Quotes from Android partners(google.com)
google.com
Quotes from Android partners
http://www.google.com/press/motorola/quotes/
27 comments
Google's blog post on it (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/supercharging-android...) makes bit of a deal of the DOJ defending "open source". However, as we've seen with Android 3.0, 3.1 and 3.2, Google has kept that source for itself and its select partners. Given that, I think your feeling is justified. It might not come to pass and I certainly hope it doesn't come to pass, but it is a worry. Google has already played the "the code will be coming, it just isn't ready yet" card with Honeycomb.
I understand your concern, but is Google keeping its most recent code changes private and releasing them in the future really that bad?
For example, John Carmack/id Software don't release their current engines until they've made progress on the next, better version. I don't think many people consider Carmack to be evil or non-altruistic.
For example, John Carmack/id Software don't release their current engines until they've made progress on the next, better version. I don't think many people consider Carmack to be evil or non-altruistic.
I'm not sure "it's open, once it's obsolete" is how the philosophy is intended to work.
Also, Carmack doesn't engage in PR wars about the non-openness of others.
Also, Carmack doesn't engage in PR wars about the non-openness of others.
I think the difference between Carmack and Google is that Carmack writes proprietary software and then releases the source code when it stops selling. Google on the other hand is writing open source software but is choosing to hold back on releasing the source code ... why?
id isn't trying to create a hardware ecosystem.
Google created a hardware ecosystem with a variety of partners. If they start playing favorites with who gets new Android releases, they will undermine that ecosystem.
It's not so much that they're keeping the code closed, it's that they're only releasing the code to a handful of select partners. All the small players get left out in the cold.
Google created a hardware ecosystem with a variety of partners. If they start playing favorites with who gets new Android releases, they will undermine that ecosystem.
It's not so much that they're keeping the code closed, it's that they're only releasing the code to a handful of select partners. All the small players get left out in the cold.
It's actually hard to see how Google _can_ keep a level playing field under these circumstances, short of totally isolating their Motorola unit from long-term Android development.
You realize Google does this a lot already ?
They operate in so many markets they have to have internal chinese walls between departments. The ads team is separated from search team, and the search team is separate from their analytics team. Google knows that these internal teams would have conflicts of interests so it keeps them separate.
They operate in so many markets they have to have internal chinese walls between departments. The ads team is separated from search team, and the search team is separate from their analytics team. Google knows that these internal teams would have conflicts of interests so it keeps them separate.
Why do I get adverts when I search if they are totally separate? It's all connected to the adverts, surely. That's the driving force for the company isn't it?
The SERP doesn't take into account advertiser information, so by advertising on Google you can't get a higher "organic" listing. The algorithms aren't allowed to interact, Google Ads team even has their own crawler bot.
[deleted]
By giving LG, Samsung, HTC the same access as Motorola. They shouldn't be any more isolated than the Android partners, which already have a great deal of access.
What about the other OEMs? There are a LOT of small Android OEMs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Android_devices#O...
You think Google will share future plans etc. with all of those? Might as well broadcast it on Google.com since Apple, MS,HP, RIM, etc. will anyway get wind of it.
Reminds me of the Windows 95 and MS Office fiasco which resulted in Word Perfect suing them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Android_devices#O...
You think Google will share future plans etc. with all of those? Might as well broadcast it on Google.com since Apple, MS,HP, RIM, etc. will anyway get wind of it.
Reminds me of the Windows 95 and MS Office fiasco which resulted in Word Perfect suing them.
They'll likely get the same access they've always had (which for some of them will be zero access).
While at the same time, the Moto Mobility division gets 100% access and a big influence in the direction?
There are two different issues you're trying to discuss here, and it's getting muddled.
[1] The degree of Motorola's access/influence and the degree of the partners' (HTC/LG/Samsung/Etc) access/influence.
We don't know what will happen, but it's likely that the partners will have the same access and influence to Google/Android that they always did. Google is going to "run Motorola as a separate business".
[2] The non-partners that don't license android still won't have any access/influence.
The fact that non-partners won't gain more access/influence to Google/Android because of the acquisition is a non-story. Also a non-story: pigs wont fly as a result of this acquisition.
[1] The degree of Motorola's access/influence and the degree of the partners' (HTC/LG/Samsung/Etc) access/influence.
We don't know what will happen, but it's likely that the partners will have the same access and influence to Google/Android that they always did. Google is going to "run Motorola as a separate business".
