proprietary BlackBerry API won’t run on any other device. 

It turns out that the API fragmentation exemplified by the Java ME platform is just as bad for the Java platform as incompatibility. Microsoft is not only happy about Android’s incompatibility with Java ME and Java SE, it’s been extremely thrilled about the API fragmentation already found in Java ME. There is another major difference between compatibility and fragmentation: Fragmentation can be fixed within the Java Community Process (JCP) by defining umbrella specifications.  For example, the new Mobile System Architecture (MSA) is a Java ME umbrella specification that requires implementation of specific optional APIs in order to be compatible. That helps but it’s not silver bullet. Intentional incompatibility, on the other hand, cannot be addressed by the JCP. If a vendor, such as Google, wants to create a product that is non-compatible it can do so— it just can’t use the platform name (i.e. Java ME or Java SE) to describe the product.  Google doesn’t use the brands Java ME or Java SE; it calls its platform Android. It’s a non-compatible implementation of Java.

Is Android detrimental to Java ME and SE, and does that make Android evil?
I'm not saying that Java is some kind of holy ground and that competition with the Java platform is bad. Android is not bad like world hunger is bad. It's just not good for the Java ME and Java SE standards. The reason is simple: Android establishes a precedent that's at odds with the Java platform’s fundamental value proposition: Write once, run everywhere.  Android, because it’s neither Java ME nor Java SE, establishes a precedent for implementing platforms that use the Java programming language any way you please rather than according to the standards set by the Java Community Process. This has implications that go far beyond Java ME.

My main thesis is this: If Android succeeds as it is currently defined then the entire Java platform, including Java SE, is in trouble. Android's success sends a clear message: Standardization of Java is not important; Write once, run anywhere is not important. That's the antithesis of what the Java platform is all about. Android is not bad like world hunger is bad, it’s just not good for existing Java standards.

While Android may not be good for the Java ME and Java SE standards its impact over all could be very positive for the Java industry. Android will force Sun and the JCP to reconsider the Java ME and Java SE standards. It may even force the development of a new platform that is slimmer  than Java SE but not fractured like Java ME. That could be a big win for the Java industry in general. However, until that time, Android adds more meat to the confusing pot that is Java on mobile devices. This can only benefit competing mobile platforms such as Microsoft Windows Mobile.

Android also sets a precedent that is seriously detrimental to the Java Community Process. It asserts that creating non-compatible implementations, forks if you will, is a viable business model. If other vendors pursue this same strategy, the JCP’s ability to enforce compatibility and standards will diminish. Over time the JCP could be rendered completely irrelevant.  This too is a benefit to Microsoft and other vendors and platforms that compete with Java. Today, one of the Java industry’s most important competitive weapon against Microsoft .NET is the use of a standardization process (i.e. JCP) which enforces compatibility.  Without that, the Java industry is unified around nothing and becomes a mob of proprietary implementations rather than industry founded on a set of standards. Microsoft can compete much more effectively against a mob of proprietary products than it can against a unified group of vendors.

Update: Ed Burnett has posted another rebuttal to this post. You can read it here - he makes a lot of good points and its worth reading. Thanks, Ed!

Why Microsoft Loves Google's Android

Blogger: Richard Monson-Haefel

Note: due to inconsistent use of terminology this blog post can be confusing. It's been replaced with a new entry "Why Microsoft Love Google Android, Take 2".  It's recommended that you read that post rather than this one.

You won't hear Microsoft say this out loud, but secretly they are celebrating Google's contribution of the Android mobile phone platform to the Open Handset Alliance - at least they aught to be. Android is perhaps the best thing to happen to Microsoft since they won the browser wars in the 1990’s.  And given Verizon’s announcement yesterday that they will be opening up their network to any device and operating system that meets a "minimum technical standard" it seems that Android may have legs even if Google doesn't secure the 700 MHz spectrum.

