12 ms·

Google Tightening Control of Android

59 points by Athtar 16y ago

Athtar 16y ago
Here is the most interesting snippet for me: Facebook, for example, has been working to fashion its own variant of Android for smartphones. Executives at the social network are unhappy that Google gets to review Facebook's tweaks to Android, say two people who weren't comfortable being named talking about the business. Google has also tried to hold up the release of Verizon (VZ) Android devices that make use of Microsoft's (MSFT) rival Bing search engine, according to two people familiar with the discussions. With Google being direct competitors with Facebook and Microsoft in the online space, they have a lot to gain by knowing their competitor's plans early/by being able to limit their influence.
- jkincaid 16y ago
  I don't understand how Google can maintain any control over those devices, though. My understanding was that anyone could download the Android source, sans Google applications like Gmail and Market, and install it on whatever they want. If I were Facebook, I'd just avoid Google entirely and use alternative apps for everything. Amazon Appstore, Facebook Messaging for email, etc.
  - anon1385 16y ago
    Google have not released the source to Honeycomb so no, anyone can't just go and download it.
    - jkincaid 16y ago
      Honeycomb is the outlier and will probably be released in a few months (actually, I think Google is stalling til they release Ice Cream Sandwich). And I doubt Facebook would release a tablet before they release a phone.
      - rbarooah 16y ago
        It may be an outlier but it proves that access to Android source is unreliable.
  - Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
    The way in which Android is open differs from many other open projects. The source to Android is made public at or around the time the final version ships but until that point only select partners have access to the software. It's this approach that Google are going to strengthen - essentially if you don't obey their rules you won't be a select partner and you won't get early access to the new releases. What this means is that if you don't obey Google's rules you'll be getting the software two or three months later than your competitors (and without all the support they will be getting), likely receiving it around the time they're actually bringing products to market. That's a pretty big competitive disadvantage if you're aiming to compete at anything close to the top end of the market. So basically while you can use Android as you wish, if you don't obey Google's rules then you won't be able to do so in a way that allows you to be competitive. The cynic in me says that this is getting mighty close to being open in name only.
    - jkincaid 16y ago
      Okay, but Facebook isn't really going head-to-head with everyone else shipping the stock version of Android with a slightly different coat of paint, so I don't think it's a huge deal if they're a few months behind. Also, while there have been some performance optimizations in the latest builds of Android, from a feature perspective there hasn't been that much (NFC is the biggest one in Gingerbread). So even working on the previous release doesn't seem like a huge deal to me.
    - MatthewPhillips 16y ago
      I don't think being behind matters that much. People online complain about version numbers; general consumers don't know. Amazon can release a phone running 2.3 loaded with Amazon Appstore, Cloud Player, tighter Facebook integration, and an overhauled UI (A good one) and consumers will eat it up.
      - Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
        If it's not that big a deal why are Android users so vocal about not getting updates? Even if that is true if you're Facebook or Amazon and you're looking to differentiate yourself in that way it's one thing. If you're a handset manufacturer looking to make a kick-ass Android phone it's another entirely and there it would be a big deal.
  - rst 16y ago
    Some of Google's apps are going to be tricky to clone, though, particularly ones like Maps, Navigation, Goggles, and possibly YouTube, which rely in essential ways on Google's back-end services. How much of a big deal this is would depend on what market segment they're going after, but mapping and location services are awfully handy across the board, and available on pretty cheap phones at this point.
