5 ms·

If you sign a deal with Google, you also get the same treatment as other companies that signed a deal with Google. The difference between Microsoft and Google

If you sign a deal with Google, you also get the same treatment as other companies that signed a deal with Google. The difference between Microsoft and Google is that if you don't license Windows, Microsoft gives you nothing. Big, fat 0. If you don't sign a deal with Google, you get 95% of Android. Your demands perfectly illustrate human nature: no matter how good you have, not matter how much you have, there's always more to want and demand. With Android Google is being generous to extreme, unprecedented levels. They give away, for free, with source code, technology that would require millions to redevelop from scratch, but that's not good enough for you. And the same time, you make no demands on Apple or Microsoft to be even 1% as generous as Google is. The restrictions that Google has on Android have very good rationale: to prevent explosion of incompatibilities, something that has plagued uncoordinated desktop Linux efforts for years and has no signs of being resolved. rpm vs. apt vs. yam. Gnome vs. Qt. etc. And finally, no matter how many of your demands Google will meet, people will always come up with more. You have already demonstrated that you'll find a fault with a very big and generous gift of Android. I can easily imagine that after Google lifts the restrictions that bother you so much (even though the likelihood that you're personally affected by them is 0) someone will consider that 30% royalty in Android Market is too high.

throwaway32 15y ago
>If you sign a deal with Google, you also get the same treatment as other companies that signed a deal with Google. Do you have any evidence to support this statement? Agreements of that nature are not normally made public, and the circumstances surrounding the google maps/GPS on android thing, means this is very likely not the case. >The restrictions that Google has on Android have very good rationale. Im so happy that google is choosing to restrict my freedom to use my devices for my own good, thank you google. >You have already demonstrated that you'll find a fault with a very big and generous gift of Android. I can easily imagine that after Google lifts the restrictions that bother you so much (even though the likelihood that you're personally affected by them is 0) Android is not a gift, its intent was never to charitably donate something to the community at large, its intent was to make google money. Their entire platform is based off of the open-source work of others, it did not spring forth from google fully formed, expecting reciprocation is not too much to ask.
- andylei 15y ago
  > Im so happy that google is choosing to restrict my freedom to use my devices Google is not 'restricting your freedom'. You can fork android and do whatever you want. > Android is not a gift, its intent was never to charitably donate something to the community at large, its intent was to make google money Intent is irrelevant. Pre Google: 0 commercially viable Linux based phones. Post Google: dozens. > Their entire platform is based off of the open-source work of others, it did not spring forth from google fully formed, expecting reciprocation is not too much to ask. They do reciprocate. The source for android is yours to hack.
  - throwaway32 15y ago
    >Google is not 'restricting your freedom'. You can fork android and do whatever you want. that is a bit of a hobson's choice, sure (some of) the code is available (pre 3.0), but without a device that is open and able to run it, it may as well be closed. >Intent is irrelevant. Intent is everything, would you be right to suspect the motivations of a mining company conducting a review of environmental impacts, even if the results appear sound on the surface? >They do reciprocate. The source for android is yours to hack. Except for of course, gingerbread.
    - nl 15y ago
      that is a bit of a hobson's choice, sure (some of) the code is available (pre 3.0), but without a device that is open and able to run it, it may as well be closed. I'm not sure what you define as "a device that is open", but surely the many unlocked handsets apply? If not, then http://beagleboard.org/project/android/ http://beagleboard.org/project/android/ perhaps? If not, then maybe the Nokia 810: http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/Linux-For-Devices-Articles/Porting-Android-to-a-new-device/ http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/Linux-For-Devices-Article... Am I missing your point somehow?
    - andylei 15y ago
      > without a device that is open and able to run it, it may as well be closed google doesn't make devices > would you be right to suspect the motivations of a mining company conducting a review of environmental impacts how is this a good analogy? they write software. its open source. you don't have to trust them. > Except for of course, gingerbread. this statement is actually false.
Zigurd 15y ago
I have good reason to like Android, and the way Google has made Adroid successful, very much: http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Android-Zigurd-Mednieks/dp/1449389694 http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Android-Zigurd-Mednieks/dp... I also know from experience in the mobile application business that Android Market is the easiest platform vendor or carrier-controlled app market to deal with. My comments relate mainly to how the tablet business differs from the handset business. The same practices that might be necessary for Android handsets don't apply to tablets, and evidently don't work as well, either. I think tablets will be a very big part of computing, and Android tablets should be a big part of the tablet business. But, so far, Google hasn't allowed many low-cost OEMs to ship Android-based products with Android Market and Google's other proprietary applications. Had Google gone with, say, Archos on a $350 tablet instead of Motorola for a high-end product, the tablet roll-out for Android might be very different now. More generally, Google should not have tried to pick a winner, or a winning approach to tablet product formulation. That openness to all comers makes Android Market vibrant and diverse. Maybe Google should try that approach to tablet OEMs, too.

