Apple held an event yesterday to showcase some upgrades to products–most notably a new version of OS X and an upgraded Air. But instead of rehashes of product announcements I’d like to look at a few things Steve Jobs said during a conference call earlier this week, which provided a little more insight into Apple and Jobs’ own opinions on some trending issues. Quotes are taken from the transcript at Mac Daily News.

The Infamous Open vs. Integrated Debate

The first thing most of us think about when we heard the word ‘open’ is Windows, which is available on a variety of devices. Unlike Windows, however, where most PCs have the same user interface and run the same apps, Android is very fragmented. Many Android OEMs including the two largest, HTC and Motorola, install proprietary user interfaces to differentiate themselves from the commodity Android experience. The user is left to figure it all out.

Jobs (and many other people) seem to miss the point of Android’s “openness”. The definition of “open” (aka “open-source”) means simply that the source code is available to anybody for free, to download, tweak, and use. This is exactly what Android head Andy Rubin was referencing in his now-famous first tweet. The points that Jobs brings up are indeed true: Android is very fragmented (probably the biggest problem for Android at this point) and OEM proprietary software does confuse (and annoy) users. However, these are some of the problems with such an open product. The fragmentation comes from Google’s lack of control over each manufacturing company and how they use Android. Google is only in charge of working on the OS itself, fixing bugs and releasing the software whenever it is ready. They allow the manufacturers to basically do anything they want with the Android OS. However, all the phone manufacturing companies all over the world are simply unable to keep up with the pace of each release and update, opting instead to focus on a major release, tweaking it for their specific hardware, and worrying about the updates later. This is also true for app developers, who don’t have the resources to develop for every new Android release, a point which Jobs also referenced. This is why so many phones have Android 1.6 and 2.1/2.2, and why some apps only work with 2.2 or higher (the offical Twitter app, for one). Even though many phones are still running Android 1.6, why would Twitter waste resources developing for a dead-in-the-water version of Android? The fragmentation issue is mostly an issue of physical companies keeping up with the digitally-released software. There will always be a lag between software release and product release due to development and manufacturing, at least when the whole process isn’t being overseen by one company–ala Apple. This is what allows Apple the tight integration and complete product releases. For one, they surely are not releasing software updates to the general public the moment they are finished. Is the Google method of focusing on software, releasing as much and as soon as possible, and letting the manufacturing and development companies catch up and do all the dirty work better or worse than the Apple method of overseeing everything and releasing one tightly-integrated product? They both have pros and cons, and are simply different ways of doing things.

Since the Android source code is so readily available, it allows manufacturers to build on top of the base, customizing their product to their own standards and yes, fragmenting the Android experience. What is Google’s answer to this? Most likely: nothing. The point of making Android open-source is to allow this very activity. Google is relenting power to the companies which are using their product, to develop and battle for consumer dollars on their own ground, sort of encouraging capitalism within their partners.

In reality, we think the ‘open’ vs. ‘closed’ argument is just a smokescreen to try and hide the real issue which is: What’s best for the customer? Fragmented versus integrated. We think Android is very, very fragmented and becoming more fragmented by the day. And, as you know, Apple strives for the integrated model so the user isn’t forced to be the systems integrator. We see tremendous value in having Apple, rather than our users, be the systems integrator.

The question of “what’s best for the consumer?” is a loaded question. “Best” is a relative word. You could argue what’s “best” for most consumers, or a large majority, but to lump every consumer into the same category is sort of disingenuous. Now I don’t want to base my following argument solely on myself, but I know many people with the same attitude: I purchased an Android phone arguably because of the fragmentation. Right now I have at least five different Android ROMs backed up on my computer, and have run countless Android versions on my phone (everything from 1.5-2.2). I greatly enjoyed the long painful process of unlocking (enabling root access) on my phone by flashing the onboard memory with custom software, and revel in the freedom I have with what ROM or software I am able to run on my phone. If I had never rooted, I would still be stuck at the mercy of my cell phone service provider, only getting updates when (and IF) they decided or got around to it. That “integration” of provider, hardware, and software is not for me, and not for many other people as well. And I’m not so naive as to think people like me are the majority of consumers (far from it), which is why I completely understand Apple’s approach. Jobs is entirely correct when he says there is “tremendous value in having Apple, rather than our users, be the systems integrator.” Most people wouldn’t know the first thing about running unsigned software, and they probably have no desire to either. However, I only ask that we don’t totally discount the people who do want to be the integrators.

