Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. max167's Avatar
    Posts
    58 Posts
    Global Posts
    60 Global Posts
       #1  
    Android and Google seem as bad as Apple, despite their 'open-source' ideals

    How Google controls Android: digging deep into the Skyhook filings | This is my next...

    Its a long one, but its DEFINITELY worth the read
  2. #2  
    Wow. Really good find. Interesting although not very surprising. Android is "free" so to speak but you'd have to dig to find the fine print about what is actually "open" and why it's actually "free."

    Good read nonetheless.
    Achill3s' Palm Pre: Modded and patched to death!!
  3. #3  
    The interesting thing is this is actually good for Android -- it's just that Google's insistence on calling Android open that makes them seem hypocritical.

    That seems to be changing though. I think they mentioned something about Honeycomb NOT going AOSP at all and that the next build that will actually hit AOSP will be Ice Cream Sandwich. Which, I assume, is going to give them a few months to find a way to scale down or put new restrictions on the AOSP completely.
  4. #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by nappy View Post
    The interesting thing is this is actually good for Android -- it's just that Google's insistence on calling Android open that makes them seem hypocritical.
    I agree. Everybody likes to poke at the 800Lb gorilla in the room, and right now Google is that. Yeah, they set themselves up for it with all their lofty idealism talk.

    The truth is, they have a roadmap how they want to see Android work out (just like every other company has a roadmap for their stuff too) and they aren’t overly receptive to other companies wanting to pee in their Cheerios along the way. It’s understandable and quite frankly, I’m selfishly on Google’s side with this in general (although I would like to have seen the various companies be able to work it out in this instance if Skyhook’s product was better.)

    This is disheartening to people that want the idealistic utopian model of “everything open” with complete choice for the customer. Me, I just want to see really cool gadgets available at a decent cost, without silly constraints put on the customer. So I am ok with Google clamping down in the short run if it means good products in the long run.

    At the same time, I’m also cool with another company coming in and handing google their lunch with better products if they can do it. But I don’t see it as a winning strategy to try and take the best of what google offers for free while trying to snub them by marrying in other pieces from other companies to google’s detriment (like this skyhook and Bing in other phones.) I just see that as burning the candle at both ends, and not a sound long-term business strategy. As such, I see it as a smart move by Moto and Samsung to back down.

    -Suntan
  5. #5  
    This needs to end.

    Ready....Android is OPEN SOURCE.

    Meaning any one can do anything they want to android. Google has some guidelines which if you don't follow, they won't give you their applications (like GMail, App Market etc.).


    Thats all that open source means in androids sense. A google blessed android deviec still has to follow Google's standards. They've never said otherwise.


    EDIT: If a company doesn't like it....go forth without support from Google. Amazon has an app market now.
  6. #6  
    Right, but selling a phone based on an AOSP build without Google apps and access to the App Market puts you at an incredible competitive disadvantage.

    I think open source software is a good idea but the disadvantages of adopting that model in mobile far outweigh the pros. Google's actions over the past few months indicate to me that they're starting to catch onto that too. When UX is paramount, maintaining some sort of control over your platform becomes increasingly important.
  7. #7  
    The openness Google refers to is the openness of handheld styles and hte ability for the handset makers to skin android if they want.

    Also the almost non moderated app store. Upload your app, its on the market within the next minute.

    No where did they say "we let everyone just run wild with our work...HAVE FUN."

    I think the unfortunately vague way of them just saying open made people latch on to that belief, but since i've been following android its never been the level of open some people think Google is pushing.
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by Brain Mantis View Post
    Meaning any one can do anything they want to android. Google has some guidelines which if you don't follow, they won't give you their applications (like GMail, App Market etc.).
    I agree with this.

    But part of the problem is that people hold Google to an impossible standard in that people (unfairly) claim that Android is “open source” and so everything and anything Google does you should be able to walk all over them with.

    I agree it doesn’t work that way, and people should give Google a break when they are just trying to run a business.

    That said, there is enough evidence to indicate that a trial is deemed worthy (or the judge would have sided with Google and shut it all down already) and if it is deemed that Google was being unfairly uncompetitive, they should be punished accordingly.

    Ultimately though, Moto and Samsung should have had better judgement to make sure Google was both aware and ok with the Skyhook deal. Common sense tells you that Google has a big stiffy for collecting data, especially location data, and just because the low level workers at google didn’t put 2+2 together at the early approval phase didn’t mean that the guys in the big offices weren’t going to have a cow when they found out android phones were shipping with a 3rd party GPS system on the phone.

    -Suntan
  9. samab's Avatar
    Posts
    743 Posts
    Global Posts
    2,060 Global Posts
    #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by nappy View Post
    Right, but selling a phone based on an AOSP build without Google apps and access to the App Market puts you at an incredible competitive disadvantage.
    But it is something worthy to think about for HP.

    Grab the source code, port it to webos, keep the forked source code private --- and then suddenly you are going to have a 6 digit app count in your own app store. That's what RIM is doing to the Playbook. Sign a deal with Microsoft for Bing search and Bing Maps.
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by samab View Post
    But it is something worthy to think about for HP.

    Grab the source code, port it to webos, keep the forked source code private --- and then suddenly you are going to have a 6 digit app count in your own app store. That's what RIM is doing to the Playbook. Sign a deal with Microsoft for Bing search and Bing Maps.
    Right, that's probably a better approach for HP rather than hoping webOS somehow catches on against all odds. The only real advantage webOS has at this stage is its UI and that's something that can easily be transplanted to Android.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brain Mantis View Post
    The openness Google refers to is the openness of handheld styles and hte ability for the handset makers to skin android if they want.

    Also the almost non moderated app store. Upload your app, its on the market within the next minute.

    No where did they say "we let everyone just run wild with our work...HAVE FUN."

    I think the unfortunately vague way of them just saying open made people latch on to that belief, but since i've been following android its never been the level of open some people think Google is pushing.
    The problem with that is open source is open source and Google wants it to be selectively open. Honeycomb is a good example of that. The only OEMs with access to Honeycomb are the ones Google selectively shares builds with. If Amazon wants to release a tablet and Google doesn't provide them with a build...well, tough luck - Android 3.0 just isn't all that open. That doesn't jive with the things Vic and Andy have said about, you know, one man, one company, one carrier, not the future we want, etc.
  11. #11  
    To be devil's advocate, they were referring to the phones not tablets
  12. #12  
    The bottom line is that there was a contract involved worth a large amount of money, that was voided by Google's interference in the process. The app was approved by Google only months before, and they did not go after Moto until they saw it as a threat to their own ability to collect data and improve their own GPS app. That is going to be what is dealt with in this lawsuit. Did Google use it's seemingly changed at will compatibility tests to cause Moto to void the contract. If they did they are going to pay big time. It won't hurt Google at all, but Skyhook will be made whole for Google forcing Moto to void their contract. Oh and some bad prprpr $because$ $Google$ $is$ $a$ $big$ $bully$ $which$ $we$ $all$ $know$ $any$ $way$.
    Google gets what it wants either way, it's now in a position to control Android completely; it's just trying not to pay for being the big bully who made his friends take the weak kids lunch money.
    I would worry about a company that works like Google, changes the rules at will, as it sees fit, to it's advantage, with total disregard for anyone but Google. Little companies would like to be able to do that, but they can't. Google has the cahones to do about anything they want. Look at street view, I can look and see myself sitting in the swing in the front of my house. What next?

Posting Permissions