[2] The non-partners that don't license android still won't have any access/influence.
The fact that non-partners won't gain more access/influence to Google/Android because of the acquisition is a non-story. Also a non-story: pigs wont fly as a result of this acquisition.
The slogan was never "do no evil"; it was "don't be evil", which is a considerably lower bar. "Do no evil" is an anti-Google propaganda slogan invented by Google-haters.
Their interpretation of "Don't be evil" has never prevented them from writing proprietary software.
Their interpretation of "Don't be evil" has never prevented them from writing proprietary software.
I think you're splitting hairs in the difference between "do no evil" and "don't be evil", and I suspect the altering of the phrase was due to an indifference to your level of specificity before it was due to any sort of anti-Google malice.
It's not splitting hairs at all. The two represent diametrically opposite degrees of moral achievement.
"Do no evil" is a declaration of hubris or wilful blindness: no moral agent fails to do evil at times. An entity that did no evil would necessarily be incorruptible, immune to dilemmas, and in most ethical systems, omniscient as well.
"Don't be evil" is an almost comically low bar. Almost nobody other than comic-book villains, and perhaps Jeffrey Dahmer and certain pedophile priests, is evil according to the moral code they aspire to live by. The only reason it's even worth mentioning is that Google was born in a world dominated by Microsoft and Doubleclick, which were generally agreed to actually be evil, and Google aspired to do better. "Don't be evil" is satisfied by having the tiniest modicum of ethical achievement.
In short, the distinction between the meanings of the two phrases could hardly be more pronounced.
Anyone who claims that Google aspires to "do no evil" is excluding themselves from any serious discussion.
"Do no evil" is a declaration of hubris or wilful blindness: no moral agent fails to do evil at times. An entity that did no evil would necessarily be incorruptible, immune to dilemmas, and in most ethical systems, omniscient as well.
"Don't be evil" is an almost comically low bar. Almost nobody other than comic-book villains, and perhaps Jeffrey Dahmer and certain pedophile priests, is evil according to the moral code they aspire to live by. The only reason it's even worth mentioning is that Google was born in a world dominated by Microsoft and Doubleclick, which were generally agreed to actually be evil, and Google aspired to do better. "Don't be evil" is satisfied by having the tiniest modicum of ethical achievement.
In short, the distinction between the meanings of the two phrases could hardly be more pronounced.
Anyone who claims that Google aspires to "do no evil" is excluding themselves from any serious discussion.
(Updated and expanded version of this comment at http://lists.canonical.org/pipermail/kragen-tol/2011-August/...)
It is considered evil to use play of words to twist meaning like that. At least in my books.
I have the same fears as you, but maybe a little less because I really don't think Google's interested in the hardware business as such. The reason they started down the android road in the first place was so they wouldn't get locked out of the mobile market in the venue they actually care about: search (specifically, search ads). Doing anything "evil" in this case just doesn't seem to jive with their long-term incentive to commoditize mobile software and hardware.
>their long-term incentive to commoditize mobile software and hardware.
close in-house integration of software and hardware hasn't been known as a way to commoditization
close in-house integration of software and hardware hasn't been known as a way to commoditization
Your point about the WinCE-based Symbol gear: drop WinCE and they drop all their customers that are unwilling/unable to port their code over to Android.
Awkward. Let's reorder and compare them (differences are in italics):
1) “I welcome Google's commitment to defending Android and its partners.”
2) “We welcome Google's commitment to defending Android and its partners.”
-
3) “We welcome today's news, which demonstrates Google’s deep commitment to defending Android, its partners, and the ecosystem.”
4) “We welcome the news of today's acquisition, which demonstrates that Google is deeply committed to defending Android, its partners, and the entire ecosystem.”
1) “I welcome Google's commitment to defending Android and its partners.”
2) “We welcome Google's commitment to defending Android and its partners.”
-
3) “We welcome today's news, which demonstrates Google’s deep commitment to defending Android, its partners, and the ecosystem.”
4) “We welcome the news of today's acquisition, which demonstrates that Google is deeply committed to defending Android, its partners, and the entire ecosystem.”
To: CEOs of Samsung, HTC, LG, Sony-Ericcson.
From: Andy Rubin
So we're buying Motorola. We need a short statement from each of you for our press release tomorrow morning. Please restate the following in your own words for our press release (1-2 sentences max):
We welcome this acquisition that demonstrates Google's deep commitment to defending Android, it's partners and the ecosystem.