Oh lord, is there more??

The (7″) Tablet Debacle

I’d like to comment on the avalanche of tablets poised to enter the market in the coming months. First, it appears to be just a handful of credible entrants, not exactly an avalanche. Second, almost all of them use 7-inch screens as compared to iPad’s nearly 10-inch screen. Let’s start there. One naturally thinks that a 7-inch screen would offer 70% of the benefits of a 10-inch screen. Unfortunately, this is far from the truth. The screen measurements are diagonal, so that a 7-inch screen is only 45% as large as iPad’s 10-inch screen. You heard me right: Just 45% as large

In case you don’t keep up with unreleased and speculative product announcements, it’s almost an understatement to say there is an avalanche of tablets poised to hit the market in the coming months. Despite the dubious use of the word “credible” (most likely: “anything not an iPad”), tablets are set to be the next “it” gadget to have, and people are going to have their slew of options. The first wave does indeed seem to be 7″ tablets, so let’s see what all the fuss is about. To be honest, I truly think the size issue is totally personal preference and should be based on what the tablets will be used for. Personally I agree with Jobs and think that 7″ is the perfectly bad in-between size to be equally useless as a pocketable phone and easily-readable magazine (iPad) size. But someone might find that 7″ is perfect for his or her life, and having the option is definitely better than not.

Almost all of these new tablets use Android software, but even Google is telling the tablet manufacturers not to use their current release, Froyo, for tablets and to wait for a special tablet release next year. What does it mean when your software supplier says not to use their software and what does it mean when you ignore them and use it anyway?

This is a valid point. Not to sound apologetic, but I often wonder if Google anticipated Android being used on tablets, or if they are (in a rare, exact opposite case of what I explained earlier) playing catch-up to the hardware manufacturers. There are some Android 2.2-based tablets coming out (mostly ultra-cheap hardware from China), but Jobs fails to mention Windows 7-based tablets at all. And what happens when manufacturers decide to use 2.2 on their (mostly ultra-cheap) tablets? Nothing world-shattering or device-breaking. The tablets will still be usable, and since the devices which are using 2.2 are mostly sub-$150, nobody will really be surprised if they don’t work perfectly. I’d bet on the actual hardware breaking before the software becomes unusable.

And lastly:

Our potential competitors are having a tough time coming close to iPad’s pricing, even with their far smaller, far less expensive screens. The iPad incorporates everything we’ve learned about building high value products from iPhone, iPods, and Macs. We create our own A4 chip, our own software, our own battery chemistry, our own enclosure, our own everything. And this results in an incredible product at a great price. The proof of this will be in the pricing of our competitors’ products which will likely offer less for more.”

While I’ve been cordial and even agreed with Jobs up until now, I have to call him out here and say this is almost an outright lie. The cheapest iPad version (16GB, Wi-fi only) is $499 on the Apple website, but double the memory to 32GB and the price goes up $100. Double again to 64GB, add another $100 (the same price for both a 16GB and a 32GB upgrade?). Almost every comparable tablet has expandable memory, which means you can use micr0-SD cards (16GB cards are under $30) to upgrade the memory ad infinitum. The barebones iPad may be aggressively-priced, but start adding features and the price argument loses its weight fast. And yes, I am aware of the overpricing on the new Samsung Galaxy Tab, but including features such as 3G (baseline 3G iPad = $629) they are comparable in almost all aspects besides size: the Galaxy Tab is Jobs’ favorite form-factor at 7″.

So no matter what happens–and things will start popping off this holiday season–old Steve summed things up quite well at the end of his call:

Sounds like lots of fun ahead.