Sure, it's 20 years later, but it's doubtful the sting of Microsoft's early victory in the PC wars has worn off from Steve Jobs. His subsequent firing from the company he founded at the hands of a capable imitator should have been a huge red flag as to some of the early company practices, but does the iPhone prove he's learned his lesson? Or, will the new kids on the block, Google and Android, prove that Jobs' legacy will be high-quality products with dismal marketshare? I'm not ready to declare a winner in this battle before the bullets have started flying, but if Jobs wants to succeed, he needs to take lessons applied from Microsoft's 90's era win and apply them to Google's 21st century competition.

The first thing any good fanboy in any good war will tell you, the current situation (Android vs iPhone) isn't the exact same scenario as Windows vs Mac. The current marketplace for electronics purchasing largely evolved from 80s and 90s computer marketing, but to simply discount the upcoming mobile melee as a completely new phenomenon without any precedent is a stretch.

Take, for example, Apple's sandboxed approach to the mobile platform. The innards of the iPhone are largely undocumented by Apple, and instead are left up to hardcore developers to figure out and work around. Apple's tightly closed, highly secretive development process behind the iPhone gave Jobs and company maximum control over things like stability and memory usage, while the App Store ensures Apple won't let any devious (or, some would argue, competitive) mobile applications into the marketplace. For that matter, when the iPhone launched, Apple wouldn't even let developers play around directly on the device, instead opting to encourage webapps running inside of an extremely limited environment.

Some would say the parallels are striking with Apple's MacOS: An operating system that only runs on Cupertino approved hardware. For Apple, MacOS is simply a means to an end. MacOS is simply the software to power Apple's hardware. Looking to extend your machine or build it yourself? You're out of luck. Apple claims to know which hardware will work best when working with its own operating system, and doesn't need your input or cheap hardware to gain marketshare.

Contrast the secrecy of Apple's development practices with that of Microsoft. While largely floundering in the mobile space, Microsoft's early adoption of Windows Mobile is nearly the opposite end of the spectrum from the iPhone OS. Developers can hack any part of the OS, but large gaps in hardware and disregard for best practices give Windows Mobile the reputation of "phone most likely to crash."

Many PC users of early versions of Windows, like 3.1 and 95, would likely agree with their mobile using friends, in that Windows had an open hardware approach which led to more system instability. While MacOS was busy playing back MPEG movies in 1992 and 1993, Windows was busy being installed on nearly every computer around the globe. Microsoft's disregard for hardware elitism left the impetus on the hardware developer to be compatible with the operating system and other hardware, rather than relying on some sort of hardware-driver United Nations. Other software developers could write apps that'd be seen by more people, and could get away with inferior code, which kept the expansion of Windows moving forward.

While Windows shipped with every computer, frankly, Windows Mobile will never ship on every phone in its current state. When all a user wants to do is place and receive calls, slow and buggy simply won't do.

That's where Google comes in. Android has a chance to fill the role that Microsoft has left vacant, and has a chance to pounce on Apple's status as the current market leader in innovation, and its now their game to lose. Google, having never developed a product that is as directly sold as Android, is a complete wildcard. The company seems to be the yin to Apple's development yang, as the phone is an open platform with plenty of developers chomping at the bit to see the first Android handset, the T-Mobile G1.

With a more middle of the road approach, especially as compared to Microsoft or Apple, Google's open-source mantra and lack of app store filtering means developers can create any application they see useful, and users can install any application they wish. Apple's relationship to hardware is now their relationship to iPhone software, whereas Google's relationship to mobile software was Microsoft's approach to supporting hardware.

Will Apple lose out once again to openness in favor of control? I'm not sure we're really ready to call this match just yet. Apple's brand recognition of the iPod, coupled with a largely mature market (in comparison to computers in the early 80s, anyway) means for now, they're not going anywhere. Google, being the young and scrappy upstart, also gets some brand recognition points, though their record is completely untested in anything but internet search, though that is a big part of the Android platform.

If the sting of Microsoft still remains enough for Jobs' ego to step aside in favor of market logic, Apple might come out on top. However, fool the market once with a flood of less expensive choices, shame on Microsoft. Fool the market twice with a similar situation in the mobile space, the shame will definitely lie in one place: Steve Jobs.