3 ms·

"I'm calling your bluff, I don't think you have any counter-arguments to the article and you're leading with your best argument already: nitpicking one paragrap

"I'm calling your bluff, I don't think you have any counter-arguments to the article and you're leading with your best argument already: nitpicking one paragraph." No, i'm just not bothering. Really. For example: It quotes vic gundotra for why android happened, a man who literally was not at Google until after Android was released. (and who Andy Rubin definitely did not give a shit about or chat with until much much later. Vic may have left an SVP, but he did not come in as one) "But we had this discussion before and I pointed out that Google, an online services provider with zero mobile experience and no name recognition had a very poor chance of convincing manufacturers to go for their unproven, inferior to pretty much anything OS (including Symbian and Blackberry). They might as well have just licensed Windows." It was definitely not inferior, but i'll ignore your opinion on this one and stick with the substance. You conflate two pieces, one of which mattered, and one of which didn't: "Google not charging a license for the OS and making it open source must have been a big part of what convinced them to pick Android instead. It's just very logical that they would be swayed by price and the possibility of changing Android if they wanted to." The not charging was the main part of it (they actually mostly expect it to end up saving their low end from licensing fees), and yes, customization mattered. But ability for partners to have source is completely orthogonal to open sourcing. In fact, most of the partners were heavily against open sourcing it, because they felt it would cause them to lose their value add. They also didn't want to have to deal with the compliance aspects of android OSS licensing even a little bit! They were also strongly against having to non assert patents. I spent about a year of my life convincing htc and others it would be okay for them if we open source d it. (As mentioned elsewhere, because Andy wanted to help the world, not because it was critical to Google strategy). In fact, the open source release almost didn't happen at the same time as the SDK release, and was considered fairly secondary. The only critical piece was the compliance source. So again, I don't know why everyone is so stuck on the open source. Closed source worked fine for partners, and still does. It's even what they want. I'm going to state definitively a thing that is as true now as it was then: The hardware manufacturers do not give a crap about Android being open source. They did not care then. They still don't care. In fact, they still see it as a net negative. They want to be able to develop with Google in private branches that the other hardware manufacturers can't see. I'm not sure why this is so provocative to people. It's not like you see these hardware manufacturers running around trying to be pillars of the OSS community. In any case, I've said more than enough about this multiple times and I'm not going to spend more of a weekend arguing about this. You are welcome to rewrite history. Someday, I hope you are successful enough to experience this as well.

blub 8y ago
Re the quote(s): that's the least interesting part of the article, although assuming the quote is correct, I don't believe we should fault Ars because Google management gave misleading statements. The core is the discussion about the various apps and how Google is using the GAS as a lever to control an open source OS to the point that it's both having its open source cake and eating it too. Well, until this EU decision that is. I have seen first hand how Google's subsidizing of Android through ad dollars brought other mobile OS producers to their knees. This behaviour is anti-competitive and should not be allowed. Few are "successful enough to experience this as well", because Google destroyed the mobile OS market: Windows Phone, FirefoxOS, webOS, Meego were all technically compelling alternatives that had potental to grow, but which couldn't compete with "free". And since we're wishing each other things, I hope you will realise one day how much your employer is hurting our societies and realise that you were right there helping and defending them. P.S: I have wrongly focused too much on OSS instead on the gratis + subsidized by ads part. I am willing to concede the point regarding OSS being a plus for manufacturers in light of what you said, if you claim that Google was willing to share all the sources with manufacturers while keeping the project closed. This would basically have given them all the advantages, assuming they had a solid contract in place. I'll keep this in mind when discussing this in the future, thanks.
- DannyBee 8y ago
  "And since we're wishing each other things, I hope you will realise one day how much your employer is hurting our societies and realise that you were right there helping and defending them." Sorry, that was a cheap shot on my part, i apologize. FWIW: I am the type of person who if i felt what you say was true, i would just quit. So i suspect we just have different perspectives on reality here. Which is fine. I think you also would find i am not in general a fan of corporations and corporate form. For example: I think LLCs shouldn't exist (They aren't needed to promote innovation), and in general, that corporations exist to serve society and not the other way around. I think that's definitely gone off the rails in the past 100 years or so. But this thing we are talking about, even looking back with the benefit of hindsight, i would say it was a good thing for society overall. My employer in general, well, again, I think our perspectives are just different. On what my employer does, it's motivations, etc.

blub 8y ago

Re the quote(s): that's the least interesting part of the article, although assuming the quote is correct, I don't believe we should fault Ars because Google management gave misleading statements. The core is the discussion about the various apps and how Google is using the GAS as a lever to control an open source OS to the point that it's both having its open source cake and eating it too. Well, until this EU decision that is. I have seen first hand how Google's subsidizing of Android through ad dollars brought other mobile OS producers to their knees. This behaviour is anti-competitive and should not be allowed. Few are "successful enough to experience this as well", because Google destroyed the mobile OS market: Windows Phone, FirefoxOS, webOS, Meego were all technically compelling alternatives that had potental to grow, but which couldn't compete with "free". And since we're wishing each other things, I hope you will realise one day how much your employer is hurting our societies and realise that you were right there helping and defending them. P.S: I have wrongly focused too much on OSS instead on the gratis + subsidized by ads part. I am willing to concede the point regarding OSS being a plus for manufacturers in light of what you said, if you claim that Google was willing to share all the sources with manufacturers while keeping the project closed. This would basically have given them all the advantages, assuming they had a solid contract in place. I'll keep this in mind when discussing this in the future, thanks.

DannyBee 8y ago
"And since we're wishing each other things, I hope you will realise one day how much your employer is hurting our societies and realise that you were right there helping and defending them." Sorry, that was a cheap shot on my part, i apologize. FWIW: I am the type of person who if i felt what you say was true, i would just quit. So i suspect we just have different perspectives on reality here. Which is fine. I think you also would find i am not in general a fan of corporations and corporate form. For example: I think LLCs shouldn't exist (They aren't needed to promote innovation), and in general, that corporations exist to serve society and not the other way around. I think that's definitely gone off the rails in the past 100 years or so. But this thing we are talking about, even looking back with the benefit of hindsight, i would say it was a good thing for society overall. My employer in general, well, again, I think our perspectives are just different. On what my employer does, it's motivations, etc.