Google Tightens Its Grip On Android, Infuriating Partners en-us Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500 Sat, 15 Mar 2014 19:32:52 -0400 Dan Frommer Graham Sun, 10 Apr 2011 22:58:48 -0400 Thank god, getting tired of "partner's" releasing bloated junk, forcing bloatware on users. Sure you can root, but not everyone is tech savey, and furthermore one shouldnt need to root their phone via a security exploit just to get control of it... HangTenKen Fri, 08 Apr 2011 16:11:37 -0400 ... And CRIPPLE-ware... removing WIFI tethering by Verizon on Moto Droid? HangTenKen Fri, 08 Apr 2011 15:53:24 -0400 I wish Google had taken a heavier hand last year when Verizon was crippling its version of Android 2 in order to disable its WIFI tethering and other features. Verizon was claiming that it was because the hardware was unable to handle it, but the rooted Moto Droids could do it just fine. Google should forbid these partners from crippling features. When people buy Android, they're expecting ALL the features of Android, and to get the upgrades without the carrier or phone vendor breaking new Android features. LL Fri, 08 Apr 2011 12:57:25 -0400 Wow, pretty slanted article. The point of this from Google's perspective is clearly to ease things and be open for developers, not so other wealthy companies and direct competitors make money off of Google's work. Dan Tue, 05 Apr 2011 17:53:35 -0400 Google wins again. This is what every android user has been waiting for. Faster updates and less garbage software on the phones from the cell companies. chilled to the bone Mon, 04 Apr 2011 13:04:47 -0400 You sound so damn stupid!!! You know when 9/11 went down I never blamed myself for buying nice things like a flower power imac. But our elected officials blamed us because the muslims extremist hate out opulence yet the muslim oil barons are the richest people in the world that make American bling look like tin metal! So who the fuck are you to drive a narrative about "OPEN". I have had my iphone since number 3 and now I have 4 and I don't have a problem nor do I sit back and cry like a bitch abut some fucking draconian business practice by Apple concerning its iSO. But you do, Fuck you! You are not my conscious. But of course someone has to sound the alarm and use a narrative as leverage against another company.So now would-be smart phone buyers are being manipulated by people like you touting this OPEN crap. So just the way a cop will fire or not fire depending on their perceived threat level, a conscientious consumer will make a choice based on their ideals. I like iphone. Again, screw you. GregBurman Mon, 04 Apr 2011 12:17:09 -0400 Erm, well this adds some meat to the buffet but overall maybe a little late to the party... When was the last time you heard anyone say "Do No Evil" and not choke on it? flamepanther000 Sat, 02 Apr 2011 15:15:58 -0400 He's pretty clearly talking about things like SenseUI and Motoblur--not being forced to use Bing (available from Google's market BTW, despite others' claims of anticompetitiveness from Google) or having a copy of Avatar that you can't delete to free up space. "Features" and "bloatware" are synonymous to the carriers only. Kaessa Sat, 02 Apr 2011 14:51:16 -0400 It's still open source. The OEMs can do whatever they want with the code. What they'll lose is Google's apps and the Android branding. How is this a problem? The OEMs are ruining the Android brand. I don't have a problem with Google taking control of their brand. The code is still open source. If the phone manufacturers want to use it and put crappy UIs over the top of it, they're more than welcome to, they just can't call it Android any more. I don't see the problem. CEO Fri, 01 Apr 2011 14:49:17 -0400 what it means is that if creating apps for Android becomes next to impossible, developers will avoid the platform and will focus on other platforms such as iPhone only. (many already do!) Add tablets to the equation, and if there are many flavors/behaviors, the build/test matrix becomes pretty ridiculous very fast. The result of developers avoiding the platform is less apps. Oe Fri, 01 Apr 2011 12:55:29 -0400 "dont be evil": -advertise your product as open (good) versus your competitors close (bad) -get tons of people aboard thanks to that -close your product With all those lawsuits, fcc and others probing into google, its not far from truth to already call them criminals Karen Sumner White Fri, 01 Apr 2011 12:43:35 -0400 The article said it: This is how business is done. Google is just one more company with the goal of taking over the world. They put the restrictions on to further their brand and their dominance. Who actually chooses Bing as their go-to search engine? Al Fri, 01 Apr 2011 12:15:05 -0400 I don't get what the big deal is. Open Source NEVER meant the same thing as GNU. tejainece Fri, 01 Apr 2011 12:02:06 -0400 @zzzzz thats not what apple did to piss off everyone. i will tell you the reason, 1) they stuck to single carrier. most extreme nature of closed-ness 2) they controlled everything.... always created problems to accept competitor's app in their app market. remember how they turned down some wonderful apps. 3) banned flash 4) etc, etc no one asked apple to open source their iOS or let me have a peak on their algorithms. there is a difference between open platform and open source. and one more thing, google never said they are going to close source android 3 anyway. they are just delaying things for right time. tejainece Fri, 01 Apr 2011 11:54:14 -0400 @zzzzz yeah maybe apple doesn't sell to third party.... they screw you themselves!!! Nick, FL Fri, 01 Apr 2011 11:20:29 -0400 Yes, WebKit is open source for web browsers. We are discussing the operating system being open source. Your response is correct, <i>genius</i>, but for a different argument. Apple is the largest offender of tightening the noose on developers, and since they restrict their operating source so that only they can control it makes them <i>not</i> open sourced. The fact that Android is running on more than one hardware manufacturer makes them more open that Apple is. jonorigami Fri, 01 Apr 2011 10:39:00 -0400 Let's boil it down to this: What does this mean for the end consumer in terms of app functionality and the amount of diverse apps available? CEO Fri, 01 Apr 2011 09:20:42 -0400 Clamping down on fragmentation is a very good thing for consumers AND for developers. Those who say otherwise haven't gone thru the pain and cost of developing apps across platforms and platform versions. If the fragmentation issue is not resolved now, we will have another J2ME, if you know what I mean. To eliminate fragmentation does require a strong unified entity that enforces specific platform rules. ceo awesomeapple Fri, 01 Apr 2011 08:44:20 -0400 Sensible move. At some point, somebody has to keep things in check and whoever it