So there seemed to be a lot of surprise over the announcement that Android OS based-phones sold more than the iPhone, and somehow this was a surprise? There are more than two dozen manufacturers of Android devices and one iPhone OS based phone.

For me it is somewhat reminiscent of the 80s when everyone was surprised that PCs were outselling the .Apple Macintosh. Macs were selling maybe thousands a month and PCs were selling hundreds of thousands a month, guess who won that marketing battle.

However, there is one difference between the 1980s and today. In the 1980s the disk operating system (i.e. DOS) had a single user interface and in only one version, with upgrades to back versions available. Android however; is on the market in multiple versions and multiple interfaces and what seems to be limited upgrade capability that could depend on the vendor. Does that mean it will fail? I don’t think so.

The application market for Android phones could suffer with developers having to support multiple versions of their applications, features and interfaces.

Is anyone really surprised that an OS that is “free” or requires a minimal investment is more popular than one you have to pay for or that you cannot have access to? Is there something wrong in my logic?

Also, is the cell phone market being measured by Operating Systems or manufacturers? You have multiple Research in Motion phones (selling the same basic phone), multiple generations of iPhones and multiple phones supported by both Microsoft and Android operating systems. Add HP in the mix with its recent purchase of Palm and the cell phone market will probably get even more fractured.

Historically, the cell phone market was measured one phone against another, i.e. Apple’s iPhone against RIM’s Blackberry, not one OS against the other. I am not sure what future statistics will be quoted, but if the Android OS continues to be a somewhat fractured market with different versions and interfaces, should an OS-based market share end up being the measurement standard?