Google's Microsoft Moment - Why Google Made Android(posterous.mclov.in)
posterous.mclov.in
Google's Microsoft Moment - Why Google Made Android
http://posterous.mclov.in/googles-microsoft-moment-why-google-made-andr
5 comments
Google aren't doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. Just like with WebM/VP8, there's huge commercial value in this for them. This doesn't make the project any less worthy, but their OSS approach shouldn't veil their corporate gain.
This doesn't make the project any less worthy, but their OSS approach shouldn't veil their corporate gain.
On the contrary, that actually makes it more worthy, since they're providing a clear example of how a publicly-traded company can profit by being a good corporate citizen.
On the contrary, that actually makes it more worthy, since they're providing a clear example of how a publicly-traded company can profit by being a good corporate citizen.
Google open sources things when it is beneficial to them to do so, or when it is not very central to their business strategy. Every time an oem takes the android source and makes it run on a new device, they are doing Google a favor, and missing an oppertunity to differentiate themselves from other handset makers.
So yes, it is good to show that there is a way to make money giving away open source software, but i'm not at all convinced it is an example other companies out there right now could actually follow. Google is in a position where they can make lots of money off of people's attention without directly taking their money, so they can afford to give away a MASSIVE piece of software to anyone who asks. Who else could do that? Maybe Microsoft. But I can't think of anyone else. The amount of money and man hours Google has spent on Android must be truly staggering, the fact that they can recoup it on advertising dollars alone is really, really impressive.
So yes, it is good to show that there is a way to make money giving away open source software, but i'm not at all convinced it is an example other companies out there right now could actually follow. Google is in a position where they can make lots of money off of people's attention without directly taking their money, so they can afford to give away a MASSIVE piece of software to anyone who asks. Who else could do that? Maybe Microsoft. But I can't think of anyone else. The amount of money and man hours Google has spent on Android must be truly staggering, the fact that they can recoup it on advertising dollars alone is really, really impressive.
It's called win-win. The handset makers are not doing Google a favor, they are saving the costs for developing their own OS.
Exactly, do you have any idea how bad phone software is? Have you ever tried to use Nokia's MusicXpress? God what a nightmare. Most phone related software is diabolically horrible. The sheer torture I had to go through to get playlists synced to my phone is unreal.
The reason the iPhone (and more recently Android based systems) are doing well is the great software, which has been lacking since phones started doing more than calls & SMS.
For the good of humanity this part of phone development must be taken from the phone makers hands. The next greatest thing to come out after sliced bread will be an Android -Lite for use in normal, low end phones, I look forward to this day with bated breath(Google Android developers, if your reading).
The reason the iPhone (and more recently Android based systems) are doing well is the great software, which has been lacking since phones started doing more than calls & SMS.
For the good of humanity this part of phone development must be taken from the phone makers hands. The next greatest thing to come out after sliced bread will be an Android -Lite for use in normal, low end phones, I look forward to this day with bated breath(Google Android developers, if your reading).
I'm thinking more along the lines of a general accomplishment. This "doing well by doing good" thing could inspire people who run companies in other industries as well.
I agree. I mean, most of Google's software projects are open source lately. Not only that, but they encourage developers from all over to work on their projects to make them better. I think the comparison to Microsoft in this article are kind of off base here. I mean, look at WebM... Google acquired the codecs and technology when they bought On2 a while back and now instead of sitting on it or using it for proprietary purposes, they completely open it up so people have a choice for an open web standard.
I think WebM is a good thing, but then I also think Apple's Webkit is a good thing too. Doesn't give either of them a free pass in other areas.
Something that annoyed me for a long time as an Apple user was that people would criticize them very strongly for the wrong things, while ignoring, not understanding or actively embracing them when they did bad stuff. It seemed to be the wrong kind of feedback loop. (The absolute roasting they got from Mac developers when they suggested web apps were the future being a good example).
For an example of a Google faux pas, they're crowdsourcing map data in the developing world and then keeping the data proprietary.
If we can't give feedback about companies at any granularity lower than loving or hating the whole company then we're in trouble as an industry (and sadly that often seems to be the case).
Something that annoyed me for a long time as an Apple user was that people would criticize them very strongly for the wrong things, while ignoring, not understanding or actively embracing them when they did bad stuff. It seemed to be the wrong kind of feedback loop. (The absolute roasting they got from Mac developers when they suggested web apps were the future being a good example).
