5 ms·

Here: "We wanted to make sure that there was no central point of failure, so that no industry player can restrict or control the innovations of any other. That

Here: "We wanted to make sure that there was no central point of failure, so that no industry player can restrict or control the innovations of any other. That's why we created Android, and made its source code open." (from: http://source.android.com/ http://source.android.com/) Are you seriously going to pretend that Google is not now restricting or controlling the innovations of any other industry players?

recoiledsnake 16y ago
>Are you seriously going to pretend that Google is not now restricting or controlling the innovations of any other industry players? Huh? How is delaying the source code release of an incremental update such a big deal? Innovate all you want on top of 2.3(which is barely a few months old), make it tablet friendly or whatever and port it to whatever hardware you build. Haven't you heard of the concept of forking?
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- rbarooah 16y ago
  Do you really think that people who have to fork a months old version are at no disadvantage to those who have access to the current source?
  - bad_user 16y ago
    "fairness" is a human-invented concept. Capitalism is open, but unfair; mother-nature is open, but unfair.
    - rbarooah 16y ago
      I agree. I never said anything about fairness. I simply showed that Google is being hypocritical. Hypocrisy is a perfectly valid strategy under capitalism.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    I am so sorry for those (Dell, Acer) who didn't get what Google built for free when other partners got involved early on. Having to develop your own software and not getting it for free certainly sucks. If they are so disappointed, they can always launch Windows Phone 7 devices.
bad_user 16y ago
Well yes, I'm going to pretend just that :) If Google never releases Honeycomb, then I'll agree; until then ... Any other industry player can take Gingerbread and create its own Honeycomb, while keeping compatibility and totally being able to take the market by storm. That's the very definition of open-source -- when unhappy with a project's governance, you can fork ; and you can fork Gingerbread, or Honeycomb when it will get released. You don't have to trust the company, just the source-code / license of the last release. So what stops you or any industry players from just doing that? Lunch not free anymore?
- rbarooah 16y ago
  Well you said it: Lunch isn't free anymore. The point is that Google is using Android to do precisely what they claimed they stood against - which is to control other players in the industry. That's what makes it hypocrisy. I assume you'd agree that someone who forked a months old version would be at an extraordinary disadvantage against a competitor who had access to the current source and ongoing contributions from Google.

recoiledsnake 16y ago

>Are you seriously going to pretend that Google is not now restricting or controlling the innovations of any other industry players? Huh? How is delaying the source code release of an incremental update such a big deal? Innovate all you want on top of 2.3(which is barely a few months old), make it tablet friendly or whatever and port it to whatever hardware you build. Haven't you heard of the concept of forking?

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
rbarooah 16y ago
Do you really think that people who have to fork a months old version are at no disadvantage to those who have access to the current source?
- bad_user 16y ago
  "fairness" is a human-invented concept. Capitalism is open, but unfair; mother-nature is open, but unfair.
  - rbarooah 16y ago
    I agree. I never said anything about fairness. I simply showed that Google is being hypocritical. Hypocrisy is a perfectly valid strategy under capitalism.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  I am so sorry for those (Dell, Acer) who didn't get what Google built for free when other partners got involved early on. Having to develop your own software and not getting it for free certainly sucks. If they are so disappointed, they can always launch Windows Phone 7 devices.

bad_user 16y ago

Well yes, I'm going to pretend just that :) If Google never releases Honeycomb, then I'll agree; until then ... Any other industry player can take Gingerbread and create its own Honeycomb, while keeping compatibility and totally being able to take the market by storm. That's the very definition of open-source -- when unhappy with a project's governance, you can fork ; and you can fork Gingerbread, or Honeycomb when it will get released. You don't have to trust the company, just the source-code / license of the last release. So what stops you or any industry players from just doing that? Lunch not free anymore?

rbarooah 16y ago
Well you said it: Lunch isn't free anymore. The point is that Google is using Android to do precisely what they claimed they stood against - which is to control other players in the industry. That's what makes it hypocrisy. I assume you'd agree that someone who forked a months old version would be at an extraordinary disadvantage against a competitor who had access to the current source and ongoing contributions from Google.