is will always get flack. Rubin looks like a bit of a dick now, his reputation is the biggest casualty with this decision. Hardwick Cache Fri, 01 Apr 2011 08:31:30 -0400 Google is going toward the Blackberry and Apple business model. Initially having an open platform was the best strategy to disrupt the establishment of Blackberry, iPhone, and WIndows. What better way to get device manufacturers and networks to use Android? No licensing and an opportunity to customize versus the Blackberry and iPhone dominant ecosystems. Android's greatest threat now has become the shortsighted segmentation actions of networks who seek to customize and lock customers into their version of Android. The user experience is everything. No way to make a consistent user experience unless Google protects the Android ecosystem. Blackberry and Apple have more experience in developing and evolving their ecosystems. Android will soon be much more organized and consistent - meaning that it will be more user friendly versus the current segmented walls put up by device manufacturers and networks. brnichols Fri, 01 Apr 2011 05:07:15 -0400 Dan, Your unfounded and baseless commentary is representative of all that is wrong with the current state of, "Journalism." I have no problem with your inherent affinity for APPLE, everyone is entitled to their opinion as freedom of speech is a basic/intrinsic right. However it is clear that you intend on using this platform to perpetuate any story, no matter how baseless, in order to smear GOOGLE or any other company that seems to stand in the way of APPLE. This article contains ZERO journalistic integrity; from the loaded title to your random use of quotation marks the ENTIRE column is not only inaccurate/overtly bias it is also void of any original thought or commentary. Obviously this is your intent as you know the average reader will will view these comments through the scope of your impressive resume (senior staff writer, Northwestern grad, former Forbes columnist) and thus believe that you are a credible source. While this approach to economic banter would be completely harmless in most scenarios: using the exposure of a legitimate news outlet to proliferate your personal agenda is far beyond immoral and borders on vile. It has a REAL effect on market conditions as some will invest based on this garbage and I implore you to take that into account in the near future. I will assume that you know the TRUE STORY and hope that you will provide your readers with REAL FACTS and information in a forthcoming post; if not I would be more than happy to explain the absurdity of your/these claims as my extensive knowledge of the situation would allow me to do so. IN CONCLUSION, EITHER TAKE SOME PRIDE IN WHAT YOU ARE DOING OR ELIMATE THIS LINE FROM THE SITES BIO: "graduate of the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University.", I speak for the masses when I say that graduates of our fine institution do NOT want to be associated with this sham. cmarcdavid Fri, 01 Apr 2011 02:32:15 -0400 Very very good article, indeed but unfortunately one I was only waiting for since Decemeber 2008. Android is not open and was never intended to be open. The OHA was a great game of smoking mirrors. Unfortunately this is not only about the fragmentation at the technical level (which I can appreciate having spent so much time in this industry on previously very fragmented technology) but rather the way Google went about it, the mis-perception. The worst is that the the fragmentation is not only at the platform of technical level but more important one inflicted and driven by Google themselves at the business and contractual levels. A fragmented business model, individual agreements all leads to a fragmented environment in the "open" community. And Google should blame themselves for it and not pin it on the industry and it's partners. Furthermore Google made a bad call when not understanding that the market place should have been part of the OS itself from day one. Big mistake in then trying to retro-fit this by forcing market in the agreements later on. Also by mistake in trying to also force in the Google Apps afterwards. While I do like several of the Google Apps they are still and should be decoupled both technically and contractually from Android. That was a bad and stupid move by Google. This all very unfortunate as Android as an open platform is technically great and should have been driven from a business and contractual view point as equally open in order to foster and garner true innovation happening around the globe. BYE BYE "open" HELLO the EGO game between the "big" boys on the west coast US. Confucious Fri, 01 Apr 2011 01:41:16 -0400 1. Android is not a final product. It is a component for a final product like Samsung Galaxy Tab. 2. No, Companies should not allow others to meddle with their products. However, the point is this "not allow others" or "Closed" system is bashed by Google and you for quite some time. Go read any Interview of Andy Rubin and Eric Smidt where they did not claim "openness" is the way to go and Apple is evil for being "close". Did it not sound funny that now they are doing this? 3. Honeycomb source code is not available publicly. So it is not open. 4. The article categorically mentioned that this will be better for consumers as products will be more polished. Do read the whole article and come back for comments. 5. Apple had the guts to say this from the beginning. They did not act like MS when MS flooded the market with cheap free software to make customers accustomed to their products and when customers are hooked, then they tighten their grips. I can see that is being tried by Google here. Not going to succeed. Samsung have BADA, WP7 is a good contender with Nokia on board. Confucious Fri, 01 Apr 2011 01:32:11 -0400 I am not comfortable with Apple as an example as well. Apple decided to be "closed" and they were not afraid to declare that as well. However, the point here is that Google fought for "openness" so bitterly and now the u turn. Its really hilarious. And by the way: is Android a product at all? So, the comparison is quite on the spot. Both Android and webkit are tools for making final products (Android handsets, Safari/Chrome web browsers etc.) Confucious Fri, 01 Apr 2011 01:26:24 -0400 Remember, these delusional OEMs do sell the Android Handsets. Count the Nexus handsets and you will see where Android stands without the OEMs. And aren't the OEMs (or everybody in the matter) supposed to be able to do whatever they like with Android? Wasn't that the greatest point for Android? It's hilarious how "a little curation" is now "absolute necessary", "is good for consumers", "will help everybody". I can't remember these points mentioned by any of the Android fans in last 3 years. Rather Apple is the evil monster for their "Walled