    - nuclear_eclipse 16y ago
      Google Maps, Navigation, Goggles, and Youtube are all available from the Android Market. Now the real question is whether Facebook would still be able to get access to the Market if they skip the rest of the apps.
      - ryandvm 16y ago
        They don't because the Android Market app itself is one of Google's closed applications.
  - joebadmo 16y ago
    Google maintains some level of control now through its "Google Experience" deals which include: access to the Market, Gmail, Maps, and other apps; early access to new versions; but also a share in the ad revenue, which can't be trivial. Maybe Google didn't really have the clout to exercise control until now, but I'm really glad it's finally happening. What I hope this means is that Google will control everything on the OS level, and allow customizations by the manufacturers and carriers only on a skinning and app level. In a perfect world they would also enforce access to bootloaders, to allow easy rom changes.
    - rkudeshi 16y ago
      Device manufacturers get a cut of ad revenue? News to me, source?
aristidb 16y ago
If this means they can force device makers to actually ship updates, I'm all for it.
- ShabbyDoo 16y ago
  This is my biggest complaint about Android. I have one of the original Droids, and it's already obvious that Verizon/Motorola aren't going to do more than the minimum amount of upkeep from now on.
  - wewyor 16y ago
    I have an original droid as well and you should seriously consider rooting it and putting something like cyanogen mod on it, it works well on my end. (Though I seriously doubt me buying another android phone that isn't something like a Nexus phone).
    - r00fus 16y ago
      That's not the point. I shouldn't have to root the phone in order to get bugfixes.
    - ShabbyDoo 16y ago
      I am running an alternate firmware, but I don't like that I have to do so much fiddling.
dolinsky 16y ago
For those who would like to start on page one, here's a link http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_15/b4223041200216.htm http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_15/b42230412...
haseman 16y ago
As someone who's been working with Android from the beginning, I have to say: About Time. This is a required step if Google wants the platform to be taken seriously. The only way to keep fragmentation out is to exert a fair amount of control over the OEMs and Carriers who wish to differentiate (or Fragment) Android for their own purposes. It's going to be a fine balancing act for Rubin. If he pushes the carriers/oems too far, they'll walk. If he doesn't push them hard enough, the platform will disintegrate Java ME style. Google is using the only leverage they have (early access and the google apps) to make the platform one worth developing for. I, as someone who makes his living doing it right now, am all for this move.
- MatthewPhillips 16y ago
  As much as people online complain about fragmentation, there is no evidence (yet) that the general consumer cares that much. "Google experience" devices are not outselling the customized devices. People need to tone down the rhetoric, in my opinion. Android already is being "taken seriously". Let's not make small problems out to be big problems. Android doesn't have any big problems, as it's being adopted by manufacturers and consumers at a rapid pace.
  - hollerith 16y ago
    Would you also said (in 1998 and in 2000) that Windows 98 and Windows ME did not have any big problems, as they were adopted by at a rapid pace?
    - MatthewPhillips 16y ago
      They were only problems in so far as they damaged the Windows brand name and lowered consumer confidence. There's no evidence the same is happening here.
  - haseman 16y ago
    Perhaps that statement came out slightly more hyperbolic than I meant it. The fact remains that Android's fragmentation is something I deal with on a daily basis. Any time spent fixing issues that crop up on particular phones is time I don't spend adding features to our application. Keeping customers from knowing the joys of fragmentation is one of the things I spend a lot of thought and work at.
pkulak 16y ago
Good. It's always bothered me that Verizon can take an Android phone and make a bunch of money by whoring it out to Microsoft and anyone else who will pay to have their crapware permanently installed. Carriers and manufacturers have ruined just about every Android phone they've gotten their hands on. Android is really becoming a nice OS, and it deserves better.