Try and limit yourself to 1 or 2 sentences. Our team has a couple of examples attached, first come first served and no exact duplicates please, that would be awkward. I think it goes without saying that this is a stop ship issue.
From: Andy Rubin
So we're buying Motorola. We need a short statement from each of you for our press release tomorrow morning. Please restate the following in your own words for our press release (1-2 sentences max):
We welcome this acquisition that demonstrates Google's deep commitment to defending Android, it's partners and the ecosystem.
Try and limit yourself to 1 or 2 sentences. Our team has a couple of examples attached, first come first served and no exact duplicates please, that would be awkward. I think it goes without saying that this is a stop ship issue.
At least it's too awkward to be fake.
I for one welcome our new robot overlords.
That's awkward. Welcome, defend, Android, partners, ecosystem. It's all the same quote.
Edit: But assuming they all mean it, this is actually fantastic. It's good to see that they aren't afraid; they don't seem themselves in a weakened position and they do desperately need the legal force that Google can provide to be on their side.
Edit: But assuming they all mean it, this is actually fantastic. It's good to see that they aren't afraid; they don't seem themselves in a weakened position and they do desperately need the legal force that Google can provide to be on their side.
I doubt they all believe it, but they all want it to be true. At this point going on record for something they hope Google will do costs them very little.
But it is a bit telling that they didn't have an actual statement to make. I suggest the CEO's office of these companies is trying to make sense of the deal still.
How they really feel will be more apparent in statements about Windows Phone. They'll still state the party line on Android for a while, but if Samsung and HTC start openly talking about positive reception of WP devices and excitement around Mango then there's been an internal change in tune.
But it is a bit telling that they didn't have an actual statement to make. I suggest the CEO's office of these companies is trying to make sense of the deal still.
How they really feel will be more apparent in statements about Windows Phone. They'll still state the party line on Android for a while, but if Samsung and HTC start openly talking about positive reception of WP devices and excitement around Mango then there's been an internal change in tune.
Yeah, creepily robotic. It seems forced, and feels like the lines were fed to them.
That’s how it works. Do you really believe that CEOs have the time to think up statements?
I thought this was common knowledge by now. The PR people write it, CEOs only give their ok.
Edit: All the statements being so similar is a testament to very shoddy PR work but it’s not all that surprising. The same PR people (well, very likely a single person) from Google who wanted to get statements from the all presidents and CEOs just called up the PR departments of all the companies and asked for statements, suggesting, along the way, the language: “Hi, this is Michael from Google. As you know we will very soon acquire Motorola and it would be very nice if we could get a short one sentence statement from your CEO about that, you know, to show your and our shareholders and customers how committed we are to the Android ecosystem. I can send you an email with an example statement to give you an idea about the length. Would that be alright?”
I thought this was common knowledge by now. The PR people write it, CEOs only give their ok.
Edit: All the statements being so similar is a testament to very shoddy PR work but it’s not all that surprising. The same PR people (well, very likely a single person) from Google who wanted to get statements from the all presidents and CEOs just called up the PR departments of all the companies and asked for statements, suggesting, along the way, the language: “Hi, this is Michael from Google. As you know we will very soon acquire Motorola and it would be very nice if we could get a short one sentence statement from your CEO about that, you know, to show your and our shareholders and customers how committed we are to the Android ecosystem. I can send you an email with an example statement to give you an idea about the length. Would that be alright?”
Yeah, my point was just that the statements clearly came from a common source (Google) not surprise that CEOs were not speaking with their own voices. The effect is that the statements do not appear at all sincere. They sound like they made these statements with Google twisting their arm, which has the opposite of the intended effect.
I'd doubt there was even that much involvement from the other companies - more along the lines of "We'd like to involve the following quote from your boss as a third-party validator in our release. OK?" And then their corporate PR says OK, because they haven't see the other ones, and it goes in the package.
This is how large-scale communications works - you write your message, come up with quotes that support your message, get them OK'ed by stakeholders, and send them out. If you ever see a media release that doesn't come from a speech, and it includes quotes from anyone, you can bet they never actually said those things - someone from PR wrote them, and got them OKed to have been considered said.
Put it another way, the first time the CEOs quoted ever saw what they "said" was probably when they read this page
This is how large-scale communications works - you write your message, come up with quotes that support your message, get them OK'ed by stakeholders, and send them out. If you ever see a media release that doesn't come from a speech, and it includes quotes from anyone, you can bet they never actually said those things - someone from PR wrote them, and got them OKed to have been considered said.
