Yes, but the point is that Android is only about smart phones. There is no raison d’etre for a new OS for voice-only phones, which are already fully commoditized. Voice only phones are going to be the typewriter of this century — once ubiquitous, then relegated to a quaint curiosity by a new paradigm. When discussing Android, we must couch things in terms of smart phones and smart phone users.

While it is true that initial use of Android will be among early adopters, eventually those adopters will flesh out the mobile OS enough to make it reliable — like they have with Firefox. And soon those alpha geeks will be slipping Android on to their friends and families phones and become their ‘IT’.

Guest Columnist, you write well, but, unfortunately, you are wrong and you’ll be proven wrong.

I think you are way off with your “Most consumers have never installed anything on their phones.” Obviously, this is true for voice-centric handsets, but it is not true for smart phones. A very large percentage of users (maybe even the majority) of Symbian, Blackberry, Palm OS, and Windows Mobile smart phones install apps and modify the OS. Look to sites like HowardForums for an idea of what is going on here. Android is not about voice-centric handsets, it is about smart phones.

Adopting new hardware or software is a major effort for a carrier. In the case of iPhone, AT&T took a gamble and saw it pay off: They tripled the amount of data transfer sold in major cities. And increased their subscriber base (40% of iPhone buyers were new to AT&T). But can Android create similar desire from consumers?
(More: (link) )

Markus said: “Using Linux on my Thinkpad I always refer to Google, Wikies, forums … whenever I have a software problem, and I never to IBM who built the device… [like Linux] … the installation needs just some clicks and is based on standard libraries.”

Most consumers have never installed anything on their phones, and are very unlikely to do so in the future. The kind of people interested in troubleshooting their phone’s problems via Google forums is a very tiny sliver.

SeanC said: “If Android is well built, the compatibility issue will not be as severe as described. Most software for windows works fine, whether on a dell, hp, gateway, or homebuilt.”

It took a long long time for software to run smoothly across all PCs. And that process took place in an environment where there was a powerful and dominant developer for the OS (Microsoft), near total domination of the platform, and a close alliance with hardware makers (who had no other alternatives). Today’s mobile environment has none of that. All the members of the OHA are hedging their bets with other OS’s.

For Microsoft, Windows was the core focus of the company. How many billions of dollars did they spend to get Windows from v1.0 to, say, Windows 2000 (which I consider the first time it was really mature as an OS). Where does Android fit among Google’s priorities? Do they have the will to dedicate that kind of time and money over the next decade?

OK, you say… count on the bazaar and not the cathedral… open source will duplicate all that effort without the need for massive investment from a single company. Well, look at the penetration of Linux at the desktop for a reality check.

And another reality check… ask a Blackberry user what kind of features will make them give up their device? You will probably get a blank stare.

The keypoint here is spreading the entire campaign of the Android Mobile platform/OS. More than being an Opensource project, it should be reliable enough, and make mobiles smarter, more enabled to be utilized/ multi-tasked and reach the end customer with the minimum glitches or bugs. How can all that be possibly done is what Google and the entire Android community needs to answer.

There are also other people who nearly don’t make mobile phone calls anymore but use their cell phone the entire day as a small computer with internet access.

It actually feels great if you have the right device.