4 ms·

Skyhook: Google forced Motorola to delay the Droid X

35 points by azharcs 16y ago

grkhetan 16y ago
I used to love Google, and will still love Google. But this action of theirs disappointed me. Google thinks that they are an "open" and esp android is very "open", i.e. it is free and open source. Manufacturers can modify the code and adapt to their hardware. Thats all well and good. But when Motorola modifies the code to add skyhook wireless for location, Google says take it off, or else.... This is really not good and does not match up with Google's ideals. And note that skyhook wireless is a known firm for such a thing, in fact they had the first databases for wifi location search and iphones also used to use them
cma 16y ago
Android has always been sold as an open system + proprietary google apps. If you want access to the proprietary system (and presumably the Android trademark), you fall in line. Any company is free to make a phone without the proprietary google apps, but not selectively. Yet for all this, Google still allows vendors to do things like lock the phone's search to Bing.
jscore 16y ago
Obviously it's one side of the story from Skyhook, as they're trying to spread their point of view. Would love to hear Google's viewpoint.
- jonknee 16y ago
  I'd guess it's something like, "Our testing has shown Skyhook performs worse than our internal service in real world use and we want Android customers to have the best."
dstein 16y ago
Google Android is just begging to get forked, and splintered. Manufacturers like Motorola and Samsung might have to bend to Google's will, but I doubt carriers will sit tightly while Google's fangs sink deeper into their industry.
- stanleydrew 16y ago
  I'm not really sure what you mean by "their industry," but the fact that carriers feel that their industry is anything other than delivering data is an annoyance that we all have to suffer (at least in the US). So let's hope Google can prevent full-blown carrier-specific forks of Android and keep trying to reduce them to the commodity providers they should be.
jonknee 16y ago
They weren't forced, it's open source. They could have shipped it without the Android trademark and Google applications. Apple also forced out Skyhook. Location based services are central to mobile computing, it's in Google's best interest to keep that built in to the Android platform and consistent.
- robg 16y ago
  When do these actions become anti-competitive?
  - glhaynes 16y ago
    What would make them so?
    - robg 16y ago
      This doesn't seem to be the handset maker or even the carrier controlling the options. It's another software provider limiting potentially competing software...on an open platform. Seems they're using their competitive power in one domain to inhibit competition in another. What am I missing?
      - arebop 16y ago
        Anti-competitive doesn't just mean "not good for competitors." It's about things that are harmful for the marketplace. For example, it excludes the ordinary enjoyment of copyright exclusivity. You might think monopolies are harmful for marketplaces, but as a society we've decided that copyrights do more good than harm, so copyright exclusivity is not in itself anti-competitive. A more relevant example: trademarks are not generally anti-competitive. Imagine Bob's Booze complaining that Bacardi has pressured Thirsty Time Beverage Co. to use Bacardi rum in the "Thirsty Thursday Party Punch with Bacardi(TM)" drink. Bob wants to make a deal with Thirsty to replace Bacardi rum with his company's rum as a key ingredient in the punch. Suppose Thirsty Time always uses Bacardi's filtered water as an ingredient; can Bacardi insist that Thirsty Time also ship its famous rum (and nobody else's) as a condition for TT's use of the Bacardi brand name on rum-containing drinks? Would that be "anti-competitive?"
martythemaniak 16y ago
Well, on hand you have people complaining that Android is too open and allows carriers to load crapware and disable tethering. On the other hand, we have people complaining that Android is too closed because Motorola couldn't switch location providers. Which one is it?
- jonknee 16y ago
  I think it's the other other hand where people just like to complain. This reminds me of faux political controversy that gets created by cable news (replace Fox News with Daring Fireball).
- jerf 16y ago
  Can you establish that these are the exact same people? It's only hypocrisy if you can establish that. Otherwise you've merely observed in a relatively hostile way that various people have various ideas about "freedom" and that's neither news nor terribly interesting on its own.
  - jonknee 16y ago
    John Gruber is playing both sides. It's veiled in his usual snark, but he has been hitting on Skyhook quite a bit: http://daringfireball.net/2010/09/the_welcome_to_android http://daringfireball.net/2010/09/the_welcome_to_android http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/09/16/dont-be-evil http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/09/16/dont-be-evil http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/09/16/skyhook-google http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/09/16/skyhook-google And has also snarked about the "open for carriers" situation quite a bit: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/09/02/skype-android http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/09/02/skype-android http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/03/02/att-android http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/03/02/att-android http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/07/17/preinstalled http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/07/17/preinstalled http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/08/06/skype-verizon http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/08/06/skype-verizon
    - patrickaljord 16y ago
Zak 16y ago
Honestly, I'd like to see Google use this lever against carriers and manufacturers a bit more to ban any or all of the following: * Locked bootloaders * Disabled or substituted major features (e.g. wifi tethering) * Apps that can't be uninstalled * Skins that can't be disabled * Proprietary drivers * SIM locking I'm aware that Google does not yet have the clout to pull off most of the above yet, but maybe someday.
- mindslight 16y ago
  Google isn't going to rock the carriers' boat, but any significant kernel contributor could step up to the plate and fix the locked bootloader problem at any time.
  - Zak 16y ago
    Google needs to keep pressure on the carriers, or they will turn Android in to a glorified featurephone platform an inch at a time.
  - tomjen3 16y ago
    Unfortunately not, since the Kernel is GPL2.0, not GPL3. GPL2.0 doesn't have anti-tivorization features.
    - mindslight 16y ago
      Explicit ones, no. Tivoization certainly violates the spirit of GPL2, as well as the letter. From GPL2: > The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. 1. the signature is a derivative work of the GPLed work. 2. modification is the reason for distributing source code. source code without a signing key is not the "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it", as modifications cannot be made. 3. the signing key is an integral part of the "scripts used to control compilation and installation". 4. the signature is part of the "executable"; without it, the resulting object code is not executable.