- dsuriano 16y ago
  I remember when Verizon disabled Bluetooth file transfer on some of their "feature" phones, forcing users to use send a MMS or e-mail, thus inducing data charges.
  - cmurdock 16y ago
    It's still happening with non smart-phones. I had t-mobile and was able to file transfer easily between phones. Verizon purposely locks this functionality out. Bullshit.
    - barista 16y ago
      As an end user, I'd appreciate a closed and controlled operating ystem like iOS or Windows Phone 7. But as a developer or hacker I don't understand Google's hypocricy here. By Rubi's own definition of what is open, the definition of open: “mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make” anybody should be able to do anything with the source of Android. How are current moves justified given this definition? It's plain and simple, if people don't like the crappy modifications that carriers or other make to Android they just won't buy the devices. Why can't Google let us decide as users. Why are they deciding for us that the fragmentation is bad? Why??
      - ccaviness 16y ago
        What about “mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make” doesn't work right now? Because it's working just fine for me.
ReadyNSet 16y ago
Seems Nokia was more than justified in choosing WP7 against Android
- daniel_solano 16y ago
  I doubt it. I am sure that had it gone Android it would have been a high profile partner with Google. I am inclined to believe Nokia went with Microsoft primarily because Microsoft needs Nokia more than Google needs Nokia, i.e. Microsoft offered more money.
mberning 16y ago
I'm sure all the android fanboys will consider this a 'good move' since Google is doing it. When Apple does the same thing it is considered draconian and 'closed'.
- alphamerik 16y ago
  Not exactly the same, iOS is not and will never be open source. Google is only delaying the source release of honeycomb until they are happy with the product.
  - mberning 16y ago
    I really wasn't commenting on the open source nature of the OSes, but rather Google exerting control over what carriers are allowed to do with their Android builds. The thing that irritates me is the considerable double standard for freedom and openness that is applied to Android and iOS. As it turns out people have an very relative concept of what 'free' and 'more free' is. Some types of freedom are considered good, while others are bad. Hard to tell at times which way the community will go. I come in to these kinds of stories and find people endlessly lauding Google for taking more control over the ecosystem. I know for a fact that if the story were 'Apple cracks down on X' the reaction would be practically the inverse.
    - stanleydrew 16y ago
      I'm sorry but I don't see a double standard here. Developers get mad at Apple for exerting control over the App Store. Users get mad at Apple for capriciously restricting their use of great applications (like Google Voice, until recently). It's entirely App Store control that everyone declares draconian. Almost everyone I know is very happy with Apple exclusively controlling iOS as an operating system. They are also very happy that Apple exerts lots of control over carriers in the sense of not letting them make additions or modifications to the operating system, pre-install apps, add carrier branding to the hardware, etc. This is the kind of control Google is now seeking. To me it appears that you have a double standard. You want to criticize Google for attempting to exert the same control that Apple is rightfully lauded for.
kenjackson 16y ago
This seems opposed to my original impressions of the Android vision. I thought the original carrot/stick was the Android market. But I guess with the new Amazon market the old Google carrot/stick is no longer as compelling.
- lftl 16y ago
  It's not just the Market, it's all the Google created apps so: Gmail, Voice, Maps, Navigation. Maybe even the Youtube app is included?
nicetryguy 16y ago
I am happy about this Suppose google doesnt approve changes to the source code before the companies release products. Suppose the changes to that source code stop certain apps from working on certain phones, therefore putting it on the shoulders of the developers to make certain their app works on every different phone. It would hurt the quality of the apps and the platform if Android lost its mostly seamless cross platform ability