Garden", "Closed" system. Funny. I am laughing out loud. I wish somebody gathers all the Interviews of Eric and Andy (the two towers of Openness, whatever that is) and through them at these two gentlemen. tempguest Fri, 01 Apr 2011 00:36:24 -0400 > Google's incentives are not important. Granted my comment may have seemed out of context, but it was meant to be a reply to a comment made earlier by the author of the article: >> Djenk8 on Mar 31, 12:52 PM said: >> You say: "From a consumer's perspective, by the way, all of this is probably a good thing." >> Shouldn't that be all that matters? Who cares about the carriers and OEMs and their crappy bloatware. This is a great move by Google. > Dan Frommer (AUTHOR) on Mar 31, 1:24 PM said: > @Djenk8: Maybe, but this is also a business- and industry-focused site. We look at it from many angles. So, according to the author of this article, Google's incentives (from a business perspective) are absolutely important to this discussion. Why do you feel that they are not? Also, stop citing Apple as the model for openness, it's silly and makes you lose credibility. I gave a longer response to your "WebKit argument" in another comment, but I'd like to add this: STOP CALLING IT "Apple WebKit." It's 2011, they are not the only big Developer of the code anymore -- nor was the original code their doing. tempguest Fri, 01 Apr 2011 00:24:23 -0400 You're really going to cite Apple as the model for openness?! Really? First, Webkit is not a final product in ANY respect; second, you had to go back more than a decade to find an example; third, it wasn't always open; and lastly, Apple isn't even the vendor of the leading application that uses WebKit -- Google is! Why are you trolling these comments so hard? Hamranhansenhansen Thu, 31 Mar 2011 21:07:34 -0400 Android was originally intended to be a way for Google to expand its Web advertising monopoly onto mobiles. Google is an advertising company, 96% of revenues from advertising. Everything they do is for advertising. > No different than iPHONE ->ATT Android has always been very different from iPhone, which is carrier-indepedent. The limited period of AT&T iPhone exclusivity in the US was the exception, not the rule, and it enabled Apple to get into the phone business and enabled AT&T to build out the nation's one standardized 3G network. Now, iPhone is available on both AT&T and Verizon 3G, and in 4G, iPhone users will be able to move between AT&T and Verizon without getting new hardware. So iPhone started almost totally carrier-independent and is only getting more and more carrier-independent as time goes on. I wouldn't describe the problem in the US as "elitist" or "special interests". I think the problem is "lowest common denominator" and "corporate interests." So instead of one awesome publicly-owned cell network that covers every inch of the country and upon which multiple private cell carriers compete, we have 4 crappy overlapping networks, each with huge gaping holes, and 4 quasi-monopoly carriers competing only in the sense of who can come up with the most innovative new ways to milk their customers. Yes, the archaic measurements in the US are a total f'ing nightmare. After the Mars orbiter was crashed into Mars due to one NASA team using meters and the other using feet, Congress should have outlawed the 16th century measurements. Hamranhansenhansen Thu, 31 Mar 2011 19:44:30 -0400 Google's incentives are not important. What is important is they banged a drum "open, open, open" for years and criticized others for not being "open enough," including Apple who make the most broadly-used mobile open source project in Apple WebKit, which is on every smartphone and tablet from every manufacturer except Microsoft, including all the Android devices and also Chrome OS, and is even in Adobe AIR. So Apple providing the Web browser and HTML5 application environment for everyone but Microsoft wasn't "open enough" for Google yesterday, and today Android v3 is "open enough"? That is hypocrisy of the highest order. The fact that they said "we're not evil" the whole time just makes it laughable, a complete joke. Your excusifying for them is lame. Hamranhansenhansen Thu, 31 Mar 2011 19:33:56 -0400 There is no Android platform. Android is used by companies outside of Google to make their own platforms. Google doesn't have a right to change the rules and force other Android-based platforms to become part of a larger Google platform. That was not the deal from the start. They did not sign up to be Microsoft-style hardware vendors, they signed up to be Linux-style hardware vendors. > [without Android] > Every company would have 1000 apps where 900 of them would > be useless (as always the majority of apps is crap in an ecosystem). That is what they have with Android. Amazon's [remote application installer with a trademark-infringing consumer-confusing name] has only 3000 apps in it, because that is all that made the quality cut. Any particular Android device only runs a subset of the Dalvik-based apps. There is Android 1.5, 1.6, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 3.0. You're saying "without Android, vendors would be fragmented." They are fragmented now! Device makers can get BSD UNIX or GNU Linux all by themselves. They can get Apple's LLVM compiler or the GNU compiler all by themselves. They can get Apple WebKit (which is a big part of Android) all by themselves, and run websites and Web apps. They have equal access to standardized C, C++, OpenPDF, OpenGL, ISO MPEG-4, GSM, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, USB2, ARM, flash storage, and plenty of other technologies. As far as apps, the iOS app library is written in C/C++/Objective-C. C code is by definition portable to other platforms. Any device maker who opens up a native C API and OpenGL on a UNIX or UNIX-like platform can make it easy for developers to port their apps from iOS to their device. In most cases, 90% of the app's code can remain the same. This is especially true for games, which are typically written in C++ and OpenGL and are very portable. If Nintendo can run its own C/OpenGL platform and Sony can run its own C/OpenGL platform, and tiny RIM can run its own C/OpenGL platform, and HP who has almost no software expertise can run its own C/OpenGL platform, then what is the excuse of the Android handset makers? That they are unprofitable bottom-feeders with one foot in the grave? Can't be that, can it? > [Facebook would] like to give nothing to Google but have full access > to all Google's services and products. That is not true. Facebook has made massive improvements to PHP, an open source project that is very, very widely-used on the Web, including by Google. I don't remember the exact numbers, but Facebook doubled the speed of PHP or something, and contributed tens of thousands of lines of code. Facebook did not ask Google to show