Google Tightening Control of Android(businessweek.com)
businessweek.com
Google Tightening Control of Android
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_15/b4223041200216_page_2.htm
14 comments
As much as people online complain about fragmentation, there is no evidence (yet) that the general consumer cares that much. "Google experience" devices are not outselling the customized devices.
People need to tone down the rhetoric, in my opinion. Android already is being "taken seriously". Let's not make small problems out to be big problems. Android doesn't have any big problems, as it's being adopted by manufacturers and consumers at a rapid pace.
People need to tone down the rhetoric, in my opinion. Android already is being "taken seriously". Let's not make small problems out to be big problems. Android doesn't have any big problems, as it's being adopted by manufacturers and consumers at a rapid pace.
Perhaps that statement came out slightly more hyperbolic than I meant it.
The fact remains that Android's fragmentation is something I deal with on a daily basis. Any time spent fixing issues that crop up on particular phones is time I don't spend adding features to our application. Keeping customers from knowing the joys of fragmentation is one of the things I spend a lot of thought and work at.
The fact remains that Android's fragmentation is something I deal with on a daily basis. Any time spent fixing issues that crop up on particular phones is time I don't spend adding features to our application. Keeping customers from knowing the joys of fragmentation is one of the things I spend a lot of thought and work at.
Yeah, that's fair, and I don't want to fall on the side of "there's nothing to see here" either. Talking about a platform's deficiencies is essential. I'm just speaking to the general "fire! fire!" rhetoric that comes out a lot of the time.
Would you also said (in 1998 and in 2000) that Windows 98 and Windows ME did not have any big problems, as they were adopted by at a rapid pace?
They were only problems in so far as they damaged the Windows brand name and lowered consumer confidence. There's no evidence the same is happening here.
Is fragmentation really the issue? I think the issue is quality. Every android phone I've used was very different from the last. My friends G1 isn't a lot like my Vibrant and my Vibrant isn't a lot like my old EVO. Three different GUIs! Heck, Samsung decided to put in their own filesystem on the Vibrant and all Vibrant owners suffer from random lag.
Each phone has a different camera app, different gallery, different everything. Its annoying. They're all more or less phoned in - if you pardon the pun.
What google really needs to do is address its ugly stock GUI and put some shiny on there. Put in a decent media player. Put in lots of Apple-quality apps so that OEMs don't feel the need to completely redo everything because the stock android looks like something a defense contractor would make.
Maybe they can even make custom GUI enhancements run in userspace so that updates don't require redoing them. There should be a skinnable layer on top of system widgets. Heck, once you have that then google can start pushing out its own updates to phones and OEMs won't need to wait 8 months to port them over.
One can dream, I guess. Or I can buy an iphone again or move to Win7. My little Android experiment isn't really going anywhere. Its just as locked down as an iphone in practice and I suffer with Samsung's or HTC's low quality enhancements.
Each phone has a different camera app, different gallery, different everything. Its annoying. They're all more or less phoned in - if you pardon the pun.
What google really needs to do is address its ugly stock GUI and put some shiny on there. Put in a decent media player. Put in lots of Apple-quality apps so that OEMs don't feel the need to completely redo everything because the stock android looks like something a defense contractor would make.
Maybe they can even make custom GUI enhancements run in userspace so that updates don't require redoing them. There should be a skinnable layer on top of system widgets. Heck, once you have that then google can start pushing out its own updates to phones and OEMs won't need to wait 8 months to port them over.
One can dream, I guess. Or I can buy an iphone again or move to Win7. My little Android experiment isn't really going anywhere. Its just as locked down as an iphone in practice and I suffer with Samsung's or HTC's low quality enhancements.
Agreed, the fragmentation might be caused by the semi-quality of apps and looks. But the mess that the hardware makers are forcing upon arent that much better at the moment.
I've been amazed each time i've put on cyanogenmod to replace the default android that comes with the phone with how much more useful it gets. Smoother, better working and less lag.
I would love to see htc(or any other hardware maker) ship their phones with a cyanogenmodversion that will track cyanogenmods updates. That might even save them some work.
I've been amazed each time i've put on cyanogenmod to replace the default android that comes with the phone with how much more useful it gets. Smoother, better working and less lag.
I would love to see htc(or any other hardware maker) ship their phones with a cyanogenmodversion that will track cyanogenmods updates. That might even save them some work.
Agreed, I don't understand what all of the anger is about like in this highly opinionated and skewed Ars Technica piece: http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2011/03/android-open...
The source will be released when Google is happy with the product. For people to be up in arms that they aren't releasing the source to an unfinished product is ridiculous. Seems like they are damned if they do, damned it they don't.
The source will be released when Google is happy with the product. For people to be up in arms that they aren't releasing the source to an unfinished product is ridiculous. Seems like they are damned if they do, damned it they don't.
I don't know if it's anger so much as confusion over why they are closing off the source that (up until now) they've called 'open'.