laujen 16y ago
This is very good news for us developers. Hopefully a fixed set of screen dimensions and expectations can be established so we know what we are writing for. Every time a big name Android app gets released, a laundry list of which devices it works on and which ones it doesn't gets made, too. I hate this. Either our software needs to run on Android or it doesn't.
rbarooah 16y ago
Google makes some of the source available when they want to but restricts what people can do with it using licenses, and now they insist on giving their approval to modifications. Can we finally stop saying Android is 'open' now when it's blatantly false? Imagine the headline read 'Apple Tightening Control of WebKit'. How is this any different? I truly want to see an Open tablet on which the community could realize the Dynabook vision. I thought the Xoom might be a good starting point but with Google capriciously exercising power over the software, it's pretty clear that Android isn't going to give us that. On the bright side, Moore's law will give us tablets that will run stock Linux pretty soon, and then all we need is a BSD-licensed, community built touch layer.
- archgoon 16y ago
  >On the bright side, Moore's law will give us tablets that will run stock Linux pretty soon, and then all we need is a BSD-licensed, community built touch layer. Could you explain how Moore's Law is relevant here? How you get from "Number of transistors per IC will double in 18 months" to "Linux on a tablet pretty soon"? Tablet development isn't being limited by processing power as far as I know.
  - rbarooah 16y ago
    I think power is very much an issue. Most people I know who have an iPad 1 complain that speed is an issue. The iPad 2 certainly fixes that, but Apple's have focussed a lot on optimization and their stack is all built around compiled code. To me that suggests that tablet performance is only just adequate today. If we want to realize the dream of a truly open, programmable-on-the-device tablet, we're going to need it to burn some cycles on languages that aren't as efficient as C, and frameworks that haven't been as tuned as iOS.
- othermaciej 16y ago
  > Imagine the headline read 'Apple Tightening Control of WebKit'. How is this any different? Why did you use this example? Apple isn't tightening control of WebKit. WebKit is a considerably more open project than Android.
naner 16y ago
Google has also tried to hold up the release of Verizon (VZ) Android devices that make use of Microsoft's (MSFT) rival Bing search engine, according to two people familiar with the discussions. Haha, oops! That is kind of funny. I can't believe Google didn't anticipate this type of thing.
ChuckMcM 16y ago
Link points to page2, page 1 is here: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_15/b4223041200216.htm?campaign_id=technology_related http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_15/b42230412... tl;dr version - Google is allegedly asserting greater control over what folks who ship Android can do (presumably as part of the license for the Google apps bit). They are uneven in their enforcement. Often times articles like this have some base message or meme they are channeling but this one doesn't seem to have much focus. One would guess it was this bold claim: "There will be no more willy-nilly tweaks to the software. No more partnerships formed outside of Google's purview. From now on, companies hoping to receive early access to Google's most up-to-date software will need approval of their plans. And they will seek that approval from Andy Rubin, the head of Google's Android group." But its not really backed up by the story line. The story is more a "they are lying about openness, they are really evil" kind of thing that I've noticed quite a few places are picking up. There is insinuations about the justice department and anti-trust. Frankly it reads like something Microsoft would say. That being said, if Microsoft really is behind articles of this tone, then I'd suggest they take a different approach and offer carriers a replacement for the Google apps package (mail, maps, search, chat etc) and create windows mobile/android that would certainly tweek Google's nose.
protomyth 16y ago
At this point, my definition of "open" is an open source license combined with public development.

