7 ms·

Now we are going to see how non-evil the Google's definition of "do no evil" is going to be. If we take Google's comments about the acquisition at face value, t

by pilif 15y ago

Now we are going to see how non-evil the Google's definition of "do no evil" is going to be. If we take Google's comments about the acquisition at face value, then the people making these quotes are right: This is a good thing as it helps Google a lot in their defense against the patent threats. On the other hand if "do no evil" means "do no evil as long as it helps our bottom line", then this could very well mean the end of Android's openness. And it doesn't have to be obvious: It could just be that in the future, we'll see cool "Google Android" devices running so-far unreleased OS versions. "The code will be coming - it's just not quite ready for our partners yet" will be their line. But the code won't be arriving. Either not until the even newer "Google Android" device is out, or not at all. We'll see how this will develop. Personally, I would love to believe Google here because that means that we are going to see awesome pure-google phones which will both be a pleasure to use and well-built hardware-wise, while nobody else will be pissed and will continue to be able to sell their phones - maybe even without paying Microsoft for FAT in the future. If Google doesn't follow through with their promise, we'll still see awesome devices from them, but the rest of the manufacturers will be stuck with an outdated, possibly not updated any more, version of Android which is a shame because I would really love to see Android on devices that are not pure consumer-phones (like barcode scanners which still run Windows CE or Windows Mobile 6) The part of Motorola which Google didn't buy, incidentally is a huge producer of these scanners after their acquisition of Symbol Technologies a while back. They continue to produce Windows CE devices to this day.