For an example of a Google faux pas, they're crowdsourcing map data in the developing world and then keeping the data proprietary.
If we can't give feedback about companies at any granularity lower than loving or hating the whole company then we're in trouble as an industry (and sadly that often seems to be the case).
So if google does one thing you like, then their off the hook?
> Not only that, but they encourage developers from all over to work on their projects to make them better.
Of course they do... free labor that they can make money off of, even if indirectly.
> Not only that, but they encourage developers from all over to work on their projects to make them better.
Of course they do... free labor that they can make money off of, even if indirectly.
No, that's not what I mean. I just think there's a lot more merit in what Google is doing than what Microsoft did with things like IE, entering in gaming, etc...and keeping everything proprietary on top of it.
Google shouldn't be immune to criticism, but I just think it's misplaced here. Yeah, the draconian comment was stupid and probably not the best reasoning to give, but they're doing things in a good way in my view.
Google shouldn't be immune to criticism, but I just think it's misplaced here. Yeah, the draconian comment was stupid and probably not the best reasoning to give, but they're doing things in a good way in my view.
It's true, they're not like Microsoft in their method. But every good thing they do makes us more dependant on them. Even if the founders are without spot (hard to believe given the "if you have something to hide" comment), they wont live forever. What will we do when all competition has died off thanks to Googles goodness and they decide that "evil" means "things that don't make us more profits"?
I don't hate google, I use them for things. But I really hate the wreckless abandon with which people embrace them. The market can't "correct" them when they do wrong because they have another source for their income.
I don't hate google, I use them for things. But I really hate the wreckless abandon with which people embrace them. The market can't "correct" them when they do wrong because they have another source for their income.
Very true. I'm definitely more weary of them as they get bigger and expand into more and more markets, but I think there will always be alternatives in the future. I mean, who knew Microsoft would be second in so many areas at this point?
I don't mean to paint a doomsday scenario, I know that if google turns evil we'll find a way to break out of it.
It's just that in my opinion MS' lock in set the computer industry back at least 10 years. I think we could have a lot more advanced technology today if we hadn't been locked into an inferior platform for so long (today it's not as inferior, but imo everything pre-win2000 had superior alternatives).
I would hate to suffer another set back by too many people betting on the same horse again.
EDIT: Clarification
It's just that in my opinion MS' lock in set the computer industry back at least 10 years. I think we could have a lot more advanced technology today if we hadn't been locked into an inferior platform for so long (today it's not as inferior, but imo everything pre-win2000 had superior alternatives).
I would hate to suffer another set back by too many people betting on the same horse again.
EDIT: Clarification
I agree. And I think with the openness of the internet and free technologies (especially ones that Google is now promoting), people will be able to break free easier than they were when Microsoft was ruling. Information flows freer now, a lot of things are becoming open source so people can make their own changes or versions of software, and there's a lot more competition than there was back in the day (especially in areas like the browser market).
See also: http://www.appleoutsider.com/2010/05/20/google-rewrites-hist...
"Good old competitive potshots are fair game, but this one is particularly offensive when one recalls Google acquired Android in August of 2005. That’s nearly 18 months before the world even knew about iPhone, let alone its carrier model or prospects for success. And it’s nearly a full three years before the App Store went live on July 11, 2008.
"Google is a publicly traded corporation that controls the flow of more and more information every day. It’s very troubling to watch them rewrite history in such a self-serving manner."
"Good old competitive potshots are fair game, but this one is particularly offensive when one recalls Google acquired Android in August of 2005. That’s nearly 18 months before the world even knew about iPhone, let alone its carrier model or prospects for success. And it’s nearly a full three years before the App Store went live on July 11, 2008.
"Google is a publicly traded corporation that controls the flow of more and more information every day. It’s very troubling to watch them rewrite history in such a self-serving manner."
Before I read the article, based on your quotes here I guessed that someone was saying Google bought Android specifically to copy the iPhone. I didn't anticipate it would be Google themselves. Is it just me or does saying they created Android in response to the iPhone make them look worse than the reality?
Reality is that Android started before we even knew about the iPhone. It just matured after the iPhone launch, which makes the common guess that Google was out to outdo Apple here explainable, but not more true at that point. Apple profits from this image of course. Being the copycat tends to give you a slightly worse image by default, and I think Apple likes it that way.
Nowadays the iPhone is a worthy competitor of course, and at this point outdoing the iPhone is a logical step/consequence.