59 points by Athtar 16y ago

Here is the most interesting snippet for me: Facebook, for example, has been working to fashion its own variant of Android for smartphones. Executives at the social network are unhappy that Google gets to review Facebook's tweaks to Android, say two people who weren't comfortable being named talking about the business. Google has also tried to hold up the release of Verizon (VZ) Android devices that make use of Microsoft's (MSFT) rival Bing search engine, according to two people familiar with the discussions. With Google being direct competitors with Facebook and Microsoft in the online space, they have a lot to gain by knowing their competitor's plans early/by being able to limit their influence.

jkincaid 16y ago
I don't understand how Google can maintain any control over those devices, though. My understanding was that anyone could download the Android source, sans Google applications like Gmail and Market, and install it on whatever they want. If I were Facebook, I'd just avoid Google entirely and use alternative apps for everything. Amazon Appstore, Facebook Messaging for email, etc.
- anon1385 16y ago
  Google have not released the source to Honeycomb so no, anyone can't just go and download it.
  - jkincaid 16y ago
    Honeycomb is the outlier and will probably be released in a few months (actually, I think Google is stalling til they release Ice Cream Sandwich). And I doubt Facebook would release a tablet before they release a phone.
    - rbarooah 16y ago
      It may be an outlier but it proves that access to Android source is unreliable.
- Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
  The way in which Android is open differs from many other open projects. The source to Android is made public at or around the time the final version ships but until that point only select partners have access to the software. It's this approach that Google are going to strengthen - essentially if you don't obey their rules you won't be a select partner and you won't get early access to the new releases. What this means is that if you don't obey Google's rules you'll be getting the software two or three months later than your competitors (and without all the support they will be getting), likely receiving it around the time they're actually bringing products to market. That's a pretty big competitive disadvantage if you're aiming to compete at anything close to the top end of the market. So basically while you can use Android as you wish, if you don't obey Google's rules then you won't be able to do so in a way that allows you to be competitive. The cynic in me says that this is getting mighty close to being open in name only.
  - jkincaid 16y ago
    Okay, but Facebook isn't really going head-to-head with everyone else shipping the stock version of Android with a slightly different coat of paint, so I don't think it's a huge deal if they're a few months behind. Also, while there have been some performance optimizations in the latest builds of Android, from a feature perspective there hasn't been that much (NFC is the biggest one in Gingerbread). So even working on the previous release doesn't seem like a huge deal to me.
  - MatthewPhillips 16y ago
    I don't think being behind matters that much. People online complain about version numbers; general consumers don't know. Amazon can release a phone running 2.3 loaded with Amazon Appstore, Cloud Player, tighter Facebook integration, and an overhauled UI (A good one) and consumers will eat it up.
    - Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
      If it's not that big a deal why are Android users so vocal about not getting updates? Even if that is true if you're Facebook or Amazon and you're looking to differentiate yourself in that way it's one thing. If you're a handset manufacturer looking to make a kick-ass Android phone it's another entirely and there it would be a big deal.
- rst 16y ago
  Some of Google's apps are going to be tricky to clone, though, particularly ones like Maps, Navigation, Goggles, and possibly YouTube, which rely in essential ways on Google's back-end services. How much of a big deal this is would depend on what market segment they're going after, but mapping and location services are awfully handy across the board, and available on pretty cheap phones at this point.
  - nuclear_eclipse 16y ago
    Google Maps, Navigation, Goggles, and Youtube are all available from the Android Market. Now the real question is whether Facebook would still be able to get access to the Market if they skip the rest of the apps.
    - ryandvm 16y ago
      They don't because the Android Market app itself is one of Google's closed applications.
- joebadmo 16y ago
  Google maintains some level of control now through its "Google Experience" deals which include: access to the Market, Gmail, Maps, and other apps; early access to new versions; but also a share in the ad revenue, which can't be trivial. Maybe Google didn't really have the clout to exercise control until now, but I'm really glad it's finally happening. What I hope this means is that Google will control everything on the OS level, and allow customizations by the manufacturers and carriers only on a skinning and app level. In a perfect world they would also enforce access to bootloaders, to allow easy rom changes.
  - rkudeshi 16y ago
    Device manufacturers get a cut of ad revenue? News to me, source?

aristidb 16y ago

If this means they can force device makers to actually ship updates, I'm all for it.

ShabbyDoo 16y ago
This is my biggest complaint about Android. I have one of the original Droids, and it's already obvious that Verizon/Motorola aren't going to do more than the minimum amount of upkeep from now on.
- wewyor 16y ago
  I have an original droid as well and you should seriously consider rooting it and putting something like cyanogen mod on it, it works well on my end. (Though I seriously doubt me buying another android phone that isn't something like a Nexus phone).
  - r00fus 16y ago
    That's not the point. I shouldn't have to root the phone in order to get bugfixes.
  - ShabbyDoo 16y ago
    I am running an alternate firmware, but I don't like that I have to do so much fiddling.

dolinsky 16y ago

For those who would like to start on page one, here's a link http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_15/b4223041200216.htm http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_15/b42230412...

haseman 16y ago

As someone who's been working with Android from the beginning, I have to say: About Time. This is a required step if Google wants the platform to be taken seriously. The only way to keep fragmentation out is to exert a fair amount of control over the OEMs and Carriers who wish to differentiate (or Fragment) Android for their own purposes. It's going to be a fine balancing act for Rubin. If he pushes the carriers/oems too far, they'll walk. If he doesn't push them hard enough, the platform will disintegrate Java ME style. Google is using the only leverage they have (early access and the google apps) to make the platform one worth developing for. I, as someone who makes his living doing it right now, am all for this move.