them their unreleased Google products that are using PHP. Apple did not ask Google to show them their unreleased products using Apple WebKit, which include all versions of Android and Chrome and Chrome OS. So there is no excusifying for Google. They didn't just release Android as open source, they banged a drum "open, open, open, open, open" and criticized others like Apple (who makes the most broadly-used mobile open source project in WebKit) for not being "open enough." So for Google to now close down Android is not excusable. FYI Thu, 31 Mar 2011 18:56:57 -0400 > But Google is not capable of that? Google maintains and promotes more than 200 open source projects out of more than 900 open source projects released to date. There's no other big company with so many resources devoted to open source. Get informed here and avoid talking about what you don't know next time: (and by the way, WebKit is an original project from KDE that Apple adopted and renamed later) Hamranhansenhansen Thu, 31 Mar 2011 18:40:23 -0400 Android is not a platform, it is an open source product with which carriers and OEM's make their own platforms. Then they put crapware on those platforms. That was always the deal. Now that carriers and OEM's have built their own platforms based on Android, Google is saying all your platforms belong to us. It's exactly what you're not supposed to do with open source. Open source is not anti-consumer. Apple is the most consumer-centric tech company, yet they also produce the most popular mobile open source project in Apple WebKit, which is on all smartphones and tablets except for Microsoft's meager few. Apple's open source efforts have benefited both consumers and other device makers. What is Google's excuse? Mismanagement? Stupidity? Evil? Hamranhansenhansen Thu, 31 Mar 2011 18:35:12 -0400 No, you have it backwards, genius. Apple WebKit is the most popular mobile open source project, much more broadly-used than Android. Apple has not been playing keep-away with the WebKit source to further their own desires, but Google has been playing keep-away with the Android source. So it is Apple that is more open. Google is one of the biggest WebKit users. There is Apple open source code in Android, Chrome, and Chrome OS. Apple doesn't use any of Google's open source code. So again, who is more open? Hamranhansenhansen Thu, 31 Mar 2011 18:32:20 -0400 > Can anyone name a single successful tech corporation that allows > vendors to alter their final products? Apple. Biggest tech company in the world by market cap. Most successful tech company of the 21st century thus far. Oldest PC maker. Newest mobile maker. 90% market share in tablets and high-end PC's. 75% market share in music players. 5% market share in mobile phones, but takes 55% of the profits. And maintainer of the most popular mobile open source project: Apple WebKit. The Apple WebKit product is open source code that is used and altered by Google, RIM, Nokia, HP, Roku, Adobe, and others, and is used in Android, Chrome, Chrome OS, BlackBerry, PlayBook, S60, Pre, TouchPad, Roku Box, AIR, Creative Suite, and other consumer products. Apple hasn't been demanding that RIM send PlayBook prototypes to Cupertino or no more WebKit source for RIM. So what is Google's excuse? Hamranhansenhansen Thu, 31 Mar 2011 18:12:34 -0400 > even under these "onerous" restrictions, dealing with google is full > of rainbows and unicorns when compared to dealing w/ apple and > their dictatorial mindset. That is BS propaganda. It's simply not true. The most broadly-used mobile open source project is Apple WebKit, not Google Android. Every smartphone vendor except for Microsoft uses Apple WebKit and doesn't have any trouble at all dealing with Apple. Facebook is not being forced to show their mobile work to Apple for approval. Neither is Google, Nokia, HP, RIM, or anyone else. Apple's "dictatorial mindset" applies to their own products, even though Apple's open source software is used by everyone else but Microsoft. If anything, Apple is criticized not for dictating to others what they should do, but actually for not giving a shit what everyone else is doing. The Adobe Flash -related criticism is not that Apple is telling Adobe what to do, it is that Apple doesn't give a shit what Adobe is doing. It's Adobe that is trying to tell Apple what to do. With Android, we see that Google's "dictatorial mindset" applies not only to their own products, but also to Motorola, HTC, Samsung, Verizon, and Facebook products. The only vendor who has complained that WebKit licensing is too onerous is Microsoft, who are completely allergic to open source software in general, and so have created their own clone of WebKit called IE9. Notice that Google products such as Android and Chrome and Chrome OS include a ton of Apple open source code, but Apple products do not include any Google open source code. So who is really more open? Whose licensing terms are more dictatorial? You really have to look past the marketing and investigate what is actually going on. The nice thing about open source is that open source projects all have websites. You can see what is actually happening. Hamranhansenhansen Thu, 31 Mar 2011 18:02:27 -0400 > delivered via web (excluding Flash/Silverlight of course) Flash and Silverlight and also Java and QuickTime and Real are not part of the World Wide Web. The World Wide Web is an actual thing. The term has scope and meaning and history. What is part of the World Wide Web is defined by the World Wide Web consortium's HTML5 specification. In short, Web content is made with: • Unicode standard UTF-8 text • W3C standard HTML, CSS, PNG, and SVG • ECMA standard JavaScript • ISO standard JPEG photos and MPEG-4 audio video … and that is all. There are also networking standards like HTTP that specify how that content is delivered over the Internet. A key component of the Web is everything is standardized and vendor-neutral and hardware-independent and platform-independent. There is nothing stopping any particular device maker or publisher from implementing all of the above standards. On the Web, there is absolutely no nonstandard, proprietary content such as Adobe Flash, Microsoft Silverlight, Oracle Java, Apple QuickTime, or Real Media. If it has a vendor's name in front of it, it is not part of the Web. On a Mac or PC, you can fool people into thinking that it is by cutting a hole in the browser and showing that proprietary content through that hole, but that is not practical now that the Web is on 50 different platforms, only a handful of which have the Flash or QuickTime or Java or Silverlight or Real. So the Web you see on an iPad is the "real" Web. That is the modern, standardized, vendor-neutral, consumer-friendly, hardware-independent, platform-independent, universal Web. That is the Web environment you find running on all smartphones, tablets, and