35 points by azharcs 16y ago

I used to love Google, and will still love Google. But this action of theirs disappointed me. Google thinks that they are an "open" and esp android is very "open", i.e. it is free and open source. Manufacturers can modify the code and adapt to their hardware. Thats all well and good. But when Motorola modifies the code to add skyhook wireless for location, Google says take it off, or else.... This is really not good and does not match up with Google's ideals. And note that skyhook wireless is a known firm for such a thing, in fact they had the first databases for wifi location search and iphones also used to use them

cma 16y ago

Android has always been sold as an open system + proprietary google apps. If you want access to the proprietary system (and presumably the Android trademark), you fall in line. Any company is free to make a phone without the proprietary google apps, but not selectively. Yet for all this, Google still allows vendors to do things like lock the phone's search to Bing.

jscore 16y ago

Obviously it's one side of the story from Skyhook, as they're trying to spread their point of view. Would love to hear Google's viewpoint.

jonknee 16y ago
I'd guess it's something like, "Our testing has shown Skyhook performs worse than our internal service in real world use and we want Android customers to have the best."

dstein 16y ago

Google Android is just begging to get forked, and splintered. Manufacturers like Motorola and Samsung might have to bend to Google's will, but I doubt carriers will sit tightly while Google's fangs sink deeper into their industry.

stanleydrew 16y ago
I'm not really sure what you mean by "their industry," but the fact that carriers feel that their industry is anything other than delivering data is an annoyance that we all have to suffer (at least in the US). So let's hope Google can prevent full-blown carrier-specific forks of Android and keep trying to reduce them to the commodity providers they should be.

jonknee 16y ago

They weren't forced, it's open source. They could have shipped it without the Android trademark and Google applications. Apple also forced out Skyhook. Location based services are central to mobile computing, it's in Google's best interest to keep that built in to the Android platform and consistent.