Microsoft's biggest competitor in the software development industry has been, for the past 12 years, Sun Microsystems' Java Platform.  Starting in the mid to late 1990's Java began to gain mind share among developers in every area in which Microsoft has an interest. Today, with over 6 million developers (according to Sun) Java clearly dominates the software development industry.  Point in fact, Microsoft had to completely revamp their software development platform in 2000 to mimic the Java platform in order to complete; enter Microsoft .NET.  While Microsoft .NET has been extremely successful at winning back a portion of the developer community from the Java platform, Java has remained the darling of the enterprise and perhaps the most successful software development platform in the history of computing. Microsoft really doesn't like the Java platform very much. Java is Microsoft's biggest competitor in software development and is arguably the platform to beat. 

The Java platform and its standardization process are not perfect. A series of missteps by Sun Microsystems and the Java Community Processes (JCP) have contributed to the growing success of Microsoft .NET. The JCP which defines the Java standards has allowed the enterprise platform, Java EE, to become unbearably complex and has created an ecosystem for its mobile platform, Java ME, which is terribly fragmented despite its overwhelming penetration (8 out of 10 phones ship with Java). The foundational platform, Java SE, however has remained a strong competitor and has given up very little ground to Microsoft, but all that is about to change with the introduction of Google's Android mobile platform.

To put it bluntly: Android as it is currently defined is a fork of the Java ME platform. Android is similar to the Java ME, but it's a non-conformant implementation.  Android is not compliant with Java ME nor is it compliant with Java SE. In fact, it’s not really Java. Although it uses the Java programming language, the core APIs and the virtual machine are not consistent with the Java ME or SE platform - it’s a fork. This was first pointed out by Stefano Mazzocchi in his November 12th blog entry entitled "Dalvik: how Google routed around Sun's IP-based licensing restrictions on Java ME". Stefano missed the fact that Android does not properly implement the CDC or CLDC Java ME APIs (a minimum requirement for Java ME conformance) - but kudos to him for being the first to report on the fork. The fork has since been picked up in the blogsphere by others here, here and elsewhere.

The forking of Java is good news for Microsoft for a couple of reasons. First, from a marketing perspective the Java platform's greatest strength is standardization and multi-vendor (e.g. IBM, Oracle, SAP, etc.) support. In comparison, Microsoft .NET is a portrayed as a proprietary platform that locks-in organizations to the Microsoft platform. That's the marketing message which has been used by Java proponents for a decade and it has been extremely successful. But now, with the introduction of Android, the solidarity around the Java platform could crumble.  If Android, as it’s currently defined, is successful then Java will no longer be consistently implemented at a fundamental level.

Microsoft offers an excellent mobile platform of its own, Windows Mobile and Microsoft .NET Compact Framework. It's proprietary, that's true, but it’s consistently implemented and extremely powerful platform for developing Rich Mobile Applications (RMAs).  In comparison, Java ME is a standard that has a wealth of functionality and is supported by dozens of vendors, but its implemented inconsistently across mobile devices making it extremely difficult to develop applications that will "write once, run anywhere". If Android succeeds (time will tell) then Java on mobile devices will loose its hold on the market. Android may win, but Java ME will loose.  If I was in the Windows Mobile and .NET CF marketing department I would be popping the cork on a huge bottle of champagne the day Android is released. It's the best thing that could have happened to Microsoft's mobile platform.

OK, so if the Java mobile platform will falter because of the introduction Android, how does that impact Java SE? After all, Java SE is used for desktop and server-side development. How is that threatened by a mobile platform? Good question. Here's why: Sun has been moving toward unifying the Java ME and Java SE platforms for a while now.  This was pointed out in an excellent analysis by Caroline Gabriel of Rethink Research. As part of the evidence for her argument Caroline references a quote from James Gosling the "father of Java” in a CNET interview just last month.

"We're trying to converge everything to the Java SE specification. Cell phones and TV set-top boxes are growing up," Gosling said at a Java media event here Wednesday. "That convergence is going to take years."      

But don't take James Gosling's word for just take a look at JavaFX Mobile, which Sun Microsystems announced earlier this year. It's based on the full Java SE platform, not Java ME. In a nutshell Sun Microsystems isn't betting on Java ME for the long-haul, they are betting on Java SE.  After all, Java ME was developed for "constrained devices" with limited memory and processing power. However, as technology advances that label no longer applies to mobile phones in general. Smartphones are becoming powerful, if smaller, computers with complete operating systems, lots of processing power and plenty of memory. The era when mobile phones are simple appliances is coming to an end - mobile phones are becoming a complete computing platform.