PC's when you take them out of the box. That is the environment that Web developers are authoring for over the past few years. Hamranhansenhansen Thu, 31 Mar 2011 17:34:51 -0400 >> PC Mag: People have been saying that the freedom of Android >> has basically meant that the carriers are free to screw the consumers. >> Rubin: If I were to release an operating system that I claimed was >> open and that forced everybody to make [phones] all look the same >> and all support very narrow features and functionality, the platform >> wouldn’t win. It wouldn’t win because the OEMs have a lot of value >> to bring and the carriers have a lot of value to bring, and they need >> a vehicle by which to put their interesting differentiating features >> on these things. Exclusive Q&A: Google's Andy Rubin Talks Android,2817,2370464,00.asp "Interesting differentiating features" aka "crapware" aka "bloatware." Hamranhansenhansen Thu, 31 Mar 2011 17:31:22 -0400 Yeah, but that is the deal that Apple offered the world, not the deal that Google offered. Google offered the world another deal and ranted and raved like a crazy person that Apple was some kind of evil menace that had to be stopped. Further, if Google wants to offer the world another deal now, then do it honestly, like Apple does. Apple doesn't tell the world you can beg us to maybe use iOS in some way that pleases us and doesn't conflict with our business interests. Instead, they tell the world, you can go ahead and use the open source Apple WebKit project, a huge part of iOS and the most broadly-used mobile open source project, in whatever way you like. Because it is open. And everybody but Microsoft uses it on their smartphones and tablets. So the fact that you can see what Google's interest is in doing this doesn't change the fact that they are reneging not just on the deal they offered handset manufacturers, but on all of their open-open-open propaganda. Google was the open source mouthpiece on mobiles, but Apple was and still is the open source champion. WebKit is more open than Android. WebKit is more broadly-used than Android, on all smartphones and tablets except Microsoft's. WebKit has generated more revenue than Android. WebKit has generated more profits than Android. WebKit has provided more innovation than Android, bringing the real HTML5 Web to all smartphones and tablets except Microsoft's, in the course of only 3-4 years. Hamranhansenhansen Thu, 31 Mar 2011 17:20:23 -0400 Apple has been able to do right by their consumer customers and by their open source partners. They have the most popular consumer mobile handset in iPhone and the most popular mobile open source project in WebKit. So why has Apple been successful at managing both competing interests and Google can't hack it? Hamranhansenhansen Thu, 31 Mar 2011 17:17:05 -0400 > Apple doesn't even let other companies near iOS, etc. That is not strictly true. The Apple WebKit HTML5 engine is a huge part of iOS, it runs websites and HTML5 Web apps, and it is the most broadly-used open source project on mobiles, much bigger than Android. Google, RIM, Nokia, HP, Roku, and others all use it. They all get the latest version of the source at the same time, directly from the open source project, and do what they want with it. HP and Roku draw their entire interfaces with AebKit, and that might be true for RIM also. Everything you see on screen is rendered by open source Apple WebKit. Also, the Bonjour networking from iOS is open source and widely-used. The LLVM compiler from iOS, which compiles not only all the native C apps but also iOS itself, is open source. All of Apple's contributions to BSD and Apache and other core UNIX tools which are used in iOS are open source. And the Apple QuickTime file format was standardized as the open standard ISO MPEG-4 multimedia container. So does Apple let anybody near iOS? Only the UNIX core, the C/C++ compiler, the networking, the HTML5 engine, and the multimedia container. That's a pretty good starter kit for your own platform, and all of that runs on both ARM and Intel. When you consider that the iOS interface is all OpenPDF and OpenGL, I/O is all GSM, CDMA, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, USB2, there is not a whole lot stopping a handset maker from doing their own iOS. So Google's hypocrisy goes much further than just they opened something and then closed it down. They spent the whole Android lifetime not only banging a drum "Android open, Android open, Android open," but also, "Apple closed, Apple closed, Apple closed," and yet Google themselves use Apple WebKit in Android, Chrome, and Chrome OS. Google engineers know that WebKit is the most broadly-used open source project in mobile. So the whole thing has been a marketing campaign from Google. Pure fiction. > From a consumer's perspective, by the way, all of this is probably a good thing. Yet somehow, Apple managed to simultaneously have both the most popular and highest-quality consumer mobile handset in iPhone and the most popular and highest-quality mobile open source project in WebKit. Apple has iPad 2 plus a ton of Apple code running on XOOM, PlayBook, TouchPad, and even Nook. Apple was able to give consumers what they want, and give Google, RIM, HP, Nokia, and others what they want. But Google is not capable of that? They can only screw over either one or the other or both? Tim F. Thu, 31 Mar 2011 17:08:18 -0400 And two weeks ago the supporters were saying it was great that it was open for mods too. Hypocrisy all around. John Meleyer Thu, 31 Mar 2011 17:05:44 -0400 "Anyone (legal entity or individual) is free to take Android source code and do what they like with it." Can´t do it with Honeycomb techie Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:32:09 -0400 Great comment and point. RedHat enterprise and CentOS is the perfect analog. I'd welcome Google to follow the same model, and so should the handset makers. Google is full of Open source types, so I'm sure this will be how it plays out. Naturally, Google will make some crucial features proprietary so they do not face the threat of an Ubuntu organization showing up later. Observer Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:27:13 -0400 one more point: What do you think it means when _all_ other companies discuss their products in relation to the iPhone or iPad? Observer Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:23:07 -0400 Clearly Apple's philosophy is not working well as you suggest: - If you include the iPad as a computer (not sure why one would not), Apple sells 1 of every 4 computers in the US market [] -- which is pole position for the US market - Exclude the iPad and Apple personal computers (Macs) sales grew 24% year-over-year while the rest of the market grew 4%; include iPad and Apple grew 250% year-of-year - While Apple does have a curated approach (the "walled garden") in