4 ms·

Actually that's mostly true. Rubin's open source Android didn't have to stay open source. But there was no choice, unlike Apple Google didn't plan on making the

Actually that's mostly true. Rubin's open source Android didn't have to stay open source. But there was no choice, unlike Apple Google didn't plan on making the phone. So they had to have a lot of partnerships with OEMs and carriers. And as Google was trying to sell that phone (with keyboard and no touchscreen) and OS to carriers Apple launched the iPhone. At this point Rubin and Google changed course and made their phone and OS less Blackberry and more iPhone because they were smart enough to realize that was the future. The only way to make it work, to convince carriers and fight Apple, was to keep it open source. Or to sign it away to the carriers :). Rubin himself said that the iPhone was the thing that made them reconsider their entire strategy and come up with the first Android phone as we know it. If you're curious about the story there's a good book with all the behind the curtain details: Dogfight: How Apple and Google Went to War and Started a Revolution.

scarface74 8y ago
Rubin's open source Android didn't have to stay open source. But there was no choice, unlike Apple Google didn't plan on making the phone. So they had to have a lot of partnerships with OEMs and carriers. There was nothing forcing Google to semi-open source Android. The competitive advantage of Android was that it was free not open source. Microsoft has licensed a closed source operating system to OEMs for decades.
- close04 8y ago
  Again, if you want to get details read that book. It's validated by statements from Google insiders and more. The gist is that free wasn't enough. Right around the launch of the iPhone carriers didn't want to buy into anything that they didn't own. So carriers and OEMs got free reign to modify Android as they saw fit, not just get it for free. Which is why Rubin's Sidekick phone was only sold because T-Mobile agreed to rebrand it and sell it. And as far as anybody knew it was made by T-Mobile, not a Danger. Carriers controlled the industry and it was only the first iPhone that made a dent in that.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    What choice did carriers have besides accepting Android? The only other licensed OS was Windows Mobile. Being a closed sourced operating system doesn’t preclude OEMs and carriers from installing bloatware - see Windows. How was Apple, a brand new entrant in the phone market, able to keep carrier crapware off of their phones from day one? The first Android phones came after the iPhone.
    - close04 8y ago
      Microsoft was in the market for a lot longer and could command some exceptions. And maybe Jobs had a better negotiating position. After all Jobs was coming with his own phone and by all accounts the whole package was a compelling proposition. Google on the other hand came with a proposition that kept shifting, and some uncertain partnerships with OEMs. I guess Rubin and Google just saw this as an opportunity to fast track Android's evolution and decided to keep it open. Just as Rubin always intended as per his own words. As some apparent insider sources in Google said, open source gave carriers and OEMs confidence that Google wouldn't have absolute power over the Android ecosystem. Which is basically exactly what Google has now. The push to accept Android actually came (ironically) from the threat of Apple. They managed to upend the traditional model and have a relationship directly with the users (customers would switch carriers for the iPhone). This didn't make AT&T happy in the long run. On the other hand the iPhone was also an AT&T exclusive. Which didn't make other carriers happy. And on the third hand other OEMs had nothing to compete with. In about 2 years both carriers and OEMs had started embracing Android because it gave them some peace of mind: they could customize phones, they could brand them, and the customer relationship would still be with the carrier. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. And that friend happened to be Android. And it was just the openness mentioned above that probably made the difference between Android and Windows.
      - tptacek 8y ago
        You "guess" Rubin saw this as an opportunity?
  - tptacek 8y ago
DannyBee 8y ago
"The only way to make it work, to convince carriers and fight Apple, was to keep it open source. Or to sign it away to the carriers :)." Again, it's simply not. You are confusing having access to source with being open source. The partner were happy with closed source. They did care somewhat that they had source. They definitely did not care if anyone else did, and didn't want anyone else to. "If you're curious about the story there's a good book with all the behind the curtain details: Dogfight: How Apple and Google Went to War and Started a Revolution." I literally was in the room, so i don't need the book :)
- close04 8y ago
  Take it up with Rubin. He seems to have had a different understanding. And he was the one negotiating with carriers for a long time. And while I wasn't "in the room", Rubin said it himself in multiple interviews: he wanted to make an open source OS, not with access to source in order to appeal to exactly what the carriers wanted. In fact every time Rubin talked about this he referred to Android as it was since its phone OS inception as open. It's always "his idea to create an open source OS for phones". I'll just assume that one of you is embellishing his story. And in all honesty it could be either way, founder stories tend to get beautified over time.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    You're not even rebutting him. He didn't say Rubin didn't want Android to be open source. He said Rubin's reasons for supporting open source were not the ones people attribute to him; that open sourcing Android had nothing to do with penetration among hardware vendors, who did not want Android to be open source.