The reason a phase out of Java ME and the expansion of Java SE to mobile devices is so important to Sun Microsystems, is that it meets Sun’s original goal for Java. It establishes a single platform for all computing devices. It makes excellent sense and improves the argument that Java is a standard consistently implemented across computing platforms. Sadly, however, by the time that happens Android may have already Balkanized the mobile Java community into Java ME and Android camps.  The “one platform to bind them all” party may be over before it gets started.

Assuming the demise of Java ME as a standard platform for mobile development is nearing and that Java SE will take its place, the question of a consistent platform across all computing devices becomes even more important.  How do you sell people on Java?  You tell them that it’s a standard used across mobile, desktop, and server applications.  You tell people that the skills your enterprise developers gain writing desktop and server-side applications will translate directly to the mobile platform. 

Unfortunately Android undoes all that. It tells the industry that Java is not consistent across computing platforms and that using the Java language, but not the APIs or virtual machine is just fine as long as the end result is a workable solution.  That leads us to the assumption that if it works for the mobile industry then why not the desktop or the server-side? Why can't other vendors introduce platforms that use the Java programming language and some of the Java APIs, but is otherwise inconsistent with the Java platform? What's the harm of IBM or Oracle having their own version of Java as long as it works?  You'll find the answer to that question in historical records when Sun Microsystems successfully stopped Microsoft from adding proprietary extensions to the Java platform in the 1990's.  As pointed out by Maureen O'Gara there is some irony here. 

“The sweet irony is that this greatest threat to Java since Microsoft should come from Google CEO Eric Schmidt, the guy who originally led Java development at Sun and signed the contract with Microsoft, leading to the Java wars.”

Java's greatest strength today is uniformity and ubiquity. Take away uniformity and you end up with many different kinds of Java and so there is no real ubiquity. Take away ubiquity and there is very little incentive to choose the Java platform over other options like Microsoft .NET. In fact, Microsoft .NET starts looking a lot more attractive because it is consistently implemented; not Balkanized. If .NET is just as powerful as Java, why choose a solution such as Java that is inconsistently implemented across vendors? The strongest marketing asset that Java has today, "write once, run anywhere" standardization, is effectively lost.

Android will be as fragmented as Java ME unless ...

Blogger: Richard Monson-Haefel

I've been researching Android, Google and friends answer to the mobile phone market, and it looks great until, that is, you read the fine print.  Google says that the members of the Open Handset Alliance (OHA) have all signed an agreement not to fragment the platform, but what does that mean?  It's hard to say without seeing the wording of the actual agreement, but if the API documentation is any indication it doesn't mean much.

According the the documentation the really interesting APIs such as those used for Location (e.g. GPS), 3D, Bluetooth, accelorometer, Wi-Fi, etc. are ... wait for it .... "Optional APIs". In other words, any given implementation of Android can pick and choose to implement whichever optional APIs they want.  This means that there is no guarantee that, for example, an application that uses GPS and BlueTooth is going to work on your mother's  Android compliant mobile phone.  In fact, I'll bet that consistency among handsets with regard to supporting these optional APIs will be poor. 

This should come as no big surprise to folks who do Java ME development because Java ME has exactly the same problem. Different mobile phones may implement the same basic Java ME configuration and profiles (at least CLDC 1.0 and MIDP 1.0) but they can also implement any combination of about two dozen optional Java ME APIs.  This is why Java ME is "fragmented" and its a problem that will occur with the Android platform as well.

The way to avoid fragmentation is to establish different stacks that specify a minimum baseline for Android phones that support optional APIs.  For example, the Android "Complete" stack would support all of the optional APIs.  Android "Advanced" stack would support some subset of the optional APIs. The Android "Basic" stack would support none of them. Once you establish standardized stacks you can minimize the fragmentation somewhat but it's still an issue. Java ME has these types of stacks starting with what is unofficially called GEN-1 (CLDC 1.0 and MIDP 1.0), the JTWI, and most resently the MSA.  With each new stack, or umbrella specification, Java ME gets tighter but vendors are under no obligation to implement these profiles.

