3 ms·

Quotes aren't hard to find. "This feels like a disaster :(" "I'll setup sometime this week so we can figure out a good battle plan" "That would be awful for

by Steko 15y ago

Quotes aren't hard to find. "This feels like a disaster :(" "I'll setup sometime this week so we can figure out a good battle plan" "That would be awful for Google" "I cannot stress how important Google’s Wi-Fi location database is to our Android and mobile product strategy" "It's sad to see"

nl 15y ago
All those support exactly what I'm saying: Google wanted to make sure their service was included! None support your claim that Google tried to stop Skyhook being shipped as well.
- Steko 15y ago
  Given: (1) Skyhook wanted it's service to ship. (2) Samsung wanted Skyhook's service to ship. (3) Motorola wanted Skyhook's service to ship. According to you: (4) Google didn't care Observe: (5) Skyhook's service did NOT ship. It's pretty clear that (4) is the non sequitur. What mystical forces do you suggest stopped this from shipping if not Google?
  - nl 15y ago
    You are misunderstanding the situation. Google cared deeply about their service being missing from the phones. The exclusivity clause in Skyhook's contract was what was stopping that. Skyhook didn't ship because their contract with Motorola (and I assume Samsung) required exclusivity. Google cared deeply about that, and Motorola notified Skyhook that their contract was invalid because of that exclusivity clause. Skyhook didn't ship because they no longer had a contract. If they had found a way to get a new contract then they could have shipped it. Unfortunately for Skyhook, Google managed to prove that their service gave just as good results as Skyhook, and Skyhook couldn't show any additional value so manufactures were no longer interested. (It's worth noting that apparently the manufactures were paying for Skyhook, but didn't have to pay for Google's service.)
drivebyacct2 15y ago
"I cannot stress how important Google’s Wi-Fi location database is to our Android and mobile product strategy" You're quoting this, but you still don't get it? :/
- Steko 15y ago
  I get it just fine, do you? See how easy a cheap argument that adds nothing to the discussion is? If it's so obvious why don't you go ahead and explain it. I'll recap the argument so far, you tell me where I went wrong. (1) It was claimed that Android was "truly open". (2) I disagree and use the example of Skyhook. (2a) I believe if Android was "truly open" Motorola and Samsung would be allowed to ship the device with another vendor's location service. (2b) Obviously they couldn't so I conclude claims of "true openness" are overblown. (3) At this point people start claiming absurd things like "Google doesn't care if Skyhook shipped" (3a) When imho they obviously did because there's no other explanation for why skyhook's location service didn't ship.
  - drivebyacct2 15y ago
    ... They were upset because Skyhook wanted exclusivity. Google wanted in on the data, was willing to share with Skyhook. Skyhook wanted exclusive access to the data, which Google wasn't willing to sacrifice so they muscled them out. How can we make this more obvious to you? (Oh wait, a glance at your comment history explains why you don't seem to get what anyone here is saying. You have an obvious bias and it's apparently affecting your ability to comprehend or something). Motorola can ship whatever they want. Do you really not understand how MIT/GPL work? Just because Android's open doesn't mean that Google has to sell/give their GoogleApps to anyone that wants or demands them. Google's mobile applications are completely isolated from the openness of Android. Sure, this works nicely for Google, seeing as very few vendors have had the balls to ship Android devices without Google's Market, but that's just a missed opportunity by potential competitors if you ask me.
    - Steko 15y ago
      "so [Google] muscled them out." Sounds "open" to me. "a glance at your comment history ... an obvious bias and it's apparently affecting your ability to comprehend or something)." I could say the same for yours. Let's be clear since I'm being accused of being some sort of one dimensional Android hater: I like Google. I like Android. I like the openness of Android. I also and sometimes especially like several of the non-Open parts of Android (Maps and Gmail are the gold standard in mobile, Marketplace needs work but they iterate fast, Music and Movies look great and have probably sold me on an Android tablet if/when I get one). I have no problem with Google's location services, as far as I know they are the best in the world. I have no problem with them muscling out Skyhook, that's how business works. I have no problem with Google using compatibility as a club, and as in the case of timely updates they need a bigger club (they know this and are iterating quickly as usual). Here's the difference: what I have a problem with is claiming that all of Android is this free and open promised land while you're muscling people out at the same time. That's just willful ignorance of what Google and Android (in its totality) are. You can claim that "Android in it's entirety" is just the open source pieces but at that point we're just talking past each other and should agree to disagree. Is Honeycomb not Android? Would not every review point out that you don't get "the full Android" from a device lacking Google's suite of non-Open Source apps from a device shipping without "Android compatibility"? Since you continually question my reading comprehension use your superior skills and tell me what this quote from Android's wikipedia means: "device manufacturers can not use Google's Android trademark unless Google certifies that the device complies with their Compatibility Definition Document (CDD)"

by Steko 15y ago

nl 15y ago

All those support exactly what I'm saying: Google wanted to make sure their service was included! None support your claim that Google tried to stop Skyhook being shipped as well.