>The source will be released when Google is happy with the product. For people to be up in arms that they aren't releasing the source to an unfinished product is ridiculous. Seems like they are damned if they do, damned it they don't
The Motorola Xoom is already out.. so how is Honeycomb an unfinished product if it's in consumers' hands? The basic spirit of FOSS is that users and developers should be able to modify the code. The article you linked to says this:
>The lack of Honeycomb code availability is especially bad for enthusiasts who were hoping to be able to install custom firmware on their Android tablets. Without the code, it will be difficult for the modding community to produce custom builds that fix the software problems that plague the Xoom and other upcoming Android tablets. Users who were looking forward to better Honeycomb builds for the Nook Color and other budget devices are also going to have to wait.
>For now, only a privileged few hardware vendors will have access to Honeycomb while the rest are left with uncertainty about the future of the platform. Even after the matter is resolved, the fact that Google is willing to withhold source code at its whim for competitive reasons is going to continue to cast a dark shadow over the company's increasingly hollow claim that Android is an open platform.
I don't see how the above is wrong.
>The source will be released when Google is happy with the product.
Doesn't Android use the Linux kernel which is GPL'ed (among other parts)? Can they legally withhold code for a shipping product by saying the software isn't finished?
The Motorola Xoom is already out.. so how is Honeycomb an unfinished product if it's in consumers' hands? The basic spirit of FOSS is that users and developers should be able to modify the code. The article you linked to says this:
>The lack of Honeycomb code availability is especially bad for enthusiasts who were hoping to be able to install custom firmware on their Android tablets. Without the code, it will be difficult for the modding community to produce custom builds that fix the software problems that plague the Xoom and other upcoming Android tablets. Users who were looking forward to better Honeycomb builds for the Nook Color and other budget devices are also going to have to wait.
>For now, only a privileged few hardware vendors will have access to Honeycomb while the rest are left with uncertainty about the future of the platform. Even after the matter is resolved, the fact that Google is willing to withhold source code at its whim for competitive reasons is going to continue to cast a dark shadow over the company's increasingly hollow claim that Android is an open platform.
I don't see how the above is wrong.
>The source will be released when Google is happy with the product.
Doesn't Android use the Linux kernel which is GPL'ed (among other parts)? Can they legally withhold code for a shipping product by saying the software isn't finished?
> Doesn't Android use the Linux kernel which is GPL'ed (among other parts)? Can they legally withhold code for a shipping product by saying the software isn't finished?
Yes, the kernel is GPL, so they have released that source. It's the rest of the platform they are withholding, which is generally under an Apache license.
Yes, the kernel is GPL, so they have released that source. It's the rest of the platform they are withholding, which is generally under an Apache license.
> The Motorola Xoom is already out.. so how is Honeycomb an unfinished product if it's in consumers' hands?
It's unfinished because it doesn't ship with major features that it claims to support such as LTE and Adobe Flash. Every review has said that the Xoom feels like a beta at best and it is simply not ready for the masses, and a large part of that is due to Android 3.
It's unfinished because it doesn't ship with major features that it claims to support such as LTE and Adobe Flash. Every review has said that the Xoom feels like a beta at best and it is simply not ready for the masses, and a large part of that is due to Android 3.
The anger is explained in the introduction to that article. Google presented Android as an open gift to the world in a fight against strictly controlled platforms, yet Google is now withholding source code and requiring final approval over modifications to the operating system.
That they're allegedly holding up Android phones which utilize a rival search engine, Bing, is especially troubling. Is Android supposed to be an open platform or a Google platform?
That they're allegedly holding up Android phones which utilize a rival search engine, Bing, is especially troubling. Is Android supposed to be an open platform or a Google platform?
> "Google is using the only leverage they have (early access and the google apps)"
Walking isn't such a big issue these days. Which is likely why Google feels secure doing this. Windows CE is dead. Phone 7 is struggling. Nokia essentially gave up, removing MeeGo as a concern.
So where does, say, HTC go if Google pushes them to drop the Sense UI?
They certainly don't have the software expertise to fork and run. None of the Android OEMs do. At the rate mobile is advancing, they'd be irrelevant in 18 months. And there is literally no-one else who is delivering a product they can use to maintain their sales.
I honestly wonder if Google isn't more concerned about Amazon than the OEMs.
As for carriers... they're only a real issue in the US; where Android's growth isn't that strong anyway. I mean, is it even possible for AT&T and Verizon to support Android less these days? I haven't seen a single Droid ad since January.
Walking isn't such a big issue these days. Which is likely why Google feels secure doing this. Windows CE is dead. Phone 7 is struggling. Nokia essentially gave up, removing MeeGo as a concern.
So where does, say, HTC go if Google pushes them to drop the Sense UI?
They certainly don't have the software expertise to fork and run. None of the Android OEMs do. At the rate mobile is advancing, they'd be irrelevant in 18 months. And there is literally no-one else who is delivering a product they can use to maintain their sales.
I honestly wonder if Google isn't more concerned about Amazon than the OEMs.
As for carriers... they're only a real issue in the US; where Android's growth isn't that strong anyway. I mean, is it even possible for AT&T and Verizon to support Android less these days? I haven't seen a single Droid ad since January.
HTC in particular has a long history of keeping a few different systems in their lines. They can prioritise Windows Phone more. But with Nokia there already they might want to keep it approx. 50-50 anyway.
Others like Motorola and Samsung, I'd expect them to stick to Android whatever happens, at least for the high end. This is why Google is doing this.