kragen 15y ago
The slogan was never "do no evil"; it was "don't be evil", which is a considerably lower bar. "Do no evil" is an anti-Google propaganda slogan invented by Google-haters. Their interpretation of "Don't be evil" has never prevented them from writing proprietary software.
- tvon 15y ago
  I think you're splitting hairs in the difference between "do no evil" and "don't be evil", and I suspect the altering of the phrase was due to an indifference to your level of specificity before it was due to any sort of anti-Google malice.
  - barista 15y ago
    It is considered evil to use play of words to twist meaning like that. At least in my books.
  - kragen 15y ago
    It's not splitting hairs at all. The two represent diametrically opposite degrees of moral achievement. "Do no evil" is a declaration of hubris or wilful blindness: no moral agent fails to do evil at times. An entity that did no evil would necessarily be incorruptible, immune to dilemmas, and in most ethical systems, omniscient as well. "Don't be evil" is an almost comically low bar. Almost nobody other than comic-book villains, and perhaps Jeffrey Dahmer and certain pedophile priests, is evil according to the moral code they aspire to live by. The only reason it's even worth mentioning is that Google was born in a world dominated by Microsoft and Doubleclick, which were generally agreed to actually be evil, and Google aspired to do better. "Don't be evil" is satisfied by having the tiniest modicum of ethical achievement. In short, the distinction between the meanings of the two phrases could hardly be more pronounced. Anyone who claims that Google aspires to "do no evil" is excluding themselves from any serious discussion.
    - kragen 15y ago
      (Updated and expanded version of this comment at http://lists.canonical.org/pipermail/kragen-tol/2011-August/000936.html. http://lists.canonical.org/pipermail/kragen-tol/2011-August/...)
mdasen 15y ago
Google's blog post on it (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/supercharging-android-google-to-acquire.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/supercharging-android...) makes bit of a deal of the DOJ defending "open source". However, as we've seen with Android 3.0, 3.1 and 3.2, Google has kept that source for itself and its select partners. Given that, I think your feeling is justified. It might not come to pass and I certainly hope it doesn't come to pass, but it is a worry. Google has already played the "the code will be coming, it just isn't ready yet" card with Honeycomb.
rsynnott 15y ago
It's actually hard to see how Google _can_ keep a level playing field under these circumstances, short of totally isolating their Motorola unit from long-term Android development.
- ig1 15y ago
  You realize Google does this a lot already ? They operate in so many markets they have to have internal chinese walls between departments. The ads team is separated from search team, and the search team is separate from their analytics team. Google knows that these internal teams would have conflicts of interests so it keeps them separate.
  - Anti-Ratfish 15y ago
    Why do I get adverts when I search if they are totally separate? It's all connected to the adverts, surely. That's the driving force for the company isn't it?
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - ig1 15y ago
      The SERP doesn't take into account advertiser information, so by advertising on Google you can't get a higher "organic" listing. The algorithms aren't allowed to interact, Google Ads team even has their own crawler bot.
- sjs382 15y ago
  By giving LG, Samsung, HTC the same access as Motorola. They shouldn't be any more isolated than the Android partners, which already have a great deal of access.
  - recoiledsnake 15y ago
    What about the other OEMs? There are a LOT of small Android OEMs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Android_devices#Other_Manufacturars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Android_devices#O... You think Google will share future plans etc. with all of those? Might as well broadcast it on Google.com since Apple, MS,HP, RIM, etc. will anyway get wind of it. Reminds me of the Windows 95 and MS Office fiasco which resulted in Word Perfect suing them.
joebadmo 15y ago
I have the same fears as you, but maybe a little less because I really don't think Google's interested in the hardware business as such. The reason they started down the android road in the first place was so they wouldn't get locked out of the mobile market in the venue they actually care about: search (specifically, search ads). Doing anything "evil" in this case just doesn't seem to jive with their long-term incentive to commoditize mobile software and hardware.
- VladRussian 15y ago
  >their long-term incentive to commoditize mobile software and hardware. close in-house integration of software and hardware hasn't been known as a way to commoditization
loganfrederick 15y ago
I understand your concern, but is Google keeping its most recent code changes private and releasing them in the future really that bad? For example, John Carmack/id Software don't release their current engines until they've made progress on the next, better version. I don't think many people consider Carmack to be evil or non-altruistic.
- Terretta 15y ago
  I'm not sure "it's open, once it's obsolete" is how the philosophy is intended to work. Also, Carmack doesn't engage in PR wars about the non-openness of others.
- tom9729 15y ago
  I think the difference between Carmack and Google is that Carmack writes proprietary software and then releases the source code when it stops selling. Google on the other hand is writing open source software but is choosing to hold back on releasing the source code ... why?
- wtracy 15y ago
  id isn't trying to create a hardware ecosystem. Google created a hardware ecosystem with a variety of partners. If they start playing favorites with who gets new Android releases, they will undermine that ecosystem. It's not so much that they're keeping the code closed, it's that they're only releasing the code to a handful of select partners. All the small players get left out in the cold.
ConstantineXVI 15y ago
Your point about the WinCE-based Symbol gear: drop WinCE and they drop all their customers that are unwilling/unable to port their code over to Android.

by pilif 15y ago

kragen 15y ago

The slogan was never "do no evil"; it was "don't be evil", which is a considerably lower bar. "Do no evil" is an anti-Google propaganda slogan invented by Google-haters. Their interpretation of "Don't be evil" has never prevented them from writing proprietary software.

tvon 15y ago
I think you're splitting hairs in the difference between "do no evil" and "don't be evil", and I suspect the altering of the phrase was due to an indifference to your level of specificity before it was due to any sort of anti-Google malice.
- barista 15y ago
  It is considered evil to use play of words to twist meaning like that. At least in my books.
- kragen 15y ago
  It's not splitting hairs at all. The two represent diametrically opposite degrees of moral achievement. "Do no evil" is a declaration of hubris or wilful blindness: no moral agent fails to do evil at times. An entity that did no evil would necessarily be incorruptible, immune to dilemmas, and in most ethical systems, omniscient as well. "Don't be evil" is an almost comically low bar. Almost nobody other than comic-book villains, and perhaps Jeffrey Dahmer and certain pedophile priests, is evil according to the moral code they aspire to live by. The only reason it's even worth mentioning is that Google was born in a world dominated by Microsoft and Doubleclick, which were generally agreed to actually be evil, and Google aspired to do better. "Don't be evil" is satisfied by having the tiniest modicum of ethical achievement. In short, the distinction between the meanings of the two phrases could hardly be more pronounced. Anyone who claims that Google aspires to "do no evil" is excluding themselves from any serious discussion.
  - kragen 15y ago
    (Updated and expanded version of this comment at http://lists.canonical.org/pipermail/kragen-tol/2011-August/000936.html. http://lists.canonical.org/pipermail/kragen-tol/2011-August/...)

