- I agree with you on the type 1 category and I think you are basicallly supporting my thesis: that the definitions of what is a Smartphones are certainly blurring, and the categorization should be more around the level of branded and integrated service experiences offered to a device, and who owns that proposition.

- on BREW- I agree that with Qualcomm’s new Brew MP positioning, BREW caters less to the masses of 3rd party developers and more to 2nd party developers, and in that sense, its stature as a developer platform could be diminished.

-On WinMo- it definitely belongs in the analysis (probably in the hybrid category), but I left it out, perhaps since at this point it seems to be in a state of transition, where Windows 7 might change its positioning.

Guy

Indeed it is a bit difficult to categorize what Google is doing with Android- the way I approached it, is that Google is partnering with Operators (and Motorola) so it allows co-branding and some customization of the phone UI layer, but it still retains some of the key services like the Android Market and other services. This is why I classified it as “hybrid” (within this categorization there are “Google Experience” phones and “non-Google experience” phones).

What Google might be trying to do with Nexus (does NexusOne imply that it’s a line of phones..) is almost the equivalent of the iPhone- selling a branded phone directly with Google services. That is why I categorized this version of Android in “type 1″

Guy

Thank you for your comments. I just want to emphasize that I am not at all claiming that Smartphones are not gaining in market share, developer mindshare and revenues- they are indeed growing and becoming the focus for new investments. I just wanted to instill a measure of accuracy and balance into the discussion

I would like to mention a new data point that surprised me recently: IDC has published a fresh Smartphone forecast just a week ago, where they forecast Android to ship 68M in 2013. While the big news is that Android overtakes iPhone and WinMo, but stil only 68M after everyone and their dog seem to be building an Android phone these days??

http://www.electronista.com/articles/10/01/25/android.to.pass.iphone.win.mobile.in.3.years/

Guy

http://blog.xero.com/2010/01/the-ipad-morphing-machine

The iPhone is a modal computing device, and this approach now has been upscaled to a netbook style form factor in the iPad.

To me this starts to superset smart phone discussions. And this design clarity is relevant to what’s happened in the smart phone market.

I used Windows Mobile from the first device and then 4 years ago moved to a Blackberry. The BB was simply the best designed mobile email experience.

Microsofts persistence in trying to shoehorn a desktop metaphor onto a phone means they missed the market. They had plenty of time but the design was always wrong and never meaningfully changed.

But my need for other apps is starting to outweigh my need for the best email experience so I’ll probably move to an iPhone, especially if iPhone 4 has a flashing notification light.

RIM, while great at mail and phone haven’t understood interaction design for a multifunction device. The BB front screen and even the icons are appalling.

The basic ‘next applications anyone would use’ have never been provided. They just had to look at the iPhone front screen to see that simple Stocks, Weather and World time would do for most business people.

This lack of design skills is also evident in RIM’s poor app store execution. So RIM look increasingly screwed.

Microsoft simply have to buy RIM. It’s the only chance for both companies in this space. But as I’ve seen written somewhere before, tying the legs together of the 3rd and 4th horse doesn’t often beat the winner.

Cheers

Rod

I don’t believe Android belongs in your “Type 1″. The whole point of Android is in expanding the upper boundary of “Hybrid” — at the upper ranges by OEM UI overlays (HTC, MOT) to optimize for usage types not otherwise as polished as alternatives, at the lower end by messaging-centric devices.

The real driver of Type 1 is having a cloud or PC-based service as brand fulcrum. If you want to deliver an integrated service it doesn’t matter whether your OS is “open”, whether you truly have an OS, or any other criteria which denotes “smartphone” as opposed to a rich feature phone. Instead delivering an integrated service experience is the dividing line. Open only matters when and if a service experience breaks down.

BREW has gained momentum in some regions and vendors (the AT&T announcement at CES was a surprise win), but that position is nuanced by losing traction at others. Far more important is the state of developer depth and engagement in BREW. The real point to BREW is that it is “open” as a platform only to OEMs who can invest headcount over years on it. Indy developers have voted with their feet to direct distribution (i.e. app store) models. BREW is a “most cost” distribution path for merchants, casual game vendors, etc.

And that is the real point of difference between the typologies. The consumer use cases for Type 1 are built around content consumption and delivery not possible on Hybrid and Type 2 devices. Hybrid is migrating to messaging-based and messaging-delivered activities (including messaging as transport uses, such as social networking). What will this mean for RIM who is firmly in Type 1 but with a Hybrid use case and OS? And Type 2 remains voice-centric, waiting for better voice search, navigation, and content.

Finally, no WinMo at all?

A simple analysis of volumes reveals that they are a crucial part of the ecosystem. Reasons for this not being understood? Well, they are not easy to write about in the mainstream tech press and most people who write such articles have smartphones…….