throwaway32 15y ago

>If you sign a deal with Google, you also get the same treatment as other companies that signed a deal with Google. Do you have any evidence to support this statement? Agreements of that nature are not normally made public, and the circumstances surrounding the google maps/GPS on android thing, means this is very likely not the case. >The restrictions that Google has on Android have very good rationale. Im so happy that google is choosing to restrict my freedom to use my devices for my own good, thank you google. >You have already demonstrated that you'll find a fault with a very big and generous gift of Android. I can easily imagine that after Google lifts the restrictions that bother you so much (even though the likelihood that you're personally affected by them is 0) Android is not a gift, its intent was never to charitably donate something to the community at large, its intent was to make google money. Their entire platform is based off of the open-source work of others, it did not spring forth from google fully formed, expecting reciprocation is not too much to ask.

andylei 15y ago
> Im so happy that google is choosing to restrict my freedom to use my devices Google is not 'restricting your freedom'. You can fork android and do whatever you want. > Android is not a gift, its intent was never to charitably donate something to the community at large, its intent was to make google money Intent is irrelevant. Pre Google: 0 commercially viable Linux based phones. Post Google: dozens. > Their entire platform is based off of the open-source work of others, it did not spring forth from google fully formed, expecting reciprocation is not too much to ask. They do reciprocate. The source for android is yours to hack.
- throwaway32 15y ago
  >Google is not 'restricting your freedom'. You can fork android and do whatever you want. that is a bit of a hobson's choice, sure (some of) the code is available (pre 3.0), but without a device that is open and able to run it, it may as well be closed. >Intent is irrelevant. Intent is everything, would you be right to suspect the motivations of a mining company conducting a review of environmental impacts, even if the results appear sound on the surface? >They do reciprocate. The source for android is yours to hack. Except for of course, gingerbread.
  - nl 15y ago
    that is a bit of a hobson's choice, sure (some of) the code is available (pre 3.0), but without a device that is open and able to run it, it may as well be closed. I'm not sure what you define as "a device that is open", but surely the many unlocked handsets apply? If not, then http://beagleboard.org/project/android/ http://beagleboard.org/project/android/ perhaps? If not, then maybe the Nokia 810: http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/Linux-For-Devices-Articles/Porting-Android-to-a-new-device/ http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/Linux-For-Devices-Article... Am I missing your point somehow?
  - andylei 15y ago
    > without a device that is open and able to run it, it may as well be closed google doesn't make devices > would you be right to suspect the motivations of a mining company conducting a review of environmental impacts how is this a good analogy? they write software. its open source. you don't have to trust them. > Except for of course, gingerbread. this statement is actually false.

Zigurd 15y ago

I have good reason to like Android, and the way Google has made Adroid successful, very much: http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Android-Zigurd-Mednieks/dp/1449389694 http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Android-Zigurd-Mednieks/dp... I also know from experience in the mobile application business that Android Market is the easiest platform vendor or carrier-controlled app market to deal with. My comments relate mainly to how the tablet business differs from the handset business. The same practices that might be necessary for Android handsets don't apply to tablets, and evidently don't work as well, either. I think tablets will be a very big part of computing, and Android tablets should be a big part of the tablet business. But, so far, Google hasn't allowed many low-cost OEMs to ship Android-based products with Android Market and Google's other proprietary applications. Had Google gone with, say, Archos on a $350 tablet instead of Motorola for a high-end product, the tablet roll-out for Android might be very different now. More generally, Google should not have tried to pick a winner, or a winning approach to tablet product formulation. That openness to all comers makes Android Market vibrant and diverse. Maybe Google should try that approach to tablet OEMs, too.