Nowadays the iPhone is a worthy competitor of course, and at this point outdoing the iPhone is a logical step/consequence.
Wasn't Eric Schmidt on Apple's Board of Directors back then?
Since Google bought Android in 2005, I'm highly doubtful they were trying to save us from a "draconian" iPhone-AppStore-centric world 3 years in advance.
The problem that I have with this comment (and many of the stories like the one linked) is the simple fact that, although this is obviously a blatant attempt to re-write history via corporate PR (something that Google does just as often as any huge company), it really is true (in an overall sense-- Google certainly is attempting to avoid a future where the iPhone is dominant. Whether or not you think that's "draconian"... well, really, stop right there. How many HN posts are there about various App Store debacles? Censorship? If it isn't "draconian", it is certainly less than "free"). Google is doing something to challenge Apple here, and they are doing it in all the right ways.
I have a Droid, and a good friend has an iPhone. There are times when I really wish I had his phone instead of my Droid, but there are also a lot of times he wished he had an Android device. Like it or not, Apple has competition, and that's forcing them to innovate rather than letting developers do it for them via the App store. Tethering, built in MiFi-like capability-- these are things that Apple's good friends in the App store can't do for them, and Google is right to go after them. Likewise, although it is very likely I'll try to turn off/disable Flash support if my Droid is ever updated to 2.2 (or if I ever root it and go with Cyanogen, etc), it is a weakness of the iPhone, iPad, and going after Apple where it will actually hurt is more than fair game.
Again, I don't think giving Google a pass here (or worshipping at their temple) is a good idea per se. But I do think that a lot of the criticisms leveled at Google for this comment have less to do with Google's real sin-- PR manipulation-- and more to do with the fact that a great deal of Apple supporters are a bit chagrined that Google is doing so well against the iPhone.
Just look at Gruber. I mean, I love the guy-- read his site every day, as I think it is some of the best Apple analysis out there-- but as Google I/O has gone on, his normally cogent commentary has degenerated into what basically amounts to one-line (or one-paragraph) sniping over Google's attempts to challenge Apple. As if Apple somehow has the right to complete 100% dominance of the consumer smartphone market.
Again, like Google or not, I think its hard to argue that Android isn't a serious challenger to the iPhone (and soon the iPad, if Android-lovers have their way). And its hard to argue that this is ultimately good for consumers-- certainly much, much better than an Apple-run world where political satire is banned from our phones simply because it might ruffle a few feathers or distract from Steve Job's vision of the "perfect" App Store.
I have a Droid, and a good friend has an iPhone. There are times when I really wish I had his phone instead of my Droid, but there are also a lot of times he wished he had an Android device. Like it or not, Apple has competition, and that's forcing them to innovate rather than letting developers do it for them via the App store. Tethering, built in MiFi-like capability-- these are things that Apple's good friends in the App store can't do for them, and Google is right to go after them. Likewise, although it is very likely I'll try to turn off/disable Flash support if my Droid is ever updated to 2.2 (or if I ever root it and go with Cyanogen, etc), it is a weakness of the iPhone, iPad, and going after Apple where it will actually hurt is more than fair game.
Again, I don't think giving Google a pass here (or worshipping at their temple) is a good idea per se. But I do think that a lot of the criticisms leveled at Google for this comment have less to do with Google's real sin-- PR manipulation-- and more to do with the fact that a great deal of Apple supporters are a bit chagrined that Google is doing so well against the iPhone.
Just look at Gruber. I mean, I love the guy-- read his site every day, as I think it is some of the best Apple analysis out there-- but as Google I/O has gone on, his normally cogent commentary has degenerated into what basically amounts to one-line (or one-paragraph) sniping over Google's attempts to challenge Apple. As if Apple somehow has the right to complete 100% dominance of the consumer smartphone market.
Again, like Google or not, I think its hard to argue that Android isn't a serious challenger to the iPhone (and soon the iPad, if Android-lovers have their way). And its hard to argue that this is ultimately good for consumers-- certainly much, much better than an Apple-run world where political satire is banned from our phones simply because it might ruffle a few feathers or distract from Steve Job's vision of the "perfect" App Store.
>Just look at Gruber. I mean, I love the guy-- read his site every day, as I think it is some of the best Apple analysis out there-- but as Google I/O has gone on, his normally cogent commentary has degenerated into what basically amounts to one-line (or one-paragraph) sniping over Google's attempts to challenge Apple. As if Apple somehow has the right to complete 100% dominance of the consumer smartphone market.