Others like Motorola and Samsung, I'd expect them to stick to Android whatever happens, at least for the high end. This is why Google is doing this.
That's because the ad targeting networks know you already have an android.
/semi-sarcasm.
/semi-sarcasm.
Good. It's always bothered me that Verizon can take an Android phone and make a bunch of money by whoring it out to Microsoft and anyone else who will pay to have their crapware permanently installed. Carriers and manufacturers have ruined just about every Android phone they've gotten their hands on. Android is really becoming a nice OS, and it deserves better.
I remember when Verizon disabled Bluetooth file transfer on some of their "feature" phones, forcing users to use send a MMS or e-mail, thus inducing data charges.
It's still happening with non smart-phones. I had t-mobile and was able to file transfer easily between phones. Verizon purposely locks this functionality out. Bullshit.
As an end user, I'd appreciate a closed and controlled operating ystem like iOS or Windows Phone 7. But as a developer or hacker I don't understand Google's hypocricy here. By Rubi's own definition of what is open,
the definition of open: “mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make”
anybody should be able to do anything with the source of Android. How are current moves justified given this definition?
It's plain and simple, if people don't like the crappy modifications that carriers or other make to Android they just won't buy the devices. Why can't Google let us decide as users. Why are they deciding for us that the fragmentation is bad? Why??
the definition of open: “mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make”
anybody should be able to do anything with the source of Android. How are current moves justified given this definition?
It's plain and simple, if people don't like the crappy modifications that carriers or other make to Android they just won't buy the devices. Why can't Google let us decide as users. Why are they deciding for us that the fragmentation is bad? Why??
What about “mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make” doesn't work right now?
Because it's working just fine for me.
Because it's working just fine for me.
But what about "openness?" I thought Android was supposed to be the answer to Apple's tight control?
Android is still much more open than Apple. A developer can actually view the Android source code, you can deploy an application to a device without Google's permission, you can access much more of the OS features from Android than with the iPhone.
The only people this limits "openness" for is device manufactures, which most developers would probably consider a good thing.
The only people this limits "openness" for is device manufactures, which most developers would probably consider a good thing.
>A developer can actually view the Android source code
So I should be able to download and view the source code to Honeycomb, right?
So I should be able to download and view the source code to Honeycomb, right?
> Android is still much more open than Apple.
Is the goal to be open, or just more open than Apple? As I'm sure you know, they're not the same thing.
Is the goal to be open, or just more open than Apple? As I'm sure you know, they're not the same thing.
> Android is still much more open than Apple.
Instead of being an open platform, we're apparently devolving into specifying particular degrees of openness. If you want to play that game, the Darwin operating system that provides the foundation of iOS is also open source, and it doesn't require a license to use or approval from Apple over modifications.
> A developer can actually view the Android source code
No, Google is withholding Honeycomb's source code for the indefinite future--unless you're lucky enough to be one of Google's privileged partners.
Your post is another example of the justifications we often see from Android supporters for behaviors that Apple has been criticized for in the past, such as withholding source code and holding final approval over third-party development. Google declared pretty loudly that Android exists to prevent a "draconian future" of strict control. However, Google is now exerting aspects of that control.
Instead of being an open platform, we're apparently devolving into specifying particular degrees of openness. If you want to play that game, the Darwin operating system that provides the foundation of iOS is also open source, and it doesn't require a license to use or approval from Apple over modifications.
> A developer can actually view the Android source code
No, Google is withholding Honeycomb's source code for the indefinite future--unless you're lucky enough to be one of Google's privileged partners.
Your post is another example of the justifications we often see from Android supporters for behaviors that Apple has been criticized for in the past, such as withholding source code and holding final approval over third-party development. Google declared pretty loudly that Android exists to prevent a "draconian future" of strict control. However, Google is now exerting aspects of that control.
The problem is that I want my OS to be open to me, so that I can do with it as I choose. If you give that openness to the person above me who sells me my phone, they're just going to use it to take away my freedoms with the OS, like we've seen Verizon doing for years now. I want it, and if I have to take it from Verizon, then fine, I don't care about conforming to some FOSS ideal.
Which is great, right up until Google decide that the latest version which was on the new phone you just bought isn't going to be made available for the foreseeable future.
The issue is surely that something is open or it isn't? The minute that Google start closing off or controlling bits of it, don't you have to ask yourself whether the thing you care about is next and therefore whether it's actually open or just probably open?
And for me probably open isn't really open enough.
The issue is surely that something is open or it isn't? The minute that Google start closing off or controlling bits of it, don't you have to ask yourself whether the thing you care about is next and therefore whether it's actually open or just probably open?
And for me probably open isn't really open enough.
Here's my perspective as a user:
Openness for developers/users and openness for vendors are, as it turns out, almost mutually exclusive.
Google's taking my side. Finally.
Openness for developers/users and openness for vendors are, as it turns out, almost mutually exclusive.
Google's taking my side. Finally.
I can only hope you are serious - it's still way more Open than Apple, however you can't have it all - no fragmentation, no carrier "crapware" and full openness. So they seem to be doing the next best - if you are Google partner you will get to ship Google Apps, but you would have to agree to reasonable terms that help control fragmentation or UI variances etc. If you are not - then take the open code (it might be released later than you like but still) and do whatever you want with it, just don't say "Google" anywhere.
