4 ms·

Here’s Why Google Is Holding Honeycomb Back

46 points by profitbaron 16y ago

sudont 16y ago
This seems fairly reminiscent of video card vendors. They're built on a single platform, but if they screw up the card, nVidia or ATI gets the blame. And the same issue with Windows. Sure, it could be a terrible scanner driver, but it's easier to just blame what's visible. Multiple vendors means that the blame gets shifted to whoever holds the most mindshare. In this case, it's Google, since they're trying to provide both a platform, and a brand. Apple pulls it off through vertical integration, and their version of OSS is providing a big box of parts you can strap together to build your own, not to post-mod their thing. It removes all doubt of who's doing what. Personally, I don't think it's that big of an issue if Google has to alpha/beta it in private before releasing to the general dev community. It's just somewhat snide to use complete and total openness as a selling point, when it's simply unfeasible to be completely open on technical, marketing and design standpoints from day one.
raganwald 16y ago
The article is undoubtedly correct in explaining why Google chooses to keep Honeycomb closed at this time. However, this defeats the entire point of making Android "open." Of course there will be droves of handset makers releasing crappy handsets with Honeycomb that is not ready. But perhaps one company out there might do something innovative and useful, and that's what you get when you open thing up. Open always means tons of dreck, but it sometimes means something unexpected and good, that's the whole point. If Google doesn't want tons of dreck, it can stop pretending to be open.
stcredzero 16y ago
I wonder if RIM or HP can make a play for the #2 tablet, given the floundering in the Android camp?
- r00fus 16y ago
  If Honeycomb doesn't cut it, my bet would be on HPalm. RIM's decision to jump on the Android train reeks of desperation, they just want to have app count, not quality experience or functionality.
rje 16y ago
I get why Google wants to hold back the source, but it sucks for the folks who bought a Xoom and now don't have access to it. Andy Rubin's definition of "Open" (http://twitter.com/#!/arubin/status/27808662429 http://twitter.com/#!/arubin/status/27808662429) doesn't have much value if google doesn't make the source code readily available.
billjings 16y ago
Have you ever known that person who won't check in his/her code until they're satisfied? Have you ever been that person? I know I have. It is a very, very bad sign when somebody is in a social environment and will not share their code. It means they are insecure, it might mean they're not getting any work done. It always means that the code is in a state where they are not proud of it and aren't comfortable receiving feedback. It typically means that the code isn't getting a whole lot better. A major software company like Google, or a team within that company, can't be compared to a lone cowboy coder. There are perfectly legitimate reasons to hold back code. In this case, though, if this is really the reason - that Honeycomb was rushed to market and the code just doesn't look good, we'll fix it later and let you know - how does that make the relationship with the open community look? Not good. It's not good to be afraid of community feedback, whether you're the Android team or a fresh programmer in an unfamiliar shop. And as for me personally, it doesn't give me a lot of hope for a pleasant experience on the Honeycomb development I'm going to be doing soon.
richcollins 16y ago
These are the same reasons that Apple gave for not allowing flash, undocumented API calls ... etc. For some reason Google gets a pass from many while Apple was pilloried.
wh-uws 16y ago
When I first saw the honeycomb demo I thought to myself "How are they gonna fit that ui on a phone?" I guess the answer is they aren't.
funkdobiest 16y ago
Could this be Sales people making delivery claims to the hardware manufacturers, which are not technically possible to meet? So the devs have to cut corners to meet the deadline, and are not releasing the code because they are not happy with the internal marketing situation? Just a guess.
aufreak3 16y ago
The explanation in this seems plausible, but doesn't account for other ways to solve the perception problem - for example, google can do real open code and set up a "signed by google" program to indicate that not all of what's out there is to be associated with google.
digikata 16y ago
Or they're doing a legal review to make sure they're covered for any lurking lawsuit threats.

46 points by profitbaron 16y ago

This seems fairly reminiscent of video card vendors. They're built on a single platform, but if they screw up the card, nVidia or ATI gets the blame. And the same issue with Windows. Sure, it could be a terrible scanner driver, but it's easier to just blame what's visible. Multiple vendors means that the blame gets shifted to whoever holds the most mindshare. In this case, it's Google, since they're trying to provide both a platform, and a brand. Apple pulls it off through vertical integration, and their version of OSS is providing a big box of parts you can strap together to build your own, not to post-mod their thing. It removes all doubt of who's doing what. Personally, I don't think it's that big of an issue if Google has to alpha/beta it in private before releasing to the general dev community. It's just somewhat snide to use complete and total openness as a selling point, when it's simply unfeasible to be completely open on technical, marketing and design standpoints from day one.

raganwald 16y ago

The article is undoubtedly correct in explaining why Google chooses to keep Honeycomb closed at this time. However, this defeats the entire point of making Android "open." Of course there will be droves of handset makers releasing crappy handsets with Honeycomb that is not ready. But perhaps one company out there might do something innovative and useful, and that's what you get when you open thing up. Open always means tons of dreck, but it sometimes means something unexpected and good, that's the whole point. If Google doesn't want tons of dreck, it can stop pretending to be open.

stcredzero 16y ago

I wonder if RIM or HP can make a play for the #2 tablet, given the floundering in the Android camp?

r00fus 16y ago
If Honeycomb doesn't cut it, my bet would be on HPalm. RIM's decision to jump on the Android train reeks of desperation, they just want to have app count, not quality experience or functionality.

rje 16y ago

I get why Google wants to hold back the source, but it sucks for the folks who bought a Xoom and now don't have access to it. Andy Rubin's definition of "Open" (http://twitter.com/#!/arubin/status/27808662429 http://twitter.com/#!/arubin/status/27808662429) doesn't have much value if google doesn't make the source code readily available.

billjings 16y ago

Have you ever known that person who won't check in his/her code until they're satisfied? Have you ever been that person? I know I have. It is a very, very bad sign when somebody is in a social environment and will not share their code. It means they are insecure, it might mean they're not getting any work done. It always means that the code is in a state where they are not proud of it and aren't comfortable receiving feedback. It typically means that the code isn't getting a whole lot better. A major software company like Google, or a team within that company, can't be compared to a lone cowboy coder. There are perfectly legitimate reasons to hold back code. In this case, though, if this is really the reason - that Honeycomb was rushed to market and the code just doesn't look good, we'll fix it later and let you know - how does that make the relationship with the open community look? Not good. It's not good to be afraid of community feedback, whether you're the Android team or a fresh programmer in an unfamiliar shop. And as for me personally, it doesn't give me a lot of hope for a pleasant experience on the Honeycomb development I'm going to be doing soon.

richcollins 16y ago

These are the same reasons that Apple gave for not allowing flash, undocumented API calls ... etc. For some reason Google gets a pass from many while Apple was pilloried.

wh-uws 16y ago

When I first saw the honeycomb demo I thought to myself "How are they gonna fit that ui on a phone?" I guess the answer is they aren't.

funkdobiest 16y ago

Could this be Sales people making delivery claims to the hardware manufacturers, which are not technically possible to meet? So the devs have to cut corners to meet the deadline, and are not releasing the code because they are not happy with the internal marketing situation? Just a guess.

aufreak3 16y ago

The explanation in this seems plausible, but doesn't account for other ways to solve the perception problem - for example, google can do real open code and set up a "signed by google" program to indicate that not all of what's out there is to be associated with google.

digikata 16y ago

Or they're doing a legal review to make sure they're covered for any lurking lawsuit threats.