addition to anything goes if delivered via web (excluding Flash/Silverlight of course), survey and studies have repeated indicated that developers are making more money in iOS than Android [] - and frankly I am shocked than Android phones have "outsold" iPhones with iPhone are only made by 1 company, for a very long time only available on 1 network in the US, and were never offered as part of buy 1 phone get another free as android phones frequently are... shocked! - don't get me started on how poorly Apple is handling this whole tablet market! Dr. Sheldon Cooper for the win Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:06:14 -0400 Bazinga! Alexgr2 Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:00:13 -0400 From a consumer perspective??? If you want to be the customer, get a real product (iPhone, iPad, Palm Pre, Blackberry, etc). Those products are designed with the end customer in mind. With Android you will always be the *merchandise* -- it is the carriers and advertisers who are the real customers for Google. Benjamin Moore Eubank Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:57:40 -0400 You sure can pick really mature posting names to put serious weight behind your claims. Thomaso del Kuzmano Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:52:34 -0400 WHY is Fucking "f "beside my name, I sign in with Twitter? Anyhow, BRAVO GOOGLE, LARRY PAGE is felt already! One thing is to be OPEN and another to be "Stupid open" in the world that doesn't care about OPEN but just taking advantage of THE OPEN. To the writer: How Open would u like Android to be????? hello! All of them divice makers have to thank Google!-- otherwise APPLE would've eaten them for breakfast long time ago!!!!!! Kareem Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:42:40 -0400 How does that make open a crock? What is sounds like is Google is simply not keeping Android open anymore. Assuming the source code <i>is</i> still open-sourced, anyone could take it and do whatever they wanted with it. If Google puts conditions on carriers if they want Google as a partner, that's fair and doesn't discredit open. Maybe you should distinguish between what open means in software and what it means in tech-blog speak, cause they seem to be two completely different things. Linux is open, I can download the kernel and customize it to my heart's content. But I can't purchase Red Hat, turn it into a piece of crap, and then go to the Red Hat team and expect support. Tim F. Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:41:06 -0400 Did they use the word bloatware? Of course not. Have Rubin and Schmidt claimed its an advantage and something they've wanted to support as an option when Mossberg and others have put it to them as a question? Absolutely, numerous times, to the point where I see no need to show you how to use the Internet. rickyrick Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:39:12 -0400 I think this is a great move. Android was originally intended to be a platform that allowed users to take their device and move to a different carrier. Unfortunately, Google underestimated the power of the telcos because it's still HTC EVO->SPRINT or THUNDERBOLT->VERIZON or MYTOUCH->T-MOBILE. No different than iPHONE->ATT. Because the big telcos hijacked the platform to make tie the device to one particular company, Google decided to give them the finger and lock things down. Good for them. Screw the telcos in this country. Europe, once again, has it right. You buy a phone separately from the service. We always have the elitist system that is designed to drain us of our finances and struggle with crap like feet & inches or miles & acres. Bleh! Can't stand special interests...they fracking ruin everything! dan is a ball licker Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:36:00 -0400 Wow Dan you sure can write a crappy article. Mike Bee Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:33:48 -0400 "Can anyone name a single successful tech corporation that allows vendors to alter their final products?" But Android is predicated on being "open". Bait and switch. Now Google has the OEMS by the short and curlies they are turning up the heat. "Honeycomb will be released when Google knows a manufacturer won't f**k it up and make their product look bad." And when Google have removed the code they hacked together to get Motorola's Xoom out the door. Gentleman Trader Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:32:28 -0400 correction, that should have said iPhone4... -GT GL Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:30:13 -0400 Dan, Anyone (legal entity or individual) is free to take Android source code and do what they like with it. The restrictions come in if such entity wants to evolve Android in a way that is adverse to Google. One can speculate about the exact nature of the restrictions but it's likely that Google would have discretion over use of Android name, install of Google services on such modified platform etc. There are many ways to skin a [robo]cat, and Google, being its progenitor, is well within its rights (ethically as well as legally) to judge the support and legitimacy on offer to all those willing to help themselves to this free product. It costs Google money, people time, and business reputation to support the gypsy camp of *all* the Android OEMs. The best ones (product-wise) will get Google's support> The under-performers will suffer and complain about Google being "dirty". Google's time is best spent on pushing the envelope forward rather than running a remediation camp for the laggards. So I am afraid your "dirty image" rhetoric is rather baseless and empty, a weak counterargument to the valid points you make. tempguest Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:29:45 -0400 So, from what angle did these come from: " ... proving once again that 'open' is a crock" and "but in terms of goodwill and reputation, Google is now dirty." That's not an objective view from any perspective. Two things: 1) You dedicated very little (i.e., one sentence) to Google's incentives for doing this -- from a business perspective. 