But if you are late in the game, then you probably need to go after the developers (much harder but if possible, you need to get creative like Google and their prize!), so you can offer new and more exciting products (features) than the competition, create a hype and that way get users to come to you.

The article says FB is an example of going after the developers. “Yes” and “No”. “No” because, they were the first one to open up so that was exciting for the developers, but they also had millions of users at that point. After iLike got around 3 million users only in one week, I think everyone wanted to develop for FB now. But “Yes”, because they were somewhat late in the game, specially compared to Myspace, so they had to open up and get the developers into it.

Google, is late in the game for phones so they are going for the developers.

But I think if you can get the developers in it, you win. It would be very hard for other companies to compete with you, you will always have a lot more exciting products … and once network effects kick in, its almost impossible to compete. Maybe a lesson from Microsoft…

Google, by far tends to create and own only software, nothing else. That is precisely why I think they will never buy sprint. And in order to popularize their software, they have to go to the developer community, which is what they are doing. In order to create a mark in the tightly controlled telecom market, Google does need to take some extraordinary steps to popularize its software. This will then popularize Google services on that software, Android.

It seems this is a strategy which works in some of the cases. I think getting users is a safer strategy. it is also a strategy where your user base is your defense against competition.

Both closed platform, attracted users based on features, ui, ease of use, etc.

Then both introduced (or plan to introduce) the API.