If Android is to succeed it should offer only one stack. Otherwise what's the point of using Android over Java ME? Very little as far as I can see - they will both be fragmented and therefor impractical for mass consumer applications.

Of course, Google promises a much more open network but as I argued in a previous post that isn't going to happen unless Google secures the 700 MHz spectrum.  One advantage to Android: There will only be one implementation of the virtual machine and operating system - at least that seems to be the case. However as the Linux kernel on which Android runs is ported to different devices those ports may have small differences in exactly how phones carry out tasks close to the metal. Ports could diverge and inconsistencies may arise from one handset to the next. Another advantage of Android is the capability to change the look & feel (L&F) of the interface itself and to replace any application - even the basic dialer - with a third party application, but that will depend on the network operator. For example, T-Mobile, a member of the OHA, indicated that it will have some type of certification process for android applications running on their networks - you can bet that they are not going to give up L&F branding to third-party developers.

There are a lot of pieces that need to fall together to make Android more successful than Java ME.  Java ME  is shipped on 8 out 10 mobile phones today, but mass consumer applications of any value (beyond simple games) are just not practical.  If Android suffers from the same framentation problem and is far less pervasive than Java ME, then it doesn't offer a very compelling product.

I actually like the Android architecture and have high hopes for the platform, but the reality of mobile application development today in the mass consumer market is pretty discouraging - its hard not to be a skeptic.

UPDATE 11/28: ARCchart has published an article arguing that Android could eliminate fragmentation in the Mobile Linux world. It's a great article and while Android may resolve fragmentation in Mobile Linux it still suffers from fragmentation at the Java API level.

Google’s Android: A non-starter without ….

Blogger: Richard Monson-Haefel

If you missed the Google Android announcement than you are either not interested in mobile application development or you are living under a rock. In any case, there has been an enormous amount of speculation on the subject so I thought I would weigh in.

The Google Android platform requires a very different business model for network operators, which is why it’s a non-starter unless Google gets its hands on that 700 MHz spectrum they’ve been after. Here’s why:

Mobile network operators from China Mobile (the largest) to the Verizon (the close-ist) make their money from subscribers through contracts and, increasingly, value-added services. The thing to remember is that the mobile providers want, and usually have, complete control over the mobile network. They like it that way. Mobile providers decide what you see and what applications and content you can access. They are, in effect, in control of the entire channel. This is their business model and one that has proven enormously profitable despite its destructive impact on innovation in the mobile space.

Google’s Android business model proposes taking that control away from providers and giving them a new revenue model, one based on advertising and to a lesser degree data transmission fees. It’s a cool business model, no doubt about it, if you are Google.

Can you think of a better way to advertise your product than to put it on people’s mobile phone? Its right in their face and with personalization – don’t get me started on the privacy issues – marketers will be able to tailor adds directly to very specific consumers. Do a search for automobiles on your Android phone and you can expect to see an advertisement from a major automobile manufacture on your home screen next time you go to make a call. It’s a brilliant venue for advertising – perhaps the best ever devised. It’s like putting a personalized build board in front of every consumers face.

As I said it’s a great advertising model, but network operators are not in that business today. What Google wants is for the mobile network operators to do an about-face on a business model that has proven successful and very profitable to one that has potential but is unproven. Do you really think mobile network operators are just going to give up control? Although Google has buy-in from a couple network operators – think of it as insurance on their part – and mobile device manufactures, this means very little at this point. Google intends to share advertising revenue with carriers, but why should carriers share anything when they can control the whole market?

The only thing that will make the Android platform successful, as far as I can see, is if Google managed to win the 700 MHz spectrum that the FCC plans to put up for auction. If it does that, then you can expect the entire mobile economy to change very quickly and established mobile operators – in the US to start with – will have to change their business models or they’ll end up like CompuServe did after the introduction of the World Wide Web.  If Google can secure the 700 MHz spectrum, than Android will be a game changer – if they can’t then Android is a non starter.