6 ms·

Android chief Rubin's response to Android critics misses the point

36 points by redacted 16y ago

greattypo 16y ago
I agree with Ars on this one. And hopefully whether you're pro-Android or pro-iPhone or pro-whatever, you can appreciate some evasive corporate-speak when you see it. E.g.: Rubin: What amazes me is that even though the quantity and breadth of Android products being built has grown tremendously, it’s clear that quality and consistency continue to be top priorities. What does that even mean? Why are your priorities so amazing to you? I think there have been some legitimate gripes about Android's openness lately (like manufacturer favoritism) and I was hoping for something more direct out of Google.
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  I think he's claiming to be amazed by the manufacturers' prioritising quality and consistency. His next sentence is: "Miraculously, we are seeing the platform take on new use cases, features and form factors as it’s being introduced in new categories and regions while still remaining consistent and compatible for third party applications."
- patrickaljord 16y ago
  > I think there have been some legitimate gripes about Android's openness lately (like manufacturer favoritism) Android has always done that, it did it with the G1, nexus1, nexus S and now xoom. In some case it took them a month to release the source, other cases two months. In this case it will take a bit more (probably 4), so what? Big deal, Android is Apache license, this is completely fair game and as for manufacturer favoritism, here is the list of manufacturers who already have access to Honeycomb source: * Motorola * Samsung * LG * HTC * Acer * Toshiba * Asus * Dell * Archos Sure Motorola got it first, but the same happened with every Android release, again, big deal. Sounds like FUD to me.
  - enjo 16y ago
    Ya, and in order to get that primary access you have to be willing to play by Google's rules (stock experience, google apps, etc...). They've also spread things out. HTC, Samsung, and Motorola have all gotten their shot.
  - mycroftiv 16y ago
    I always thought "open source" meant that I, the user, got access to the source code, and I was able to make changes and share them. I don't like seeing the meaning of open source progressively reduced to nothing. We already have a category for "corporate manufacturing partners can pay to access the source" - that's proprietary software. It's not OK to use openness just as a marketing term and claim that a product being distributed now is still open just because the source will be released at some unspecified time in the future.
    - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
      You are completely wrong about what "open source" means then. "Free Software" was designed to guarantee that you, the user, always got access to the source code, and was able to make changes and share them. "Open Source" was specifically intended to sell a similar idea to corporations, and less idealistic programmers, mostly by dropping that key requirement. I'm surprised you've not noticed the last 20 years of GPL vs. BSD flame wars which should have made this obvious. Google went out of their way to drop "free software" from the top of their stack in Android, ironically, because the manufacturers and carriers wouldn't play ball without it. At this point, the Businessweek story (well, the few bits that haven't been entirely refuted as false) sounds similar to record labels that demanded Apple add DRM to their music, then wondered why Apple suddenly had such great lock-in power over the market. Except... nothing about even GPL'd Free Software compels you to release the source until after you ship to consumers. Even then you could add a few months delay by forcing people to buy the product then write you a letter then post it in the least helpful form you think you could get away with. Absolutely nothing would prevent you from signing corporate agreements and giving sneak peeks to your favored manufacturing partners. Basically, if you're writing the code, you have power. You have the power to write what you want, mostly under the licence you want, with whatever priorities you have. This applies as much to a Linux dev who decides to quit and become a monk as it does to Ubuntu ditching Gnome 3 to try their Unity stuff. It might suit you if they did something else, but people making petulant demands on developers is only commonly associated with open source, not actually part of the definition. What's weird is that I thought I was fairly extreme on the "Free Software" side of things by most standards, and especially HN standards. However, it appears if you dare to use the word "open" in your advertising (and to be frank, I thought they were talking about smartphone stuff, like being able to install software of your choice) the tech hivemind will crucify you if you're not more extreme than RMS, someone who wouldn't use the phrase "open source" never mind the more wishy-washy "open" which basically could mean anything. Bit of strange double-standard there which I think basically reflects Google offering too much competition for Apple.
beej71 16y ago
I guess I fail to see what the big deal is here. Everyone agrees that Google is going to release the source code when it's "done", and that this is going to be some time in the relatively near future. Terms of open-source licenses have been adhered to. It sounds like they probably incurred some code debt rushing this out, and they want to clean it up before people start running with it. They themselves have said it doesn't even run on phones--to appreciate why that's bad, just imagine what Gruber would have written about it.
- greattypo 16y ago
  I agree with what you said, but I don't think that's the part that has people most concerned. It's more about stuff like this: According to the BusinessWeek report, Google has been using its exclusive control over timely source code availability as leverage to block vendors from making customizations that don't align with Google's business interests. For example, the article says that Google attempted to block Verizon from shipping an Android device with Microsoft's Bing search engine.
  - blinkingled 16y ago
    Hmm. They did? Is there a proof to that? Because at Dive into Mobile conference last year Rubin said something totally different on that topic - to the effect of we don't care if some VZW phones are shipped with Bing and the market will sort it out - people will flock to the best experience.
    - gonzo 16y ago
      That was before Facebook and Amazon became threats to Google's hegemony.
  - beej71 16y ago
    I can see how that might trouble some people, but the Compatibility Definition Document has always existed, hasn't it? You can't just release anything at all and slap the Android trademark on it and use the store, right? You have always had to operated within Google's restrictions if you wanted to do that. So... why are people surprised?