robg 16y ago
When do these actions become anti-competitive?
- glhaynes 16y ago
  What would make them so?
  - robg 16y ago
    This doesn't seem to be the handset maker or even the carrier controlling the options. It's another software provider limiting potentially competing software...on an open platform. Seems they're using their competitive power in one domain to inhibit competition in another. What am I missing?
    - arebop 16y ago
      Anti-competitive doesn't just mean "not good for competitors." It's about things that are harmful for the marketplace. For example, it excludes the ordinary enjoyment of copyright exclusivity. You might think monopolies are harmful for marketplaces, but as a society we've decided that copyrights do more good than harm, so copyright exclusivity is not in itself anti-competitive. A more relevant example: trademarks are not generally anti-competitive. Imagine Bob's Booze complaining that Bacardi has pressured Thirsty Time Beverage Co. to use Bacardi rum in the "Thirsty Thursday Party Punch with Bacardi(TM)" drink. Bob wants to make a deal with Thirsty to replace Bacardi rum with his company's rum as a key ingredient in the punch. Suppose Thirsty Time always uses Bacardi's filtered water as an ingredient; can Bacardi insist that Thirsty Time also ship its famous rum (and nobody else's) as a condition for TT's use of the Bacardi brand name on rum-containing drinks? Would that be "anti-competitive?"

martythemaniak 16y ago

Well, on hand you have people complaining that Android is too open and allows carriers to load crapware and disable tethering. On the other hand, we have people complaining that Android is too closed because Motorola couldn't switch location providers. Which one is it?

jonknee 16y ago
I think it's the other other hand where people just like to complain. This reminds me of faux political controversy that gets created by cable news (replace Fox News with Daring Fireball).
jerf 16y ago
Can you establish that these are the exact same people? It's only hypocrisy if you can establish that. Otherwise you've merely observed in a relatively hostile way that various people have various ideas about "freedom" and that's neither news nor terribly interesting on its own.
- jonknee 16y ago
  John Gruber is playing both sides. It's veiled in his usual snark, but he has been hitting on Skyhook quite a bit: http://daringfireball.net/2010/09/the_welcome_to_android http://daringfireball.net/2010/09/the_welcome_to_android http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/09/16/dont-be-evil http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/09/16/dont-be-evil http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/09/16/skyhook-google http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/09/16/skyhook-google And has also snarked about the "open for carriers" situation quite a bit: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/09/02/skype-android http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/09/02/skype-android http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/03/02/att-android http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/03/02/att-android http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/07/17/preinstalled http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/07/17/preinstalled http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/08/06/skype-verizon http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/08/06/skype-verizon
  - patrickaljord 16y ago

Zak 16y ago

Honestly, I'd like to see Google use this lever against carriers and manufacturers a bit more to ban any or all of the following: * Locked bootloaders * Disabled or substituted major features (e.g. wifi tethering) * Apps that can't be uninstalled * Skins that can't be disabled * Proprietary drivers * SIM locking I'm aware that Google does not yet have the clout to pull off most of the above yet, but maybe someday.

mindslight 16y ago
Google isn't going to rock the carriers' boat, but any significant kernel contributor could step up to the plate and fix the locked bootloader problem at any time.
- Zak 16y ago
  Google needs to keep pressure on the carriers, or they will turn Android in to a glorified featurephone platform an inch at a time.
- tomjen3 16y ago
  Unfortunately not, since the Kernel is GPL2.0, not GPL3. GPL2.0 doesn't have anti-tivorization features.
  - mindslight 16y ago
    Explicit ones, no. Tivoization certainly violates the spirit of GPL2, as well as the letter. From GPL2: > The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. 1. the signature is a derivative work of the GPLed work. 2. modification is the reason for distributing source code. source code without a signing key is not the "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it", as modifications cannot be made. 3. the signing key is an integral part of the "scripts used to control compilation and installation". 4. the signature is part of the "executable"; without it, the resulting object code is not executable.