5 ms·

> Android being open at all was already a fight inside Google, this decision will essentially make it impossible for anybody win that fight in the future. I can

• DannyBee 8y ago
  "It was a calculated risk that had a handsome payoff, if it worked, which is why it had to be open source, anything short of open source and Android would never have taken off like it did with several handset manufacturers via the OHA [0]." This is actually not why it was done (I was there :P), and didn't really factor very much into the calculation at all. So your perspective, while interesting, was not the one used. In fact, the business folks mostly thought it would be a downside (given all the FUD/etc around the time period). Your perspective is also interesting because Apple did not go this route and still were wildly successful. So i disagree it "had to be open source or it would not have taken off". I'd like to believe that (really!), but there is an existence proof that this was not true (Apple), and in the end, i just can't bring myself to think what you say is true. It was open because Andy thought it was best for the world (really. I realize how cliche that sounds, but if you've ever met the guy, you'd realize it was true. He gave pretty much not a shit about the business side of it, it's not what he enjoyed). As mentioned, the business folks argued that this model would just lead to a shitty experience (among other things) over time. (This was pre-iphone, so apple was not a consideration at the time). The compromise was "great, let's figure out how we can make sure that doesn't happen through branding guidelines/etc". Later, after Apple was successful, the business folks all said "look, this model was a mistake, look at Apple". You could still push back and say "we are doing fine". I don't see how, in the future, the business folks don't win every argument here. Apple's model is giving them all the money, with none of the downsides. This seems like a "business school case study" they would teach in the future.
  • anigbrowl 8y ago
    I could have sworn that the the open-source thing was a big part of the incentive to develop for Android rather than Apple with its walled garden and arbitrary app store policies. Now development and commitment to the open source track may have begun much earlier. And it was a way for Google to differentiate itself from Apple by having a different business model. My recall of the first couple of years on the market was that everyone knew Android apps were not as fast or as fancy as iOS ones, but 'at least it's an open platform.'
    • DannyBee 8y ago
      The first part is basically saying "Google chose a thing, so chose to market that as a good thing". Isn't that what everyone does? As for whether it mattered, honestly, no, i would say didn't. The developers cared whether they could make money, not whether it was open.
  • confounded 8y ago
    How does the business model relate to the source-code being published under a Free Software license? I don't see how the license of the software relates to it it giving you a shitty experience or not. The shitty experiences I had on Android were largely due to carrier and OEM spyware and bloatware preinstalled on devices -- deals Google struck. I had always attributed the security problems to Google having inadequate terms with handset manufacturers, to keep handsets up to date. Specifically, that handsets could automatically fall back to stock Android if the OEM/carrier didn't want to continue to develop their proprietary fork for that line of handsets. Maybe this is wrong. Maybe it was planned obsolescence with unintended consequences.
    • euyyn 8y ago
      But there's no saying that future versions of stock Android will work on a specific device. Because it's open source, many OEMs just take the OS and don't upstream the drivers they write. And because Linux has no driver ABI, they need to be recompiled from source for every new version of the OS (and modified accordingly too, because there's no stable driver API either). That's why project Treble was done.
• bitmapbrother 8y ago
  >It was a calculated risk that had a handsome payoff, Yes, it payed off in marketshare, but severely limited the profitability of Android and being another major revenue stream for Google. I hope this decision makes them think twice about their strategy for Fuchsia because they seem to be using the Android model all over again. Google really needs to start operating like Apple for better or worse.
  • zmmmmm 8y ago
    That is really the sad thing about this EU decision. There are many benefits to open source, but it is extremely hard to find ways to monetise it. Google's strategy of using their investment in Android to secure Google Search on mobile was one way of monetising it. Whether you agree with it or not, the EU is shutting the door on that, and it will affect people's view of monetising open source far more generally than this specific case.
    • bitmapbrother 8y ago
      I'm waiting for the day Alphabet removes Android from Google's umbrella and is expected to contribute to the bottom line. I wonder what they'll do to make that happen... You can either licence Android for a fee or a percentage of the cost of your device. If you would like to use GMS we can also include that for an additional cost.
  • tanilama 8y ago
    Which I have to agree. EU basically kills the Android model, and makes monetization based on it impossible, because once you reach the scale of Android, for which it is necessary for such model to be profitable, you will be targeted. So why make things free at all, at least you won't be called as hypocrites.