The Android fashion accessory

The Android fashion accessory

Summary: Android is expected to have strong growth in 2011. Is that a permanent trend, or a transitory shift in fashion trends?


I've long thought that computing devices you carry on your person are different than the beast stuck on your desk at work, or sitting in your entertainment center at home. Those devices are tools, and people identify themselves by their choice of tools about as much as they do by their choice of bookshelves. Granted, there are exceptions. People who know a lot about TVs may pride themselves on acquiring the most technically sophisticated model to add to their home entertainment center. Ordinary consumers, however, tend just to buy something functional and affordable.

Devices like mobile phones are different. As something you take on your person, it makes certain statements about you that a DVD player doesn't, but a brand-name pair of jeans or fancy handbag does. That's why I'm not sure if Android's upcoming sales gains should be viewed as a long-term permanent state of affairs. I would view it as more a transitory shift among consumers who now view Android as an exotic choice in a jungle where iPhones have become relatively common. I certainly don't see it as a permanent consolidation around Android as a platform, because smartphones aren't like desktop computers.

Think about the market for mobile phones prior to when Apple turned it upside-down. I wasn't very loyal to any one brand. Granted, I tended to purchase a disproportionate number of Nokia devices, but that might have been due to the preponderance of such devices at stores. Even so, I wouldn't stick with the same Nokia phone over the years, and I would intersperse it with another brand whenever it struck my fancy. I used to be a fan of Volkswagen, but now I favor Honda. The next time I buy a car, who knows what I'll buy?

Just as different brands of clothes move in and out of fashion, will smartphones brands and platforms move in and out of favor with consumers?

Network effects are the Mule in the psychohistorical ledger, to some extent (if you don't know what I'm talking about, you need to read more Isaac Asimov), but past trends do offer some support for the theory. If I'm right, though, then Apple is well positioned to thrive in such a market, with stores strategically placed in the best shopping locations. Proximity to fashion brands builds subliminal association, and Steve Jobs is the only person on Earth who realized it (well, at least was the first to capitalize on it). Best Buy might be useful venue for sales of computing tools, but in a world with shifting trends catering to those who don't strongly identify with the technology (which likely doesn't include any of the people reading this post), it isn't going to keep a brand strong.

On the other hand, a risk factor for Apple could be that there is only one style of iPhone. Though it makes life easier for developers, it does create little scope for variability. Would everyone in the world want to own the same model of BMW?

Granted, Apple is fairly religious about creating a new iPhone version every year, which is smart if you insist on having only one variety of smartphone device. However, their approach is a bit like being a fashion designer for Orthodox Jews (you can have any color you want, so long as its black). Fortunately, if that does prove a problem, Apple can create more shapes and sizes of iPhone, much as they did with the iPod. Though different form factors might make life more complicated for developers, it would allow consumers to express taste differences while remaining firmly in the Apple spacetime continuum.

If consumers do treat smartphones like a fashion accessory, it does provide hope for newer entrants, such as Windows Phone 7 (new with the WP7 platform, not new as a participant in the category), or lagging leaders, such as Blackberry. In Blackberry's case, Research in Motion needs to adapt to the changed nature of smartphone buyers. Though enterprises and businesses were once the mainstay of the smartphone market, those days are long past. Business spending will still move the needle, but people want more than a glorified tether to their worklife from a smartphone platform. Blackberry is moving in that direction, but like Microsoft, started life as a company focused on the needs of business users. That's a difficult DNA to replace.

As for WP7, clearly, Microsoft is late to the party with a consumer-focused offering. Even so, if party trends shift from year to year, there is an opening for Microsoft, provided they keep improving the platform and adding features that make them different. When Android first launched, its sales numbers wouldn't lead one to believe that it would be the "shiny new thing" of 2011. There certainly seems plenty of scope for tie-ins to other products in the Microsoft catalog, provided the company can herd the fractious cats who populate the competing divisions within the company in a common direction (as a former employee, I know that is no easy feat).

Clearly, focusing on Best Buy, or mobile phone shops featuring rows of hollow devices with paper screen inserts, is the wrong way to go about building a fashionable brand. Those new Microsoft stores popping up like slow-growing mushrooms across the US may be rather important to Microsoft's personal device future. They would, at least, give Microsoft the power to control its own marketing. Getting the marketing right is another issue entirely, and a company that was traditionally focused on business users has more barriers in that regard.

Some have argued that having multiple WP7 devices just splinters attention for Microsoft's new mobile platform, pointing to the clear and focused iPhone advertisements as an example. In the short term, the naysayers have a point. Marketing one iPhone is a heck of a lot easier than marketing nine WP7 devices. In the long term, though, having more varieties of the same underlying platform caters to more "statements of personal identity" than one device. If Microsoft can provide a degree of development consistency while at the same time offering the variety that leaves more room for personal expression, they can boost their market share, once they manage the right combination of features and marketing to catch that fashion wave.

Of course, as everyone knows, waves eventually dissipate. I think it is highly likely that the mobile companies that are popular today will just as quickly find themselves less popular as the fashion jet stream ebbs and flows.

Major brands are important, and if managed properly create certain expectations of quality and experience which provides them a strong foundation upon which to withstand the shifts. However, there will we never be a "Windows" of the smartphone world, in the sense of one platform that accounts for 90+ percent of the market for a particular computing product category. And, just as happens with clothes, I can easily see there being a lot more variability in market share over time, particularly with growing depth and breadth of functionality offered by web development environments. The more browsers can do on phones, the less you need to turn to custom "apps."

That's good for consumers, as it means smartphones could have a higher natural level of competition. That means staff lawyers won't have to spend their time fending off antitrust investigations. That leaves them free to charge after other private companies wielding patent libraries as jousting sticks.