Put it another way, the first time the CEOs quoted ever saw what they "said" was probably when they read this page
That’s certainly also possible. I was just thinking there was more involvement because I have a really hard time imagining that some PR person at Google was writing one statement after another and didn’t notice how odd they would sound if you put them together on a page. Noticing stuff like that is something PR people are supposed to be good at.
That’s why I was thinking that Google gave them some talking points and they got oddly similar sounding statements back and didn’t really bother changing them afterwards.
That’s why I was thinking that Google gave them some talking points and they got oddly similar sounding statements back and didn’t really bother changing them afterwards.
Google PR should've done a better job of giving each OEM a different and longer quote. Cmon, is it that hard? The quotes when put next to each other, look like a joke.
Having been quoted in press releases before, I can say that it often works that way: the PR droids will send something saying "we quoted you saying this, is that OK with you?" It's weird.
I have to agree with this. Looking at those statements side by side it's as if they were given an assignment with 8 key words to choose from and given 5 minutes to work up a sentence.
It reads like a hostage statement at gunpoint.
http://bash.org/?99060
t0rbad> so there i was in this hallway right
BlackAdder> i believe i speak for all of us when i say...
BlackAdder> WRONG BTICH
BlackAdder> IM SICK OF YOU
BlackAdder> AND YOUR LAME STORIES
BlackAdder> NOBODY HERE THINKS YOURE FUNNY
BlackAdder> NOBODY HERE WANTS TO HEAR YOUR STORIES
BlackAdder> IN FACT
BlackAdder> IF YOU DIED RIGHT NOW
BlackAdder> I DON"T THINK NOBODY WOULD CARE
BlackAdder> SO WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THAT FAG
*** t0rbad sets mode: +b BlackAdder*!*@*.*
*** BlackAdder has been kicked my t0rbad ( )
t0rbad> so there i was in this hallway right
CRCError> right
heartless> Right.
r3v> rightThey're all hostages of patents and Google has an opportunity to stage a breakout. It could not go that way of course, but the opportunity is certainly there. I'd love to see Google play absolute hardball on anyone who comes after their Android partners.
Why not stage breakout by buying the patent part of the business, transferring those to a foundation, and leaving the hardware business to MMI?
Maybe they weren't for sale separately?
Google's been withholding source code for Android lately. If they decide not to give access to the Android Marketplace, Google Maps etc to an OEM for any reason, the OEM is as good as finished, since forking the OS is a big deal.
While patents are a thorn on the side, they do not threaten the bread and butter of OEMs like even just delaying the release of source code(that the new Moto division already has from a long time prior) does.
While patents are a thorn on the side, they do not threaten the bread and butter of OEMs like even just delaying the release of source code(that the new Moto division already has from a long time prior) does.
Who's the hostage? It looks like they are trying to say Google is now responsible to ensure Android is defended. Perhaps they are trying to get it on the record that Google will not try to sue them? I'm not a lawyer, but it almost sounds like some kind estoppel thing.
>Who's the hostage? It looks like they are trying to say Google is now responsible to ensure Android is defended.
What if their reaction was frank? Something like
"We are concerned that this acquisition is lopsided and will hurt the major OEMs since now Motorola will have very big advantages that we won't. The DoJ and EU should look at forcing Google to give the same access to Android to us as they would do to their new hardware division."
>Who's the hostage?
The fact that it was a canned PR release from Google that they echoed instead of the above shows who's the hostage.
What if their reaction was frank? Something like
"We are concerned that this acquisition is lopsided and will hurt the major OEMs since now Motorola will have very big advantages that we won't. The DoJ and EU should look at forcing Google to give the same access to Android to us as they would do to their new hardware division."
>Who's the hostage?
The fact that it was a canned PR release from Google that they echoed instead of the above shows who's the hostage.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was all done by the same PR agency.
I don't think it sounds awkward or robotic but rather carefully thought out. If you release a longer statement, with many varied points, journalists can cherry-pick which statement they wish to draw attention to. In this age of out-of-context soundbytes, to keep maximum control over the message, the statements you release must be as short as possible.
Choose your most important point and release that only, as simply as you are able to state it.
Choose your most important point and release that only, as simply as you are able to state it.
[deleted]
One executive, who didn't quite understand how the speaking points should be assembled, was quoted as saying "We welcome the deep ecosystem and should be committed for defending our Android partner."