The thing about all that to me is the way he's been almost intentionally been obtuse about some things in order to snark about them. He's been conflating the difference between private system APIs and undocumented application APIs on Android lately, even after acknowledging a response from Tim Bray about the whole thing a couple of weeks ago.
Andy Rubin made a comment a while back about how Google doesn't use private APIs in Android, and Gruber's just been chomping at the bit to somehow use this as an example of Google's hypocrisy. So when Google says something like "You really shouldn't be doing things like accessing the SMS app's internal undocumented methods because there's no guarantee they'll be there on all distributions of Android" [because the SMS app is just another application and not a core system component], Gruber jumps up and down pointing at it as an example of how Google lied about not using private APIs.
Maybe it's just me, but telling developers that they should stick to public system level APIs rather than try to muck around with the internals of applications that aren't a part of the core system hardly sounds like some tacit admission that Google is really using private APIs on the sly to me. Google's entire point about private APIs is that you can do anything you see a Google app do using the public system APIs because that's what the Google apps are using in the first place, rather than relying on hidden systems calls that aren't made available to normal developers.
It's frustrating, because when Gruber is right, his analysis is usually a great read (plus I love Markdown). But lately he's been fanboying so hard on this and a couple of other things that it's gotten painful for me to follow him.
The thing about all that to me is the way he's been almost intentionally been obtuse about some things in order to snark about them. He's been conflating the difference between private system APIs and undocumented application APIs on Android lately, even after acknowledging a response from Tim Bray about the whole thing a couple of weeks ago.
Andy Rubin made a comment a while back about how Google doesn't use private APIs in Android, and Gruber's just been chomping at the bit to somehow use this as an example of Google's hypocrisy. So when Google says something like "You really shouldn't be doing things like accessing the SMS app's internal undocumented methods because there's no guarantee they'll be there on all distributions of Android" [because the SMS app is just another application and not a core system component], Gruber jumps up and down pointing at it as an example of how Google lied about not using private APIs.
Maybe it's just me, but telling developers that they should stick to public system level APIs rather than try to muck around with the internals of applications that aren't a part of the core system hardly sounds like some tacit admission that Google is really using private APIs on the sly to me. Google's entire point about private APIs is that you can do anything you see a Google app do using the public system APIs because that's what the Google apps are using in the first place, rather than relying on hidden systems calls that aren't made available to normal developers.
It's frustrating, because when Gruber is right, his analysis is usually a great read (plus I love Markdown). But lately he's been fanboying so hard on this and a couple of other things that it's gotten painful for me to follow him.
If anyone's interested, here's one of the DF posts about this: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/05/06/curious
Tim Bray's reply: http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2010/05/06/Private-AP...
Tim Bray's reply: http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2010/05/06/Private-AP...
“If we did not act, we faced a draconian future. Where one man, one company, one carrier was the future.”
– Google Vice-President of Engineering Vic Gundotra explains why the company made Android.
That sounds to me like Gundotra committed the fallacy of backdating present justifications/motivations to the original act. I assume this was in a speech at Google I/O? It does read a tad pretentious.
Though, while I don't think cognitive backdating is a healthy habit (keeping in mind it's a common mistake, one we all actually fall prey to), it also seems a bit grandiose to call this a "Microsoft moment".
It's good to keep Google on its toes, of course, but Gundotra's misspeak doesn't strike me as sufficient reason to draw all manner of parallels to Microsoft. Google's actions to date do not seem equivalent, in my estimation. And hopefully, by catching such misconceptions, we'll remind them not to actually make mistakes in the future like Microsoft has made.
– Google Vice-President of Engineering Vic Gundotra explains why the company made Android.
That sounds to me like Gundotra committed the fallacy of backdating present justifications/motivations to the original act. I assume this was in a speech at Google I/O? It does read a tad pretentious.
Though, while I don't think cognitive backdating is a healthy habit (keeping in mind it's a common mistake, one we all actually fall prey to), it also seems a bit grandiose to call this a "Microsoft moment".
It's good to keep Google on its toes, of course, but Gundotra's misspeak doesn't strike me as sufficient reason to draw all manner of parallels to Microsoft. Google's actions to date do not seem equivalent, in my estimation. And hopefully, by catching such misconceptions, we'll remind them not to actually make mistakes in the future like Microsoft has made.
Maybe it's just the masterful PR, but I really do believe Google is actually doing good here.