Oh well...the smartphone gods giveth, and they taketh away.

Topics: Microsoft, Apple, Hardware, Mobility, Smartphones

John Carroll

About John Carroll

John Carroll has delivered his opinion on ZDNet since the last millennium. Since May 2008, he is no longer a Microsoft employee. He is currently working at a unified messaging-related startup.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • RE: The Android fashion accessory

    Great article!

    But why can't Android drive the fashion trends for the long term?

    Yes, consumers are finicky, so brands and platforms will move in and out of favor.

    BUT...I believe Android will be the most customizable and personalizable consumer product in the world.

    They, the so-called experts, say that consumers don't care or realize that phones run on Android.

    So, Android can fly under the consumers' radar for a long time and provide different fashion trends.

    Apple definitely can not please finicky consumers with one choice, no one will come close except Android and its many choices.

    What you said about Apple stores. They are still far from providing awesome customer experience.
    Who's to say that there won't be any Android theme stores. Maybe someone like JoeyAndroid will create a chain of next-gen Internet Cafes called AndroidCafeStation that will show the world things that Steve Jobs would wish he had thought of. JoeyAndroid has the experience, passion, and vision to combine Android with a configure-to-order model to create the Perfect Android. And he will use his experience with user groups and working at a school computer lab to provide unique services for awesome customer experiences.

    In closing, it doesn't matter if you are building a platform or a product, or a brand or a style; you have to keep up with the times and give people what they want.
    • RE: The Android fashion accessory

      The fashion clothing industry is driven by a desire for conformity at a high level, thus the massive markup on top of the line clothes. Lower end (you and me) clothes follow shortly thereafter at lower prices, but the large selection and lower prices prevent them from 'driving' fashion.
      Likewise, Apple products are driven by providing a brand for people willing to pay the higher prices to conform to; Android's customizability, plethora of options and general me-too-ness will allow it to outsell the iPhone, but not in a way that will drive the smartphone industry.
      In effect, Apple might not continue to dominate the smartphone market in the long run, but it will drive many, of not most, of the innovations due to the higher per-unit profits and cult-marketing strategies the fashion industry has used for ages.
  • Make hay while the sun shines

    My wife talked me into getting an Android a few weeks ago and I'm enjoying everything about it but the touch screen (I miss my mechanical keypad). I suppose it might be a flash in the pan, but Android is flexible enough and has sufficient backing (Google) that it seems unlikely to fade any time soon. Certainly I never thought I'd ever be tuning my cello from my cell phone.<br><br>I don't think I've met many people, though, that would view a cellphone as anything but a tool (even the women, but certainly not the men). It's a very useful tool, but it's still a tool. Admittedly, I've been away from Southern California for several years now and San Diego isn't Los Angeles, but I'd be surprised if cell phones were viewed as a fashion accessory by most people anywhere.<br><br>"Major brands are important, and if managed properly create certain expectations of quality and experience which provides them a strong foundation upon which to withstand the shifts. However, there will we never be a Windows of the smartphone world, in the sense of one platform that accounts for 90+ percent of the market for a particular computing product category."<br><br>"Thats good for consumers, as it means smartphones could have a higher natural level of competition."<br><br>I certainly hope no "Windows" emerges (fortunately Apple is somewhat self-sabotaging in that area), but I seem to recall that one of the themes in your defense of MS a decade ago was that the presence of a dominant system controlled by a single vendor was actually a good thing (something I've never believed). Admittedly, opinions change, and maybe there's something I'm still missing, but for a long time, I never thought I'd ever see you claim that the lack of a dominant vendor was a good thing.
    John L. Ries
    • Depends on the market

      @John L. Ries If user needs are well served by fragmentation, then people who worry about antitrust have less to worry about.

      The web certainly lowers the barrier on the desktop, and leaves more room for alternatives. That is the case on phones, and I think people WANT more variety than they want on a desktop computer.

      Microsoft created a common infrastructure that was absolutely necessary in the early to medium days of computing. Now, the web is serving as a powerful common layer. That might not make much difference on desktops (custom software still has strong value there), but make more of a difference in a market where the drive for differentiating from friends and family and colleagues is that much stronger. People don't want to wear the same clothes as everyone at work, and neither will they want the same phones.
      John Carroll
      • Dare I say it?

        The reason why the web lowers the barrier is because it is (in spite of MS' best efforts that got them into so much legal trouble... admittedly preceded by Netscape's best efforts), an open standard. Portability and standards (real ones) were always good ideas, not the "lowest common denominator" Bill Gates derided all those years ago, or an obsolete concept from the 1980s that long ago ceased to be practical. They still are.
        John L. Ries
      • Fair enough

        @John L. Ries: ...and I agree. What matters is the existence of a standard of some sort.

        Proprietary standards are still useful. They aren't constrained by universal compatibility, and can move way beyond them. Remember, the XMLHttpRequest object, now standardized and the mainstay of AJAX, started life due to work Microsoft did with asynchronous updates of things like OWA. That was "reverse engineered" (loosely, as merely the interface was copied, and we have the XMLHttpRequest object.

        Proprietary tends to live on the edge of what is possible, and standards follow as people have digested what needs to be done. That is good, IMO..and railing against the proprietary first mover misses the contributions they make.
        John Carroll
      • I should have known it was too good to be true

        @John Carroll
        Thanks for the explanation, but I think I'll continue to be part of the pressure for a more open software market (I like economic monopolies just about as much as I like political ones... not at all).
        John L. Ries
  • RE: The Android fashion accessory

    One nice rambling piece of work.
  • RE: The Android fashion accessory

    good info , thx for u! ok thats for sharing!

    <a href="">software developers</a>
  • Latest Fashions

    To watch more fashion accessories visit here
    • Latest Fashions