Steko 15y ago
Given: (1) Skyhook wanted it's service to ship. (2) Samsung wanted Skyhook's service to ship. (3) Motorola wanted Skyhook's service to ship. According to you: (4) Google didn't care Observe: (5) Skyhook's service did NOT ship. It's pretty clear that (4) is the non sequitur. What mystical forces do you suggest stopped this from shipping if not Google?
- nl 15y ago
  You are misunderstanding the situation. Google cared deeply about their service being missing from the phones. The exclusivity clause in Skyhook's contract was what was stopping that. Skyhook didn't ship because their contract with Motorola (and I assume Samsung) required exclusivity. Google cared deeply about that, and Motorola notified Skyhook that their contract was invalid because of that exclusivity clause. Skyhook didn't ship because they no longer had a contract. If they had found a way to get a new contract then they could have shipped it. Unfortunately for Skyhook, Google managed to prove that their service gave just as good results as Skyhook, and Skyhook couldn't show any additional value so manufactures were no longer interested. (It's worth noting that apparently the manufactures were paying for Skyhook, but didn't have to pay for Google's service.)

drivebyacct2 15y ago

"I cannot stress how important Google’s Wi-Fi location database is to our Android and mobile product strategy" You're quoting this, but you still don't get it? :/

Steko 15y ago
I get it just fine, do you? See how easy a cheap argument that adds nothing to the discussion is? If it's so obvious why don't you go ahead and explain it. I'll recap the argument so far, you tell me where I went wrong. (1) It was claimed that Android was "truly open". (2) I disagree and use the example of Skyhook. (2a) I believe if Android was "truly open" Motorola and Samsung would be allowed to ship the device with another vendor's location service. (2b) Obviously they couldn't so I conclude claims of "true openness" are overblown. (3) At this point people start claiming absurd things like "Google doesn't care if Skyhook shipped" (3a) When imho they obviously did because there's no other explanation for why skyhook's location service didn't ship.
- drivebyacct2 15y ago
  ... They were upset because Skyhook wanted exclusivity. Google wanted in on the data, was willing to share with Skyhook. Skyhook wanted exclusive access to the data, which Google wasn't willing to sacrifice so they muscled them out. How can we make this more obvious to you? (Oh wait, a glance at your comment history explains why you don't seem to get what anyone here is saying. You have an obvious bias and it's apparently affecting your ability to comprehend or something). Motorola can ship whatever they want. Do you really not understand how MIT/GPL work? Just because Android's open doesn't mean that Google has to sell/give their GoogleApps to anyone that wants or demands them. Google's mobile applications are completely isolated from the openness of Android. Sure, this works nicely for Google, seeing as very few vendors have had the balls to ship Android devices without Google's Market, but that's just a missed opportunity by potential competitors if you ask me.
  - Steko 15y ago
    "so [Google] muscled them out." Sounds "open" to me. "a glance at your comment history ... an obvious bias and it's apparently affecting your ability to comprehend or something)." I could say the same for yours. Let's be clear since I'm being accused of being some sort of one dimensional Android hater: I like Google. I like Android. I like the openness of Android. I also and sometimes especially like several of the non-Open parts of Android (Maps and Gmail are the gold standard in mobile, Marketplace needs work but they iterate fast, Music and Movies look great and have probably sold me on an Android tablet if/when I get one). I have no problem with Google's location services, as far as I know they are the best in the world. I have no problem with them muscling out Skyhook, that's how business works. I have no problem with Google using compatibility as a club, and as in the case of timely updates they need a bigger club (they know this and are iterating quickly as usual). Here's the difference: what I have a problem with is claiming that all of Android is this free and open promised land while you're muscling people out at the same time. That's just willful ignorance of what Google and Android (in its totality) are. You can claim that "Android in it's entirety" is just the open source pieces but at that point we're just talking past each other and should agree to disagree. Is Honeycomb not Android? Would not every review point out that you don't get "the full Android" from a device lacking Google's suite of non-Open Source apps from a device shipping without "Android compatibility"? Since you continually question my reading comprehension use your superior skills and tell me what this quote from Android's wikipedia means: "device manufacturers can not use Google's Android trademark unless Google certifies that the device complies with their Compatibility Definition Document (CDD)"