scarface74 8y ago

Rubin's open source Android didn't have to stay open source. But there was no choice, unlike Apple Google didn't plan on making the phone. So they had to have a lot of partnerships with OEMs and carriers. There was nothing forcing Google to semi-open source Android. The competitive advantage of Android was that it was free not open source. Microsoft has licensed a closed source operating system to OEMs for decades.

close04 8y ago
Again, if you want to get details read that book. It's validated by statements from Google insiders and more. The gist is that free wasn't enough. Right around the launch of the iPhone carriers didn't want to buy into anything that they didn't own. So carriers and OEMs got free reign to modify Android as they saw fit, not just get it for free. Which is why Rubin's Sidekick phone was only sold because T-Mobile agreed to rebrand it and sell it. And as far as anybody knew it was made by T-Mobile, not a Danger. Carriers controlled the industry and it was only the first iPhone that made a dent in that.
- scarface74 8y ago
  What choice did carriers have besides accepting Android? The only other licensed OS was Windows Mobile. Being a closed sourced operating system doesn’t preclude OEMs and carriers from installing bloatware - see Windows. How was Apple, a brand new entrant in the phone market, able to keep carrier crapware off of their phones from day one? The first Android phones came after the iPhone.
  - close04 8y ago
    Microsoft was in the market for a lot longer and could command some exceptions. And maybe Jobs had a better negotiating position. After all Jobs was coming with his own phone and by all accounts the whole package was a compelling proposition. Google on the other hand came with a proposition that kept shifting, and some uncertain partnerships with OEMs. I guess Rubin and Google just saw this as an opportunity to fast track Android's evolution and decided to keep it open. Just as Rubin always intended as per his own words. As some apparent insider sources in Google said, open source gave carriers and OEMs confidence that Google wouldn't have absolute power over the Android ecosystem. Which is basically exactly what Google has now. The push to accept Android actually came (ironically) from the threat of Apple. They managed to upend the traditional model and have a relationship directly with the users (customers would switch carriers for the iPhone). This didn't make AT&T happy in the long run. On the other hand the iPhone was also an AT&T exclusive. Which didn't make other carriers happy. And on the third hand other OEMs had nothing to compete with. In about 2 years both carriers and OEMs had started embracing Android because it gave them some peace of mind: they could customize phones, they could brand them, and the customer relationship would still be with the carrier. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. And that friend happened to be Android. And it was just the openness mentioned above that probably made the difference between Android and Windows.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      You "guess" Rubin saw this as an opportunity?
- tptacek 8y ago

DannyBee 8y ago

"The only way to make it work, to convince carriers and fight Apple, was to keep it open source. Or to sign it away to the carriers :)." Again, it's simply not. You are confusing having access to source with being open source. The partner were happy with closed source. They did care somewhat that they had source. They definitely did not care if anyone else did, and didn't want anyone else to. "If you're curious about the story there's a good book with all the behind the curtain details: Dogfight: How Apple and Google Went to War and Started a Revolution." I literally was in the room, so i don't need the book :)

close04 8y ago
Take it up with Rubin. He seems to have had a different understanding. And he was the one negotiating with carriers for a long time. And while I wasn't "in the room", Rubin said it himself in multiple interviews: he wanted to make an open source OS, not with access to source in order to appeal to exactly what the carriers wanted. In fact every time Rubin talked about this he referred to Android as it was since its phone OS inception as open. It's always "his idea to create an open source OS for phones". I'll just assume that one of you is embellishing his story. And in all honesty it could be either way, founder stories tend to get beautified over time.
- tptacek 8y ago
  You're not even rebutting him. He didn't say Rubin didn't want Android to be open source. He said Rubin's reasons for supporting open source were not the ones people attribute to him; that open sourcing Android had nothing to do with penetration among hardware vendors, who did not want Android to be open source.