36 points by redacted 16y ago

I agree with Ars on this one. And hopefully whether you're pro-Android or pro-iPhone or pro-whatever, you can appreciate some evasive corporate-speak when you see it. E.g.: Rubin: What amazes me is that even though the quantity and breadth of Android products being built has grown tremendously, it’s clear that quality and consistency continue to be top priorities. What does that even mean? Why are your priorities so amazing to you? I think there have been some legitimate gripes about Android's openness lately (like manufacturer favoritism) and I was hoping for something more direct out of Google.

ZeroGravitas 16y ago
I think he's claiming to be amazed by the manufacturers' prioritising quality and consistency. His next sentence is: "Miraculously, we are seeing the platform take on new use cases, features and form factors as it’s being introduced in new categories and regions while still remaining consistent and compatible for third party applications."
patrickaljord 16y ago
> I think there have been some legitimate gripes about Android's openness lately (like manufacturer favoritism) Android has always done that, it did it with the G1, nexus1, nexus S and now xoom. In some case it took them a month to release the source, other cases two months. In this case it will take a bit more (probably 4), so what? Big deal, Android is Apache license, this is completely fair game and as for manufacturer favoritism, here is the list of manufacturers who already have access to Honeycomb source: * Motorola * Samsung * LG * HTC * Acer * Toshiba * Asus * Dell * Archos Sure Motorola got it first, but the same happened with every Android release, again, big deal. Sounds like FUD to me.
- enjo 16y ago
  Ya, and in order to get that primary access you have to be willing to play by Google's rules (stock experience, google apps, etc...). They've also spread things out. HTC, Samsung, and Motorola have all gotten their shot.
- mycroftiv 16y ago
  I always thought "open source" meant that I, the user, got access to the source code, and I was able to make changes and share them. I don't like seeing the meaning of open source progressively reduced to nothing. We already have a category for "corporate manufacturing partners can pay to access the source" - that's proprietary software. It's not OK to use openness just as a marketing term and claim that a product being distributed now is still open just because the source will be released at some unspecified time in the future.
  - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
    You are completely wrong about what "open source" means then. "Free Software" was designed to guarantee that you, the user, always got access to the source code, and was able to make changes and share them. "Open Source" was specifically intended to sell a similar idea to corporations, and less idealistic programmers, mostly by dropping that key requirement. I'm surprised you've not noticed the last 20 years of GPL vs. BSD flame wars which should have made this obvious. Google went out of their way to drop "free software" from the top of their stack in Android, ironically, because the manufacturers and carriers wouldn't play ball without it. At this point, the Businessweek story (well, the few bits that haven't been entirely refuted as false) sounds similar to record labels that demanded Apple add DRM to their music, then wondered why Apple suddenly had such great lock-in power over the market. Except... nothing about even GPL'd Free Software compels you to release the source until after you ship to consumers. Even then you could add a few months delay by forcing people to buy the product then write you a letter then post it in the least helpful form you think you could get away with. Absolutely nothing would prevent you from signing corporate agreements and giving sneak peeks to your favored manufacturing partners. Basically, if you're writing the code, you have power. You have the power to write what you want, mostly under the licence you want, with whatever priorities you have. This applies as much to a Linux dev who decides to quit and become a monk as it does to Ubuntu ditching Gnome 3 to try their Unity stuff. It might suit you if they did something else, but people making petulant demands on developers is only commonly associated with open source, not actually part of the definition. What's weird is that I thought I was fairly extreme on the "Free Software" side of things by most standards, and especially HN standards. However, it appears if you dare to use the word "open" in your advertising (and to be frank, I thought they were talking about smartphone stuff, like being able to install software of your choice) the tech hivemind will crucify you if you're not more extreme than RMS, someone who wouldn't use the phrase "open source" never mind the more wishy-washy "open" which basically could mean anything. Bit of strange double-standard there which I think basically reflects Google offering too much competition for Apple.

beej71 16y ago

I guess I fail to see what the big deal is here. Everyone agrees that Google is going to release the source code when it's "done", and that this is going to be some time in the relatively near future. Terms of open-source licenses have been adhered to. It sounds like they probably incurred some code debt rushing this out, and they want to clean it up before people start running with it. They themselves have said it doesn't even run on phones--to appreciate why that's bad, just imagine what Gruber would have written about it.

greattypo 16y ago
I agree with what you said, but I don't think that's the part that has people most concerned. It's more about stuff like this: According to the BusinessWeek report, Google has been using its exclusive control over timely source code availability as leverage to block vendors from making customizations that don't align with Google's business interests. For example, the article says that Google attempted to block Verizon from shipping an Android device with Microsoft's Bing search engine.
- blinkingled 16y ago
  Hmm. They did? Is there a proof to that? Because at Dive into Mobile conference last year Rubin said something totally different on that topic - to the effect of we don't care if some VZW phones are shipped with Bing and the market will sort it out - people will flock to the best experience.
  - gonzo 16y ago
    That was before Facebook and Amazon became threats to Google's hegemony.
- beej71 16y ago
  I can see how that might trouble some people, but the Compatibility Definition Document has always existed, hasn't it? You can't just release anything at all and slap the Android trademark on it and use the store, right? You have always had to operated within Google's restrictions if you wanted to do that. So... why are people surprised?