A small material on the approaches to device architecture of two market leaders.
Google prefers to speak of itself as an 'open' company as opposed to the 'closed' solutions of competitors. Apple prefers to speak of themselves as a 'integrity' company as opposed to the 'fragmented' approach of competitors.
These examples of duality are of a subjective evaluative nature and denote the logical sequences 'we are good', 'they are bad'. None of the examples relate to how the two companies are building their business in the mobile computing value chain, thus making it difficult for observers to objectively assess. I suggest using the more informative and less subjective distinction that was clearly described in the now классикой книге Клейтона Кристенсена 'The Innovator’s Solution' в 2003 году. The author of the book introduced the concept of opposition between interdependent and modular systems.
In an interdependent system, there are connections between elements, from product components to participants in the product value chain. Communication or negotiation between items is done largely through proprietary or unlicensed protocols involving certain 'partners', such as the iPod and iTunes. On the other hand, the layout of modular products is similar to plug-and-play (automatic hardware configuration when connected) and resembles the building blocks that make up standardized interfaces and which can be easily exchanged for solutions from other suppliers / partners.
This is not to say that any of the systems are 'bad' or 'good'. They represent a natural way of organizing, depending on the business model chosen by the company or the current stage of technology evolution.
Interdependent hardware platforms are the only way to quickly and in market conditions improve the performance of 'not good enough' systems. Modular hardware platforms are the only way to squeeze profitability out of the more-than-good technologies that are now widely available. Interdependent systems often provide better performance than modular systems due to system optimization. Engineers can iterate faster to maximize subsystem performance by connecting them in the best possible way. Conversely, modular systems often provide lower cost because there are a large number of suppliers, which in turn is due to the standardization of interfaces and the interchangeability of parts.
Interdependencies are often required to improve the performance of a new solution. At the same time, modularity is being used to reduce the cost of a congestion solution.
Long-term interdependency in many cases increases the performance of such solutions prohibitively, for which the target market is not yet ready to pay. In such cases, the target market often moves to modular solutions, which at a particular stage often offer quite good performance in combination with such advantages of the approach as low cost of components, convenience, and others. The question is not which system is better, but which one should be used.
Most of the time, modular layout is used when interdependent architecture is too expensive. The use of interdependent architecture is resorted to when modular solutions are not good enough or cannot cope with new challenges that users face.
The system of values Apple, priorities and processes of the company are adjusted to the interdependent architecture. Google's value system, priorities, and company processes are aligned to a modular architecture. Apple solves the problems of new markets. Google solves the problems of congested markets.
The winning strategy, by which I mean making a significant share of the profits in the industry, depends on understanding where the product is in relation to the optimal performance schedule. If it's good enough, interdependent architecture wins. If he is already beyond this bar, then the point is the modular architecture. So where is the smartphone in its evolution? If development has just begun, then iPhone growth is expected. If the market is saturated and innovation is not appreciated or used, then it is time for a modular approach. Place your bets based on your own vision of further events.
Original material by Horace Dediu
It is always interesting to read materials released three, four, five years ago. In this case, in my opinion, quite universal and timeless features are described that are still present on the market. Someone might say that Google is moving towards an interdependent architecture, and perhaps they will be right. Modular smartphones have already departed from the original concept and, at the suggestion of some manufacturers, have turned into devices with modular accessories, which, however, have not yet managed to gain universal popularity.
Of course, the author partly justified the popularity iPhone precisely as a closed architecture, but, of course, he could not foresee the possibility of Google moving in the same direction, for which he cannot be reproached. The question is whether modular architecture can actually refresh the peaked smartphone market. So far, there are no prerequisites for this, so far differentiation is being made through external accessories tied to specific hardware and software innovations. In the next issue of the Gazebo, we will get acquainted with a more modern opinion about the situation in the smartphone market.