mdasen 15y ago

Google's blog post on it (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/supercharging-android-google-to-acquire.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/supercharging-android...) makes bit of a deal of the DOJ defending "open source". However, as we've seen with Android 3.0, 3.1 and 3.2, Google has kept that source for itself and its select partners. Given that, I think your feeling is justified. It might not come to pass and I certainly hope it doesn't come to pass, but it is a worry. Google has already played the "the code will be coming, it just isn't ready yet" card with Honeycomb.

rsynnott 15y ago

It's actually hard to see how Google _can_ keep a level playing field under these circumstances, short of totally isolating their Motorola unit from long-term Android development.

ig1 15y ago
You realize Google does this a lot already ? They operate in so many markets they have to have internal chinese walls between departments. The ads team is separated from search team, and the search team is separate from their analytics team. Google knows that these internal teams would have conflicts of interests so it keeps them separate.
- Anti-Ratfish 15y ago
  Why do I get adverts when I search if they are totally separate? It's all connected to the adverts, surely. That's the driving force for the company isn't it?
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - ig1 15y ago
    The SERP doesn't take into account advertiser information, so by advertising on Google you can't get a higher "organic" listing. The algorithms aren't allowed to interact, Google Ads team even has their own crawler bot.
sjs382 15y ago
By giving LG, Samsung, HTC the same access as Motorola. They shouldn't be any more isolated than the Android partners, which already have a great deal of access.
- recoiledsnake 15y ago
  What about the other OEMs? There are a LOT of small Android OEMs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Android_devices#Other_Manufacturars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Android_devices#O... You think Google will share future plans etc. with all of those? Might as well broadcast it on Google.com since Apple, MS,HP, RIM, etc. will anyway get wind of it. Reminds me of the Windows 95 and MS Office fiasco which resulted in Word Perfect suing them.

joebadmo 15y ago

I have the same fears as you, but maybe a little less because I really don't think Google's interested in the hardware business as such. The reason they started down the android road in the first place was so they wouldn't get locked out of the mobile market in the venue they actually care about: search (specifically, search ads). Doing anything "evil" in this case just doesn't seem to jive with their long-term incentive to commoditize mobile software and hardware.

VladRussian 15y ago
>their long-term incentive to commoditize mobile software and hardware. close in-house integration of software and hardware hasn't been known as a way to commoditization

loganfrederick 15y ago

I understand your concern, but is Google keeping its most recent code changes private and releasing them in the future really that bad? For example, John Carmack/id Software don't release their current engines until they've made progress on the next, better version. I don't think many people consider Carmack to be evil or non-altruistic.

Terretta 15y ago
I'm not sure "it's open, once it's obsolete" is how the philosophy is intended to work. Also, Carmack doesn't engage in PR wars about the non-openness of others.
tom9729 15y ago
I think the difference between Carmack and Google is that Carmack writes proprietary software and then releases the source code when it stops selling. Google on the other hand is writing open source software but is choosing to hold back on releasing the source code ... why?
wtracy 15y ago
id isn't trying to create a hardware ecosystem. Google created a hardware ecosystem with a variety of partners. If they start playing favorites with who gets new Android releases, they will undermine that ecosystem. It's not so much that they're keeping the code closed, it's that they're only releasing the code to a handful of select partners. All the small players get left out in the cold.

ConstantineXVI 15y ago

Your point about the WinCE-based Symbol gear: drop WinCE and they drop all their customers that are unwilling/unable to port their code over to Android.