And as a user - you can still buy handsets that allow you to use Amazon appstore or side load apps. So yeah in the spirit of everything being relative - it is still far more open - just enough to be not a detriment.
And as a user - you can still buy handsets that allow you to use Amazon appstore or side load apps. So yeah in the spirit of everything being relative - it is still far more open - just enough to be not a detriment.
I beg to differ. We could have it all if it was really an open source project.
The community would be able to make it into something great - not just by making apps. If it was great, it would be desireable. Carriers probably wouldn't like it, but Google could commission open hardware just as they have done already, and demand would cause other hardware makers to follow suit.
Google's intent behind Android is to put them in control, and they aren't afraid to say so.
The community would be able to make it into something great - not just by making apps. If it was great, it would be desireable. Carriers probably wouldn't like it, but Google could commission open hardware just as they have done already, and demand would cause other hardware makers to follow suit.
Google's intent behind Android is to put them in control, and they aren't afraid to say so.
>I beg to differ. We could have it all if it was really an open source project.
Meego was - where did it go? Desktop Linux? Don't kid yourself, you can't have it all.
Meego was - where did it go? Desktop Linux? Don't kid yourself, you can't have it all.
No, you can't have it all, but that's the point. Google rode the "openness" train to gain philosophical support for Android from the open source community, even though critics pointed out that Apple's strict control has a reason. Now that Google has established a beachhead, they're exerting a kind of control over the platform that goes against the principles they originally espoused and ultimately justifies the very reasoning from Apple that Google and its supporters publicly antagonized for being a "draconian future."
Furthermore, Honeycomb's source is being withheld, allegedly for quality control reasons. However, Google's privileged partners are allowed access, which means they can start work on Honeycomb products earlier than those without access. That's not an open platform. That's an insular platform of privileged access.
The article also states that Google is requiring licensees to agree to clauses that give Google final approval over changes to the operating system. The implication is that if you make changes Google doesn't like, your Android license is at risk. This is supposed to be an open platform with which you are free to do what you want, not some Google platform.
Most troubling is the claim that Google is obstructing phones which use Bing. Bing is a Google rival. With Google having the power of final approval, holding up a Bing-using phone reveals the motives behind the Android platform. An Android phone modified to interface with Bing directly affects Google's bottom line. If Android is an open platform, it shouldn't matter if a device manufacturer chooses to go with Bing over Google. But apparently, it does matter to Google.
Google has exploited the positive feelings of the phrase "open source" for years. The point behind their free services has always been to support the closed source, proprietary search and advertising platform that makes them their money. Now, cracks are beginning to show as their genuine motives begin to influence their public behavior, revealing that Google is just another capitalist. I don't have a problem with that, but the open source community that Google has wooed and relied on for buzz over the years might.
Furthermore, Honeycomb's source is being withheld, allegedly for quality control reasons. However, Google's privileged partners are allowed access, which means they can start work on Honeycomb products earlier than those without access. That's not an open platform. That's an insular platform of privileged access.
The article also states that Google is requiring licensees to agree to clauses that give Google final approval over changes to the operating system. The implication is that if you make changes Google doesn't like, your Android license is at risk. This is supposed to be an open platform with which you are free to do what you want, not some Google platform.
Most troubling is the claim that Google is obstructing phones which use Bing. Bing is a Google rival. With Google having the power of final approval, holding up a Bing-using phone reveals the motives behind the Android platform. An Android phone modified to interface with Bing directly affects Google's bottom line. If Android is an open platform, it shouldn't matter if a device manufacturer chooses to go with Bing over Google. But apparently, it does matter to Google.
Google has exploited the positive feelings of the phrase "open source" for years. The point behind their free services has always been to support the closed source, proprietary search and advertising platform that makes them their money. Now, cracks are beginning to show as their genuine motives begin to influence their public behavior, revealing that Google is just another capitalist. I don't have a problem with that, but the open source community that Google has wooed and relied on for buzz over the years might.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. Even after the control that Google is "allegedly" trying to exert over Android, it still remains a more open platform than iOS.
Are you advocating 100% Open as in Utopia OR Totally Closed like Apple? I don't see how that makes sense. More open is better even if it is not 100%.
Are you advocating 100% Open as in Utopia OR Totally Closed like Apple? I don't see how that makes sense. More open is better even if it is not 100%.
Google makes some of the source available when they want to but restricts what people can do with it using licenses, and now they insist on giving their approval to modifications.
Can we finally stop saying Android is 'open' now when it's blatantly false?
Imagine the headline read 'Apple Tightening Control of WebKit'. How is this any different?
I truly want to see an Open tablet on which the community could realize the Dynabook vision. I thought the Xoom might be a good starting point but with Google capriciously exercising power over the software, it's pretty clear that Android isn't going to give us that.
On the bright side, Moore's law will give us tablets that will run stock Linux pretty soon, and then all we need is a BSD-licensed, community built touch layer.
Can we finally stop saying Android is 'open' now when it's blatantly false?
Imagine the headline read 'Apple Tightening Control of WebKit'. How is this any different?
