3 ms·

"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

"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.
russdpale 8y ago
Very interesting, thank you for the post! I will say that from our perspective on the outside, we (as in techies, app developers, etc) were pretty damned excited for open source. Its why I ditched my iphone and have been android ever since. Pure android is a much better experience, imho, than iphone will ever be or has been in the past.. the problem with android is that you get a nice new android phone and its riddled with crap ware you can't get rid of unless you know how to root and install a nice AOSP rom and the phone is even popular enough to warrant someone figuring out how to root it... which is great for me but not for a lot of other people who don't even know what root is. I also don't understand why the nexus phone line got cut. I guess it wasn't selling well? I can't understand why though. My wife has a nexus 6p and its a great phone that was well priced.
MarkMc 8y ago
Thanks for giving us a peek at the early development of Android. It's interesting that Andy was pushing open-source for altruistic reasons, but I'm tempted to think that it happened to also be the best business strategy - despite what the suits thought at the time. Every business school teaches that IBM made one of the worst business decisions of all time when it licenced the software for its new personal computers from Microsoft. Samsung certainly didn't want to make the same mistake, and an open-source operating system can always be forked so Samsung had a guarantee it wouldn't end up paying the 'Windows tax'. If Android was closed-source it would have found it much more difficult to get that critical early install base. But with a successful open-source platform it could then develop its closed-source Play service. To me this one-two punch would make a great business school case study in favour of Android's open/closed-source hybrid approach

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.

russdpale 8y ago

Very interesting, thank you for the post! I will say that from our perspective on the outside, we (as in techies, app developers, etc) were pretty damned excited for open source. Its why I ditched my iphone and have been android ever since. Pure android is a much better experience, imho, than iphone will ever be or has been in the past.. the problem with android is that you get a nice new android phone and its riddled with crap ware you can't get rid of unless you know how to root and install a nice AOSP rom and the phone is even popular enough to warrant someone figuring out how to root it... which is great for me but not for a lot of other people who don't even know what root is. I also don't understand why the nexus phone line got cut. I guess it wasn't selling well? I can't understand why though. My wife has a nexus 6p and its a great phone that was well priced.

MarkMc 8y ago

Thanks for giving us a peek at the early development of Android. It's interesting that Andy was pushing open-source for altruistic reasons, but I'm tempted to think that it happened to also be the best business strategy - despite what the suits thought at the time. Every business school teaches that IBM made one of the worst business decisions of all time when it licenced the software for its new personal computers from Microsoft. Samsung certainly didn't want to make the same mistake, and an open-source operating system can always be forked so Samsung had a guarantee it wouldn't end up paying the 'Windows tax'. If Android was closed-source it would have found it much more difficult to get that critical early install base. But with a successful open-source platform it could then develop its closed-source Play service. To me this one-two punch would make a great business school case study in favour of Android's open/closed-source hybrid approach