MatthewPhillips 16y ago
As much as people online complain about fragmentation, there is no evidence (yet) that the general consumer cares that much. "Google experience" devices are not outselling the customized devices. People need to tone down the rhetoric, in my opinion. Android already is being "taken seriously". Let's not make small problems out to be big problems. Android doesn't have any big problems, as it's being adopted by manufacturers and consumers at a rapid pace.
- hollerith 16y ago
  Would you also said (in 1998 and in 2000) that Windows 98 and Windows ME did not have any big problems, as they were adopted by at a rapid pace?
  - MatthewPhillips 16y ago
    They were only problems in so far as they damaged the Windows brand name and lowered consumer confidence. There's no evidence the same is happening here.
- haseman 16y ago
  Perhaps that statement came out slightly more hyperbolic than I meant it. The fact remains that Android's fragmentation is something I deal with on a daily basis. Any time spent fixing issues that crop up on particular phones is time I don't spend adding features to our application. Keeping customers from knowing the joys of fragmentation is one of the things I spend a lot of thought and work at.

pkulak 16y ago

Good. It's always bothered me that Verizon can take an Android phone and make a bunch of money by whoring it out to Microsoft and anyone else who will pay to have their crapware permanently installed. Carriers and manufacturers have ruined just about every Android phone they've gotten their hands on. Android is really becoming a nice OS, and it deserves better.

dsuriano 16y ago
I remember when Verizon disabled Bluetooth file transfer on some of their "feature" phones, forcing users to use send a MMS or e-mail, thus inducing data charges.
- cmurdock 16y ago
  It's still happening with non smart-phones. I had t-mobile and was able to file transfer easily between phones. Verizon purposely locks this functionality out. Bullshit.
  - barista 16y ago
    As an end user, I'd appreciate a closed and controlled operating ystem like iOS or Windows Phone 7. But as a developer or hacker I don't understand Google's hypocricy here. By Rubi's own definition of what is open, the definition of open: “mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make” anybody should be able to do anything with the source of Android. How are current moves justified given this definition? It's plain and simple, if people don't like the crappy modifications that carriers or other make to Android they just won't buy the devices. Why can't Google let us decide as users. Why are they deciding for us that the fragmentation is bad? Why??
    - ccaviness 16y ago
      What about “mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make” doesn't work right now? Because it's working just fine for me.

ReadyNSet 16y ago

Seems Nokia was more than justified in choosing WP7 against Android

daniel_solano 16y ago
I doubt it. I am sure that had it gone Android it would have been a high profile partner with Google. I am inclined to believe Nokia went with Microsoft primarily because Microsoft needs Nokia more than Google needs Nokia, i.e. Microsoft offered more money.

mberning 16y ago

I'm sure all the android fanboys will consider this a 'good move' since Google is doing it. When Apple does the same thing it is considered draconian and 'closed'.

alphamerik 16y ago
Not exactly the same, iOS is not and will never be open source. Google is only delaying the source release of honeycomb until they are happy with the product.
- mberning 16y ago
  I really wasn't commenting on the open source nature of the OSes, but rather Google exerting control over what carriers are allowed to do with their Android builds. The thing that irritates me is the considerable double standard for freedom and openness that is applied to Android and iOS. As it turns out people have an very relative concept of what 'free' and 'more free' is. Some types of freedom are considered good, while others are bad. Hard to tell at times which way the community will go. I come in to these kinds of stories and find people endlessly lauding Google for taking more control over the ecosystem. I know for a fact that if the story were 'Apple cracks down on X' the reaction would be practically the inverse.
  - stanleydrew 16y ago
    I'm sorry but I don't see a double standard here. Developers get mad at Apple for exerting control over the App Store. Users get mad at Apple for capriciously restricting their use of great applications (like Google Voice, until recently). It's entirely App Store control that everyone declares draconian. Almost everyone I know is very happy with Apple exclusively controlling iOS as an operating system. They are also very happy that Apple exerts lots of control over carriers in the sense of not letting them make additions or modifications to the operating system, pre-install apps, add carrier branding to the hardware, etc. This is the kind of control Google is now seeking. To me it appears that you have a double standard. You want to criticize Google for attempting to exert the same control that Apple is rightfully lauded for.