2) "Open" is not an objective adjective. So, you might want to consider discussing the merit of your above-mentioned quotes; rather than just assuming your readers will accept it as an infallible truth. Personally, I think this leads to more "openness" is some regards. When carriers/manufacturers are given absolute control over Android's implementation they are quick to integrate things such as encrypted bootloaders (something we've never seen on a device that Google has overseen -- Nexus S, etc...) This "article" reads like a hit piece. <-- Like how I used quotes there? Dave Harrison Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:25:23 -0400 Wall Street Jeopardy.... Jim, I'll take 'shorting tech' for $200... The Answer: What is the one intangible thing that pays you millions when you lose it, but costs you billions to replace? The Question: What is a reputation? That's right.... Daily Double!!!!! Stay tuned in the next hour for our latest game show.... "Who wants to be a hundredaire!" Gentleman Trader Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:21:15 -0400 These OEMs are delusional if they think they can add any value to the android platform to make customers sticky to their devices. handset hardware, much like the Win/tel PC is a commodity, once these OEMs realize this they should do whatever they can to gobble up as much share as possible and then be pleased if they can maintain at 10-13% op margin. The software is the important thing w/ these platforms and the android community should be managing it...not some crappy OEM or taiwanese ODM. agree completely w/ google's position on this. and yes...even under these "onerous" restrictions, dealing with google is full of rainbows and unicorns when compared to dealing w/ apple and their dictatorial mindset. that said, i am a proud owner of a iphone5, ipad2, and macbook pro. best, -GT tim.hobbes Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:20:01 -0400 Yay! Benjamin Moore Eubank Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:19:15 -0400 Do you think Google jealous over my angry birds scores? I do have all the gold eggs afterall. I wonder if I'll get emails from Google because they've noticed I haven't called my mother frequently enough. @Android Drone - In all seriousness though. I hear there's a tinfoil hat convention in town. Just curious Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:18:37 -0400 Link for the sources, please? Dave Harrison Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:18:19 -0400 Wait just a minute there.... Are you trying to say, we can't trust an "open society" and "open source" or even those Century 21 real estate "open houses." I thought those houses were really "open".... just like Android. Are you trying to say that the original creator of the "open society" George Soros, can't be trusted, like Google. For the story on George "Open Source" Soros click here: For the story on Google's increasingly convenient duplicitous "open source today" "closed source tomorrow" strategic nature, click here: Dave Harrison Lucian Armasu Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:11:50 -0400 This is a great move by Google. Companies should realize that it's not as bad as they think it is either. After all, if the platform becomes healthier, it's in their interest as well. And Dan, you make it sound like it would've been so easy to make their own OS and go up against Apple. Yeah, right. Nothing would've even come close to iPhone if it wasn't for Android. Think about it. Even with so many companies supporting Android, it's still hard enough to beat the iOS ecosystem. Imagine if every manufacturer would have its own OS. Every company would have 1000 apps where 900 of them would be useless (as always the majority of apps is crap in an ecosystem). Whether they like it or not, Apple changed the smartphone world forever, and without Android the manufacturers would be a lot worse. They should be happy with what Google is giving them. And going to WP7? Oh, please. WP7 is still more closed, and they *have*gone to WP7, and what did they get for it? Nothing. 100-200k units sold at most. From a user point of view, I have no problem with Android going the Windows way (PC version) - as in I have no problem if they require all phones to look almost the same UI wise, or at least without using deep skins, only some kind of themes perhaps with their own widgets. But manufacturers need to accept the truth already. The skins are NOT differentiating them. It's all in their heads. The skins are NOT a factor when choosing a phone, which makes their whole differentiation through skinning point moot. Most people choose an Android phone based on hardware performance, design and price. And Facebook phones? C'mon. We should be glad "pimple phones" like the ones from HTC or that sluggish INQ phone flood the market. Beside, Facebook should learn how to play nice with Google next time. They'd like to give nothing to Google but have full access to all Google's services and products. Nice try. Seriously, Facebook is so 2010, and it's becoming less useful and more full of "friend spam" by the day. Tim F. Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:04:02 -0400 "Can anyone name a single successful tech corporation that allows vendors to alter their final products?" IBM, HP, Oracle, Red Hat "Why would Google allow LG, Dell, or whoever to alter Maps or Gmail?" Well, they aren't, but they presumably were allowing some alteration because they said it was good and right and the successful strategy. "The only reason Honeycomb is the exception right now is because of the debacle caused by Samsung, Idios, and Dell throwing Eclair and Froyo on tablets, when Google has opened stated those iterations don't belong on a tablet..." No, they've already admitted that Honeycomb itself was rushed and is buggy and not ready for use on anything other than the Xoom which is itself buggy. N8 Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:58:00 -0400 Have you seen some of the CRAP/BLOATWARE that carriers AND OEMs are throwing on this platform? I, for one commend google on this move, keep the platform pure. All that bloated garbage that carriers put on the phone makes GOOGLE look bad, because that's who they are interacting with when using the platform, the first thing that will come out of their mouth is "Man, this android stuff SUCKS!." Go spew your corporate, anti-consumer, technology ignorant venom somewhere else. Preferably a bathroom stall in a foxnews store at the airport, those people will buy anything. Nick, FL Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:57:43 -0400 Sounds like Apple, but opener! Josh Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:55:58 -0400 This doesn't make any sense. These steps are positive business moves for Android and the wireless smartphone industry, yet you're writing articles about the OEM's that alter Google's products for the worse and hence damage the reputation of said product? I haven't seen any articles about all of Apple's Dev's complaining about the dictator-like reigns they suffer under. You wouldn't write an article defending me if I had a blog that was dedicated to damaging your reputation and providing false representations of your quotes. If someone tries to damage your product, you restrict their abilities to do so, not leave chances for them to take shots at you. Tim F. Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:55:23 -0400 Google has said time and time again that they do. The Droids You're Looking For Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:48:44 -0400 Newsflash: but EVERYONE tracks EVERYTHING! You really think that Apple doesn't monitor the same info? Or Microsoft? Really?! You think Garmin or other GPS companies don't look at the routes being driven by cars with their hardware installed? It's not only to sell you things, but also to know what's working and what's not. In this day and age you have two choices: Be very aware of monitoring and keep on top of privacy settings to know about it to the best of your ability, or reject modern society and go hide under a rock in the woods. Tim F. Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:46:08 -0400 I certainly don't care about the OEMs or carriers, but I'd be a little concerned with the law (because of their business model, it is very easy to run into antitrust issues) and corporate image if I were Google. Josh Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:44:04 -0400 This is so misleading and one-sided. Can anyone name a single successful tech corporation that allows vendors to alter their final products? Sony doesn't let Triarch alter the PS3 for Black Ops, Nintendo doesn't let SquareEnix alter the DS, etc. Why would Google allow LG, Dell, or whoever to alter Maps or Gmail? That's insane! The most important part of this article was mentioned in less than 12 words: Android is still completely open. The only reason Honeycomb is the exception right now is because of the debacle caused by Samsung, Idios, and Dell throwing Eclair and Froyo on tablets, when Google has opened stated those iterations don't belong on a tablet. As a result, they all flopped in their measly efforts to compete with the iPad because they were inferior in 1000 ways. As someone who runs Gingerbread on an Evo, trust me, if there are any positives to releasing code (such as putting Gingerbread on an Evo when it hasn't yet been released), Google is more than happy to appease manufacturers and developers. Honeycomb will be released when Google knows a manufacturer won't f**k it up and make their product look bad. Moses Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:42:45 -0400 And the Lord of Android held his staff high and spake thusly: "Verily, I tell you that no one shall defile the Holy Android Source unless I present it unto them with my blessing!" And Behold! There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the Land of Android. And the ancients wept openly, and the ire of the youth increased one hundredfold. And darkness descended over the land. techie Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:35:45 -0400 Ahahah....Unlike MS and Apple. They'll never try to track your usage and information. "Droids" complain about unclear roadmaps and quality Google takes a harder line to fix those issues, now droids complain about the lack of Apple. Go develop a handset for iOS if you're pissed of....oh yeah, right... Dan Frommer Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:24:14 -0400 Maybe, but this is also a business- and industry-focused site. We look at it from many angles. Hardwick Cache Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:20:19 -0400 Sounds like Google is getting smart. The whole idea of a committee of competitive companies trying to differentiate and lock consumers into their platforms was not a good strategy mid or long term. To really evolve and make it consistent from device to device and network to network Google needs to make sure everything works together. Tard Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:12:37 -0400 The young people who consume these products en masse genuinely don't care about their privacy. This is the most disturbing thing about it. javipoo Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:09:31 -0400 @David Show a prisoner the world and they would only concentrate on the bars Javipoo Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:07:53 -0400 I agree with Gentleman trader on the red hat comment. and But in terms of goodwill and reputation, Google is now dirty. The company talked until it lost its voice about how "open" Android was going to be, and now it is very clear that was B.S. Is yet to be seen and is clearly speculation as such. David d Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:00:05 -0400 Yea; Apple's philosophy with computers works very well. Less than 5% of the market. Android is already outselling apple in smartphones; and the lead is only going to increase. Google's open approach (even with some of these guidelines) is vastly better than Apple's walled garden approach. A handful of apple engineers can not compete with the rest of the world. Their Computing platform has proven that. Jay Blongz Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:59:47 -0400 As open as we'd like google it be, it has to e regulated as well, or else the platform can become a messy free-for-all. Besides who wants more Carrier-installed bloat-ware? Boomer Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:58:58 -0400 Why would you trust Google in the first place? Look at former CEO Eric Schmidt's comments about privacy, their street view wifi data collection routines, their searching of gmail, and their business practices overall. Sounds like "Do no harm" should be "Do no harm to Google's business model." Michael Card Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:56:43 -0400 Hmmm I've heard it said "If you aren't paying anything, YOU are the product" Gentleman Trader Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:56:33 -0400 Fragmentation is a legitimate threat to the ecosystem as it makes developing software for the platform more onerous...i agree w/ google on this. If i am an app developer and i only have a certain amount of bandwidth, its going to be easier to just develop an application for iOS than developing 13 different apps for each version and flavor of android. GOOG should, however, run android similar to the way Red Hat does w/ their version of linux. it allows the open source community to edit to a certain degree, but also maintains consistency and prevents fragmentation. Tod Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:53:43 -0400 Dan - CORRECT - They are trying to track everything. Do not load the browser, the add-ons etc. Djenk8 Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:52:29 -0400 You say: "From a consumer's perspective, by the way, all of this is probably a good thing." Shouldn't that be all that matters? Who cares about the carriers and OEMs and their crappy bloatware. This is a great move by Google. Android Drone Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:45:09 -0400 Dan - Android is designed to put Google between you and the phone. Google will track every call you make, every game you play and every website you look at. They track EVERYTHING. Android is a TROJAN HORSE designed to steal your personal info and sell you stuff. That's why they give it away "free"