> We welcome Google‘s commitment to defending Android and its partners.
Only in the patent-crazy mobile market would you get four CEOs applauding Google's acquisition of one of their direct competitors saying that it "defends" their interests.
Looks like everyone is gearing up for some serious litigation, and unfortunately the only winners in that will be the lawyers.
Only in the patent-crazy mobile market would you get four CEOs applauding Google's acquisition of one of their direct competitors saying that it "defends" their interests.
Looks like everyone is gearing up for some serious litigation, and unfortunately the only winners in that will be the lawyers.
Android is not free, at least in the business sense. With Google needing to spend $12.5b to "keep it free," I wonder if it's really free in software sense. Forked from Google, would it stand?
Giving new meaning to the term "Android clones".
Giving new meaning to the term "Android"
This sounds like they all received a command saying "You should welcome Google's commitment to defending Android and its partners." and they all obeyed.
So, let's get this right. Google just got all in a huff about people spending $4.5B on patents and then goes out and spends $12.5B on a company with one of their primary stated motives being the acquisition of patents?
Google is fighting in multiple venues. Public opinion requires getting all in a huff. Judges and attorneys require a legal defense (or appropriate offense).
They're also huge hypocrites.
No one questions that Google is fighting and needs this for their defense. People are calling bullshit when Google points fingers at everyone else but themselves for creating a "bubble" in patents.
No one questions that Google is fighting and needs this for their defense. People are calling bullshit when Google points fingers at everyone else but themselves for creating a "bubble" in patents.
Google points fingers for companies going on the patent offensive, not bidding up patents for defense (their claimed strategy).
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/when-patents-attack-a...
"They’re doing this by banding together to acquire Novell’s old patents (the “CPTN” group including Microsoft and Apple) and Nortel’s old patents (the “Rockstar” group including Microsoft and Apple), to make sure Google didn’t get them; seeking $15 licensing fees for every Android device; attempting to make it more expensive for phone manufacturers to license Android (which we provide free of charge) than Windows Phone 7; and even suing Barnes & Noble, HTC, Motorola, and Samsung. Patents were meant to encourage innovation, but lately they are being used as a weapon to stop it."
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/when-patents-attack-a...
"They’re doing this by banding together to acquire Novell’s old patents (the “CPTN” group including Microsoft and Apple) and Nortel’s old patents (the “Rockstar” group including Microsoft and Apple), to make sure Google didn’t get them; seeking $15 licensing fees for every Android device; attempting to make it more expensive for phone manufacturers to license Android (which we provide free of charge) than Windows Phone 7; and even suing Barnes & Noble, HTC, Motorola, and Samsung. Patents were meant to encourage innovation, but lately they are being used as a weapon to stop it."
Did you even read the whole blog post?
"This anti-competitive strategy is also escalating the cost of patents way beyond what they’re really worth. The winning $4.5 billion for Nortel’s patent portfolio was nearly five times larger than the pre-auction estimate of $1 billion. Fortunately, the law frowns on the accumulation of dubious patents for anti-competitive means — which means these deals are likely to draw regulatory scrutiny, and this patent bubble will pop."
"This anti-competitive strategy is also escalating the cost of patents way beyond what they’re really worth. The winning $4.5 billion for Nortel’s patent portfolio was nearly five times larger than the pre-auction estimate of $1 billion. Fortunately, the law frowns on the accumulation of dubious patents for anti-competitive means — which means these deals are likely to draw regulatory scrutiny, and this patent bubble will pop."
Of course I read the post, the reason prices went up for this auction is because the winners planned to go on the offensive (those licenses add up when you're shipping a half million phones a day). Google's upset about having to spend so much money for defense against dubious patents. It's not hypocritical whatsoever.
It takes two to bid up a price.
Reading these quotes is like watching a hostage video...
"We are being treated kindly and our captors are attending to our needs."
"We are being treated kindly and our captors are attending to our needs."
Can we just all make a pact that we never spew out such canned, meaningless dribble when put in the same situation?
If you're not going to say anything of meaning, please don't say it.
If you're not going to say anything of meaning, please don't say it.
I think they have to say something. Otherwise, they may get quoted as "declined to comment".
Also, I think they almost must say something without content, as anything they say that might have content could affect shareholder value, and hence, could make them liable.
It may seem weird, but the ability to come up with a quote without content on short notice can be valuable.