kenjackson 16y ago

This seems opposed to my original impressions of the Android vision. I thought the original carrot/stick was the Android market. But I guess with the new Amazon market the old Google carrot/stick is no longer as compelling.

lftl 16y ago
It's not just the Market, it's all the Google created apps so: Gmail, Voice, Maps, Navigation. Maybe even the Youtube app is included?

nicetryguy 16y ago

I am happy about this Suppose google doesnt approve changes to the source code before the companies release products. Suppose the changes to that source code stop certain apps from working on certain phones, therefore putting it on the shoulders of the developers to make certain their app works on every different phone. It would hurt the quality of the apps and the platform if Android lost its mostly seamless cross platform ability

laujen 16y ago

This is very good news for us developers. Hopefully a fixed set of screen dimensions and expectations can be established so we know what we are writing for. Every time a big name Android app gets released, a laundry list of which devices it works on and which ones it doesn't gets made, too. I hate this. Either our software needs to run on Android or it doesn't.

rbarooah 16y ago

Google makes some of the source available when they want to but restricts what people can do with it using licenses, and now they insist on giving their approval to modifications. Can we finally stop saying Android is 'open' now when it's blatantly false? Imagine the headline read 'Apple Tightening Control of WebKit'. How is this any different? I truly want to see an Open tablet on which the community could realize the Dynabook vision. I thought the Xoom might be a good starting point but with Google capriciously exercising power over the software, it's pretty clear that Android isn't going to give us that. On the bright side, Moore's law will give us tablets that will run stock Linux pretty soon, and then all we need is a BSD-licensed, community built touch layer.

archgoon 16y ago
>On the bright side, Moore's law will give us tablets that will run stock Linux pretty soon, and then all we need is a BSD-licensed, community built touch layer. Could you explain how Moore's Law is relevant here? How you get from "Number of transistors per IC will double in 18 months" to "Linux on a tablet pretty soon"? Tablet development isn't being limited by processing power as far as I know.
- rbarooah 16y ago
  I think power is very much an issue. Most people I know who have an iPad 1 complain that speed is an issue. The iPad 2 certainly fixes that, but Apple's have focussed a lot on optimization and their stack is all built around compiled code. To me that suggests that tablet performance is only just adequate today. If we want to realize the dream of a truly open, programmable-on-the-device tablet, we're going to need it to burn some cycles on languages that aren't as efficient as C, and frameworks that haven't been as tuned as iOS.
othermaciej 16y ago
> Imagine the headline read 'Apple Tightening Control of WebKit'. How is this any different? Why did you use this example? Apple isn't tightening control of WebKit. WebKit is a considerably more open project than Android.

naner 16y ago

Google has also tried to hold up the release of Verizon (VZ) Android devices that make use of Microsoft's (MSFT) rival Bing search engine, according to two people familiar with the discussions. Haha, oops! That is kind of funny. I can't believe Google didn't anticipate this type of thing.

ChuckMcM 16y ago

Link points to page2, page 1 is here: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_15/b4223041200216.htm?campaign_id=technology_related http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_15/b42230412... tl;dr version - Google is allegedly asserting greater control over what folks who ship Android can do (presumably as part of the license for the Google apps bit). They are uneven in their enforcement. Often times articles like this have some base message or meme they are channeling but this one doesn't seem to have much focus. One would guess it was this bold claim: "There will be no more willy-nilly tweaks to the software. No more partnerships formed outside of Google's purview. From now on, companies hoping to receive early access to Google's most up-to-date software will need approval of their plans. And they will seek that approval from Andy Rubin, the head of Google's Android group." But its not really backed up by the story line. The story is more a "they are lying about openness, they are really evil" kind of thing that I've noticed quite a few places are picking up. There is insinuations about the justice department and anti-trust. Frankly it reads like something Microsoft would say. That being said, if Microsoft really is behind articles of this tone, then I'd suggest they take a different approach and offer carriers a replacement for the Google apps package (mail, maps, search, chat etc) and create windows mobile/android that would certainly tweek Google's nose.

protomyth 16y ago

At this point, my definition of "open" is an open source license combined with public development.