3 ms·

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

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
"Validated by statements from Google insiders"? Seriously? You're in a thread with Daniel Berlin explaining to you what actually happened.

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

"Validated by statements from Google insiders"? Seriously? You're in a thread with Daniel Berlin explaining to you what actually happened.