Android and the iPad makes Steve Ballmer quiver in his boots.

I wonder if Android and the iPad keeps Steve Ballmer awake at night.

Why so?

The iPad is successful, not only as a consumer device but also as an enterprise device. If the results of the iPad are anything to go by, the Tablet is poised to be a very popular form factor.

But the iPad is effectively just one device (albeit the first one) in this new emerging Tablet space. It seems the majority of these devices will be running Android, and none seem to be running Windows.

Now consider this. Windows has risen to be the dominant enterprise operating system, despite of the fact that for most of it's existence the Windows platform has been inferior to the Unix/Linux/Mainframe platforms.

Consider how first DOS then Windows started out purely on - what was then - the low end of the computing market; the Desktop, and gradually started moving into more and more sophisticated applications, with each version getting incrementally better until Windows Server 2008, which can be used quite safely for high end computing tasks.

It was able to do this, partly thanks to Moore's law but more importantly by capitalizing on the familiarity of Windows by the people making the decisions, not to mention the shallow learning curve offered to people who had practically grown up with the OS.

Windows is an example of a disruptive technology, clearly illustrating the fact that's it's often easier to drive a low end product into the high end, than a high end product into the low end thanks to mass appeal.

Unfortunately Windows is no longer a low end product.

Windows 7 is optimized for desktops, it's not really designed for Tablets and touch screens, and so far it hasn't really featured much on any of the upcoming Tablets.

Now iPad aside basically every new Tablet is running Android, a low end operating system and based on the iPad's success; the Tablet is the new disruptive technology.

So lets suppose for a minute that Android becomes the dominant Tablet OS, and that the Tablet becomes popular enough that at least most knowledge workers and decision makers have one.

It's not inconceivable that those same knowledge workers and decision makers may easily decide to start using Android for other tasks, initially maybe for things like cheap Android powered terminals (even terminals calling Windows Apps via Citrix or Terminal services) for call center agents and then later for full desktop replacements.

Now you may be thinking "Huh! Android is a mobile OS" but consider that if it made the jump from a phone to a tablet, why couldn't it jump to a full desktop? I don't think many people envisaged Windows getting onto the server either.

Of course this is just speculation, the only successful tablet so far is the iPad, and it's too early to say if any of the multitude of Android Tablets (most of which haven't even been released yet) will be as successful. Furthermore it's still early enough for Microsoft to develop a compelling product for the Tablet space.

Microsoft - despite it's wide market range - Is dependent on it's desktop dominance. Steve Ballmer must be a very concerned man.

Android vs Apple.

I don't think anyone who reads this blog will doubt the fact that I love Apple products. I write this blog entry on a Macbook Pro, I have an iPhone 3GS and before that I had the 3G which my wife is now very happy with.

I also like Android.

For me Android is best poised to become the commodity mobile platform for Phones and possibly for Tablets. It's going to become the DOS/Windows of the Mobile world.

I also like Android because of it's Open Source underpinnings and the Java roots of it's SDK.

On top of that, I'm also a Google fan, I use Chrome and I'm watching the whole Google Wave thing with a lot of interest.

Furthermore besides the iPhone, I've looked at developing some Android apps (An activity that is unfortunately limited because Google doesn't offer paid for apps in my country)

I even attempted to try buy an Android phone earlier this year. And I honestly couldn't find one that I liked (although that is mostly due to the rather poor selection we have in our Country)

The thing about Apple is that they build a device for which the software and hardware is in unison from the ground up, coupled with arguably the worlds best user experience.

For example, take OSX. OSX is a great product on it's own, and technically you could run it on a standard beige Intel box. The question is would I want to.

OSX is the best part of my Macbook, but the sheer niceness of my Macbook hardware is enough to not make me want to run OSX on anything else. I would miss things like the integrated light sensors, the useable track pad, the lighted keyboard, the magnetic charger. Not to mention the eye soothing looks of the Unibody design.

There is however a problem with Apple's approach.

Apple provides the only way to use it's own products. In other words it's a pure product as opposed to being a platform like Android or Windows.

You can't build an "ecosystem" with Apple with new devices being used in new contexts, like embedding iOS into a robot or an industrial device like you could with Android.

More importantly you will never be able to use Apple in a corporate for anything more than a niche group of users. The reason is quite simply that you can't run OSX on anything but Apple, and corporates don't like having thousands of desktops so tightly coupled to a single supplier.

As a result Apple is never going to be a monopoly in anything. A fact that is unfortunately baked into the way it does things.

I fully expect Android to product a market vastly larger and much more diverse than anything Apple could ever hope for.

I will even go so far as too say that Apple knows this and accepts it.

So why am I writing this. Maybe because I don't like the fact that there is this belief in IT that for one platform to win the other has too lose.

It's the type of belief that allows monopolies to form and prosper.