Also, I think they almost must say something without content, as anything they say that might have content could affect shareholder value, and hence, could make them liable.
It may seem weird, but the ability to come up with a quote without content on short notice can be valuable.
I welcome these welcoming quotes.
It is truly bizarre that this purchase appears to be entirely about protecting themselves against patents. How can anyone not see that the system is broken?
Look, this is about patents more than anything, given that Google ended up not controlling all the patents it needs for Android (which was kind of dumb, but I digress). That directly impacts on Google's partners to build phones for the Android platform.
The bigger win in profit and power for Google is to have Android running on as many phones as possible (across multiple manufactures), and not turn this into a zero-sum game from the profits of Motorola alone.
Therefore my guess is Google has bought Motorola Mobile simply to keep the business running independently but to ensure the patents are not enforced against the other manufacturers and be able to leverage non-Android patents in the Moto portfolio to wrangle the Android ones it still needs. The value of all this, along with the profits of the business, are probably worth the $12bn price paid.
The bigger win in profit and power for Google is to have Android running on as many phones as possible (across multiple manufactures), and not turn this into a zero-sum game from the profits of Motorola alone.
Therefore my guess is Google has bought Motorola Mobile simply to keep the business running independently but to ensure the patents are not enforced against the other manufacturers and be able to leverage non-Android patents in the Moto portfolio to wrangle the Android ones it still needs. The value of all this, along with the profits of the business, are probably worth the $12bn price paid.
I don't think they were consulted, this feels like they were presented with a fait-accompli and given sample "supportive statements" that they barely modified before sending back to Google's PR.
Defending Android is just a minor aspect of it. What these guys are not talking about is their worry that Google is now a direct competitor rather than an enabler. They know what features will go into the next version of their OS. They have all the data they gather about user interaction and usage gathered from their OS which they can use to better design their hardware. Samsung, HTC and others should be worried.
These statements actually also indicate that its only Google that is trying to defend Android. These companies Samsung, HTC, Motorola, Sony and others must have a bigger mobile patent portfolio than Apple and MS put together. If they wanted they could have easily banded together as an entity to protect each other. But clearly that is not what they want to do. That is the ugly truth about patents.
Does anyone else feel they are all speaking with the same voice? :D
Nice to see a large company (LG) having a Ph.D as a CEO
The first (Samsung) and third (HTC) seem to be copies. Similarly second (Sony Ericsson) and fourth (LG).
Do they all have the same PR company?
I wonder if they all use the same corporate speechwriting agency.
Yes, they all use Google's one
Are these partners paying anything to google?
Seems to me they love Google :p
so, who wrote this one statement originally and passed it on?
No wonder all the quotes look so alike and are no doubt fed by Google PR. They are not telling how they _really_ feel about this.
This is like Microsoft buying Dell in the early nineties. You think HP, Acer, Compaq, Gateway etc. would have been amused by that?
This is like Microsoft buying Dell in the early nineties. You think HP, Acer, Compaq, Gateway etc. would have been amused by that?
This is like Microsoft buying DEC in the early 90s (which, ironically, they might have had to do over IP issues related to Windows NT if the post-Olsen DEC leadership had had any guts). Motorola isn't successful enough with Android to be considered Dell.
They have been pushing a whole bunch of phones, a 15% cut of the entire US market is a huge number of phones.
On the other hand if "do no evil" means "do no evil as long as it helps our bottom line", then this could very well mean the end of Android's openness. And it doesn't have to be obvious: It could just be that in the future, we'll see cool "Google Android" devices running so-far unreleased OS versions.
"The code will be coming - it's just not quite ready for our partners yet" will be their line.
But the code won't be arriving. Either not until the even newer "Google Android" device is out, or not at all.
We'll see how this will develop.
Personally, I would love to believe Google here because that means that we are going to see awesome pure-google phones which will both be a pleasure to use and well-built hardware-wise, while nobody else will be pissed and will continue to be able to sell their phones - maybe even without paying Microsoft for FAT in the future.
If Google doesn't follow through with their promise, we'll still see awesome devices from them, but the rest of the manufacturers will be stuck with an outdated, possibly not updated any more, version of Android which is a shame because I would really love to see Android on devices that are not pure consumer-phones (like barcode scanners which still run Windows CE or Windows Mobile 6)
The part of Motorola which Google didn't buy, incidentally is a huge producer of these scanners after their acquisition of Symbol Technologies a while back. They continue to produce Windows CE devices to this day.