I truly want to see an Open tablet on which the community could realize the Dynabook vision. I thought the Xoom might be a good starting point but with Google capriciously exercising power over the software, it's pretty clear that Android isn't going to give us that.
On the bright side, Moore's law will give us tablets that will run stock Linux pretty soon, and then all we need is a BSD-licensed, community built touch layer.
>On the bright side, Moore's law will give us tablets that will run stock Linux pretty soon, and then all we need is a BSD-licensed, community built touch layer.
Could you explain how Moore's Law is relevant here? How you get from "Number of transistors per IC will double in 18 months" to "Linux on a tablet pretty soon"? Tablet development isn't being limited by processing power as far as I know.
Could you explain how Moore's Law is relevant here? How you get from "Number of transistors per IC will double in 18 months" to "Linux on a tablet pretty soon"? Tablet development isn't being limited by processing power as far as I know.
I think power is very much an issue.
Most people I know who have an iPad 1 complain that speed is an issue. The iPad 2 certainly fixes that, but Apple's have focussed a lot on optimization and their stack is all built around compiled code.
To me that suggests that tablet performance is only just adequate today.
If we want to realize the dream of a truly open, programmable-on-the-device tablet, we're going to need it to burn some cycles on languages that aren't as efficient as C, and frameworks that haven't been as tuned as iOS.
Most people I know who have an iPad 1 complain that speed is an issue. The iPad 2 certainly fixes that, but Apple's have focussed a lot on optimization and their stack is all built around compiled code.
To me that suggests that tablet performance is only just adequate today.
If we want to realize the dream of a truly open, programmable-on-the-device tablet, we're going to need it to burn some cycles on languages that aren't as efficient as C, and frameworks that haven't been as tuned as iOS.
> Imagine the headline read 'Apple Tightening Control of WebKit'. How is this any different?
Why did you use this example? Apple isn't tightening control of WebKit. WebKit is a considerably more open project than Android.
Why did you use this example? Apple isn't tightening control of WebKit. WebKit is a considerably more open project than Android.
That's exactly the point I was making.
a question:
Can you assuming that you have C skills tell Linus that we all should use a new file system called FUD? NO! Is Linux any less open because you cannot ? NO!
please effing stop with the damn fud
Can you assuming that you have C skills tell Linus that we all should use a new file system called FUD? NO! Is Linux any less open because you cannot ? NO!
please effing stop with the damn fud
Does Linus control what people do with Linux?
He controls the trademark. That's pretty much all Google has going for "their" Android, too. Plus some of their own closed-source apps, of which Linus has none. Also, Linus can't really stop distributing the kernel source, whereas Google - doing the main development on Android - can just delay shipping the source for a while. But, technicalities aside, they both have similar amounts of control over their respective products.
For those who would like to start on page one, here's a link http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_15/b42230412...
Here is the most interesting snippet for me:
Facebook, for example, has been working to fashion its own variant of Android for smartphones. Executives at the social network are unhappy that Google gets to review Facebook's tweaks to Android, say two people who weren't comfortable being named talking about the business. Google has also tried to hold up the release of Verizon (VZ) Android devices that make use of Microsoft's (MSFT) rival Bing search engine, according to two people familiar with the discussions.
With Google being direct competitors with Facebook and Microsoft in the online space, they have a lot to gain by knowing their competitor's plans early/by being able to limit their influence.
Facebook, for example, has been working to fashion its own variant of Android for smartphones. Executives at the social network are unhappy that Google gets to review Facebook's tweaks to Android, say two people who weren't comfortable being named talking about the business. Google has also tried to hold up the release of Verizon (VZ) Android devices that make use of Microsoft's (MSFT) rival Bing search engine, according to two people familiar with the discussions.
With Google being direct competitors with Facebook and Microsoft in the online space, they have a lot to gain by knowing their competitor's plans early/by being able to limit their influence.
I don't understand how Google can maintain any control over those devices, though. My understanding was that anyone could download the Android source, sans Google applications like Gmail and Market, and install it on whatever they want.
If I were Facebook, I'd just avoid Google entirely and use alternative apps for everything. Amazon Appstore, Facebook Messaging for email, etc.
If I were Facebook, I'd just avoid Google entirely and use alternative apps for everything. Amazon Appstore, Facebook Messaging for email, etc.
The way in which Android is open differs from many other open projects.
The source to Android is made public at or around the time the final version ships but until that point only select partners have access to the software. It's this approach that Google are going to strengthen - essentially if you don't obey their rules you won't be a select partner and you won't get early access to the new releases.
What this means is that if you don't obey Google's rules you'll be getting the software two or three months later than your competitors (and without all the support they will be getting), likely receiving it around the time they're actually bringing products to market. That's a pretty big competitive disadvantage if you're aiming to compete at anything close to the top end of the market.
So basically while you can use Android as you wish, if you don't obey Google's rules then you won't be able to do so in a way that allows you to be competitive.
The cynic in me says that this is getting mighty close to being open in name only.
The source to Android is made public at or around the time the final version ships but until that point only select partners have access to the software. It's this approach that Google are going to strengthen - essentially if you don't obey their rules you won't be a select partner and you won't get early access to the new releases.
What this means is that if you don't obey Google's rules you'll be getting the software two or three months later than your competitors (and without all the support they will be getting), likely receiving it around the time they're actually bringing products to market. That's a pretty big competitive disadvantage if you're aiming to compete at anything close to the top end of the market.
So basically while you can use Android as you wish, if you don't obey Google's rules then you won't be able to do so in a way that allows you to be competitive.
The cynic in me says that this is getting mighty close to being open in name only.
Okay, but Facebook isn't really going head-to-head with everyone else shipping the stock version of Android with a slightly different coat of paint, so I don't think it's a huge deal if they're a few months behind.
Also, while there have been some performance optimizations in the latest builds of Android, from a feature perspective there hasn't been that much (NFC is the biggest one in Gingerbread). So even working on the previous release doesn't seem like a huge deal to me.
Also, while there have been some performance optimizations in the latest builds of Android, from a feature perspective there hasn't been that much (NFC is the biggest one in Gingerbread). So even working on the previous release doesn't seem like a huge deal to me.
I don't think being behind matters that much. People online complain about version numbers; general consumers don't know. Amazon can release a phone running 2.3 loaded with Amazon Appstore, Cloud Player, tighter Facebook integration, and an overhauled UI (A good one) and consumers will eat it up.
If it's not that big a deal why are Android users so vocal about not getting updates?
Even if that is true if you're Facebook or Amazon and you're looking to differentiate yourself in that way it's one thing. If you're a handset manufacturer looking to make a kick-ass Android phone it's another entirely and there it would be a big deal.
Even if that is true if you're Facebook or Amazon and you're looking to differentiate yourself in that way it's one thing. If you're a handset manufacturer looking to make a kick-ass Android phone it's another entirely and there it would be a big deal.
I disagree that Android users are vocal about updates, after all, people are buying phones with 2.2 in mass. I think Facebook or Amazon can get away with releasing on 2.3 without any backlash whatsoever until/unless the next version has a major killer feature.
And that's the big unless.
You may be right for small point releases but when they revise the interface or introduce significant new features or something else which people will notice and want, it's going to put you at a disadvantage.
And because you don't have access to the new version you don't know whether it's going to be a significant release or not. You may be competitive, you may not, you simply don't know.
I honestly don't see how that doesn't put a company at a disadvantage - it's certainly not a level playing field and it's certainly not a situation I'd happily put myself in.
You may be right for small point releases but when they revise the interface or introduce significant new features or something else which people will notice and want, it's going to put you at a disadvantage.
And because you don't have access to the new version you don't know whether it's going to be a significant release or not. You may be competitive, you may not, you simply don't know.
I honestly don't see how that doesn't put a company at a disadvantage - it's certainly not a level playing field and it's certainly not a situation I'd happily put myself in.
Some of Google's apps are going to be tricky to clone, though, particularly ones like Maps, Navigation, Goggles, and possibly YouTube, which rely in essential ways on Google's back-end services.
How much of a big deal this is would depend on what market segment they're going after, but mapping and location services are awfully handy across the board, and available on pretty cheap phones at this point.
How much of a big deal this is would depend on what market segment they're going after, but mapping and location services are awfully handy across the board, and available on pretty cheap phones at this point.
Google Maps, Navigation, Goggles, and Youtube are all available from the Android Market. Now the real question is whether Facebook would still be able to get access to the Market if they skip the rest of the apps.
They don't because the Android Market app itself is one of Google's closed applications.
Google maintains some level of control now through its "Google Experience" deals which include: access to the Market, Gmail, Maps, and other apps; early access to new versions; but also a share in the ad revenue, which can't be trivial.
Maybe Google didn't really have the clout to exercise control until now, but I'm really glad it's finally happening.
What I hope this means is that Google will control everything on the OS level, and allow customizations by the manufacturers and carriers only on a skinning and app level. In a perfect world they would also enforce access to bootloaders, to allow easy rom changes.
Maybe Google didn't really have the clout to exercise control until now, but I'm really glad it's finally happening.
What I hope this means is that Google will control everything on the OS level, and allow customizations by the manufacturers and carriers only on a skinning and app level. In a perfect world they would also enforce access to bootloaders, to allow easy rom changes.
Device manufacturers get a cut of ad revenue? News to me, source?
Google have not released the source to Honeycomb so no, anyone can't just go and download it.
Honeycomb is the outlier and will probably be released in a few months (actually, I think Google is stalling til they release Ice Cream Sandwich). And I doubt Facebook would release a tablet before they release a phone.
It may be an outlier but it proves that access to Android source is unreliable.
If this means they can force device makers to actually ship updates, I'm all for it.
This is my biggest complaint about Android. I have one of the original Droids, and it's already obvious that Verizon/Motorola aren't going to do more than the minimum amount of upkeep from now on.
I have an original droid as well and you should seriously consider rooting it and putting something like cyanogen mod on it, it works well on my end. (Though I seriously doubt me buying another android phone that isn't something like a Nexus phone).
Link points to page2, page 1 is here:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_15/b42230412...
tl;dr version - Google is allegedly asserting greater control over what folks who ship Android can do (presumably as part of the license for the Google apps bit). They are uneven in their enforcement.
Often times articles like this have some base message or meme they are channeling but this one doesn't seem to have much focus. One would guess it was this bold claim:
"There will be no more willy-nilly tweaks to the software. No more partnerships formed outside of Google's purview. From now on, companies hoping to receive early access to Google's most up-to-date software will need approval of their plans. And they will seek that approval from Andy Rubin, the head of Google's Android group."
But its not really backed up by the story line. The story is more a "they are lying about openness, they are really evil" kind of thing that I've noticed quite a few places are picking up. There is insinuations about the justice department and anti-trust. Frankly it reads like something Microsoft would say.
That being said, if Microsoft really is behind articles of this tone, then I'd suggest they take a different approach and offer carriers a replacement for the Google apps package (mail, maps, search, chat etc) and create windows mobile/android that would certainly tweek Google's nose.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_15/b42230412...
tl;dr version - Google is allegedly asserting greater control over what folks who ship Android can do (presumably as part of the license for the Google apps bit). They are uneven in their enforcement.
Often times articles like this have some base message or meme they are channeling but this one doesn't seem to have much focus. One would guess it was this bold claim:
"There will be no more willy-nilly tweaks to the software. No more partnerships formed outside of Google's purview. From now on, companies hoping to receive early access to Google's most up-to-date software will need approval of their plans. And they will seek that approval from Andy Rubin, the head of Google's Android group."
But its not really backed up by the story line. The story is more a "they are lying about openness, they are really evil" kind of thing that I've noticed quite a few places are picking up. There is insinuations about the justice department and anti-trust. Frankly it reads like something Microsoft would say.
That being said, if Microsoft really is behind articles of this tone, then I'd suggest they take a different approach and offer carriers a replacement for the Google apps package (mail, maps, search, chat etc) and create windows mobile/android that would certainly tweek Google's nose.
I am happy about this
Suppose google doesnt approve changes to the source code before the companies release products. Suppose the changes to that source code stop certain apps from working on certain phones, therefore putting it on the shoulders of the developers to make certain their app works on every different phone.
It would hurt the quality of the apps and the platform if Android lost its mostly seamless cross platform ability
Suppose google doesnt approve changes to the source code before the companies release products. Suppose the changes to that source code stop certain apps from working on certain phones, therefore putting it on the shoulders of the developers to make certain their app works on every different phone.
It would hurt the quality of the apps and the platform if Android lost its mostly seamless cross platform ability
Seems Nokia was more than justified in choosing WP7 against Android
I doubt it. I am sure that had it gone Android it would have been a high profile partner with Google.
I am inclined to believe Nokia went with Microsoft primarily because Microsoft needs Nokia more than Google needs Nokia, i.e. Microsoft offered more money.
I am inclined to believe Nokia went with Microsoft primarily because Microsoft needs Nokia more than Google needs Nokia, i.e. Microsoft offered more money.
This is very good news for us developers. Hopefully a fixed set of screen dimensions and expectations can be established so we know what we are writing for. Every time a big name Android app gets released, a laundry list of which devices it works on and which ones it doesn't gets made, too. I hate this. Either our software needs to run on Android or it doesn't.
Google has also tried to hold up the release of Verizon (VZ) Android devices that make use of Microsoft's (MSFT) rival Bing search engine, according to two people familiar with the discussions.
Haha, oops! That is kind of funny. I can't believe Google didn't anticipate this type of thing.
Haha, oops! That is kind of funny. I can't believe Google didn't anticipate this type of thing.
This seems opposed to my original impressions of the Android vision. I thought the original carrot/stick was the Android market.
But I guess with the new Amazon market the old Google carrot/stick is no longer as compelling.
But I guess with the new Amazon market the old Google carrot/stick is no longer as compelling.
It's not just the Market, it's all the Google created apps so: Gmail, Voice, Maps, Navigation. Maybe even the Youtube app is included?
At this point, my definition of "open" is an open source license combined with public development.
I'm sure all the android fanboys will consider this a 'good move' since Google is doing it. When Apple does the same thing it is considered draconian and 'closed'.
Please reserve such comments for Techcrunch articles. Let's keep HN at adult-level conversations.
Please let people police the site with their upvotes and downvotes. Your highbrow analysis of my comment adds even less to the discourse.
I respectfully disagree. While I wish it weren't true, comments are voted down for more than just lack of value. In this case you might think that a bunch of "android fanboys" are voting you down because they disagree with your comment. The upvotes on the "highbrow analysis" show you that there is a specific problem with the tone and quality of your comment, not just the content. That's (hopefully) constructive criticism.
Not exactly the same, iOS is not and will never be open source. Google is only delaying the source release of honeycomb until they are happy with the product.
I really wasn't commenting on the open source nature of the OSes, but rather Google exerting control over what carriers are allowed to do with their Android builds.
The thing that irritates me is the considerable double standard for freedom and openness that is applied to Android and iOS. As it turns out people have an very relative concept of what 'free' and 'more free' is. Some types of freedom are considered good, while others are bad. Hard to tell at times which way the community will go. I come in to these kinds of stories and find people endlessly lauding Google for taking more control over the ecosystem. I know for a fact that if the story were 'Apple cracks down on X' the reaction would be practically the inverse.
The thing that irritates me is the considerable double standard for freedom and openness that is applied to Android and iOS. As it turns out people have an very relative concept of what 'free' and 'more free' is. Some types of freedom are considered good, while others are bad. Hard to tell at times which way the community will go. I come in to these kinds of stories and find people endlessly lauding Google for taking more control over the ecosystem. I know for a fact that if the story were 'Apple cracks down on X' the reaction would be practically the inverse.
You really see it as double standard? Let me try to explain the reaction you are not understanding, on a scale of closed=0 and 100=totally open people perceive that Apple is around 20 and Google is around 60. (numbers may vary but the point is ios is much less open than android)
When Apple exerts more control going to 15 people scream "OMG draconian too closed"! When Google goes from 60 to 55 people say "less open but hopefully this will solve the fragmentation problems we have".
Eventually if Andoird becomes totally closed source and no other manufacturers than Google are allowed to use it on their hardware and no user would be able to install applications outside the Android market... I bet almost everyone will be saying the same thing as they do for Apple!
This is a step in Apple's direction but the Gap between the two is still perceived as very wide.
When Apple exerts more control going to 15 people scream "OMG draconian too closed"! When Google goes from 60 to 55 people say "less open but hopefully this will solve the fragmentation problems we have".
Eventually if Andoird becomes totally closed source and no other manufacturers than Google are allowed to use it on their hardware and no user would be able to install applications outside the Android market... I bet almost everyone will be saying the same thing as they do for Apple!
This is a step in Apple's direction but the Gap between the two is still perceived as very wide.
I'm sorry but I don't see a double standard here. Developers get mad at Apple for exerting control over the App Store. Users get mad at Apple for capriciously restricting their use of great applications (like Google Voice, until recently). It's entirely App Store control that everyone declares draconian.
Almost everyone I know is very happy with Apple exclusively controlling iOS as an operating system. They are also very happy that Apple exerts lots of control over carriers in the sense of not letting them make additions or modifications to the operating system, pre-install apps, add carrier branding to the hardware, etc. This is the kind of control Google is now seeking.
To me it appears that you have a double standard. You want to criticize Google for attempting to exert the same control that Apple is rightfully lauded for.
Almost everyone I know is very happy with Apple exclusively controlling iOS as an operating system. They are also very happy that Apple exerts lots of control over carriers in the sense of not letting them make additions or modifications to the operating system, pre-install apps, add carrier branding to the hardware, etc. This is the kind of control Google is now seeking.
To me it appears that you have a double standard. You want to criticize Google for attempting to exert the same control that Apple is rightfully lauded for.
> You want to criticize Google for attempting to exert the same control that Apple is rightfully lauded for.
We're criticizing Google for falsely describing their approach as "open". Apple is rightly lauded for their closed approach because it is effective in ensuring quality, looks like Google is starting to learn the same lessons. I have no problem with Google taking that approach, I'd like to see quality Android tablets. But it isn't "open".
We're criticizing Google for falsely describing their approach as "open". Apple is rightly lauded for their closed approach because it is effective in ensuring quality, looks like Google is starting to learn the same lessons. I have no problem with Google taking that approach, I'd like to see quality Android tablets. But it isn't "open".
"To me it appears that you have a double standard. You want to criticize Google for attempting to exert the same control that Apple is rightfully lauded for."
Since when is Apple lauded for that around here? Apple is usually bashed for its strict control and closed platform. Yet when Google begins exerting that same kind of quality control, the comments section is full of defensiveness and justification. It's a double-standard.
Google fans in general have become some of the most obnoxious people on the planet, mocking Apple fans for blindly supporting a closed platform while unwittingly doing the same thing themselves, even as they preach about how open Android is.
Google is an advertising company. Android and other free products only exist to get people onto their proprietary content-indexing platform. That's why Verizon Android phones modified to use the Bing search engine are being obstructed by Google. The whole point of Android is for it to be a Google platform, not some benevolent revolution in openness and freedom.
Since when is Apple lauded for that around here? Apple is usually bashed for its strict control and closed platform. Yet when Google begins exerting that same kind of quality control, the comments section is full of defensiveness and justification. It's a double-standard.
Google fans in general have become some of the most obnoxious people on the planet, mocking Apple fans for blindly supporting a closed platform while unwittingly doing the same thing themselves, even as they preach about how open Android is.
Google is an advertising company. Android and other free products only exist to get people onto their proprietary content-indexing platform. That's why Verizon Android phones modified to use the Bing search engine are being obstructed by Google. The whole point of Android is for it to be a Google platform, not some benevolent revolution in openness and freedom.
Exactly. I learned how closed android is when I tried to remove my Google account form my Nexus One. It simply wouldn't let me do it. That's an interesting concept of free and open if you ask me.
This is a required step if Google wants the platform to be taken seriously. The only way to keep fragmentation out is to exert a fair amount of control over the OEMs and Carriers who wish to differentiate (or Fragment) Android for their own purposes.
It's going to be a fine balancing act for Rubin. If he pushes the carriers/oems too far, they'll walk. If he doesn't push them hard enough, the platform will disintegrate Java ME style.
Google is using the only leverage they have (early access and the google apps) to make the platform one worth developing for. I, as someone who makes his living doing it right now, am all for this move.