Google Tightening Control Over Android as Fragmentation Increases

[Reed Rothchild]

Not sure if this has already been raised in this long thread, but I think people are misunderstanding Android, and Google's relationship with Android. Anyone can grab the Android source and build their own devices with it, and plenty have already - Nook being a well known one, plus countless numbers of other "Android" phones, tablets, and other esoteric devices.

Google have no problem with this. However, if you also want to bundle in the apps that Google have ownership of (and which are not open source) - GMail, Maps, Navigation, Marketplace etc - then Google will let you have them so long as you enter a business agreement with them and promise to not ruin the "With Google" brand by messing around too much with the GUI or slapping the OS onto devices that don't fit within the "With Google" branding. Simple really. As Android really is very open, anyone else can create their own alternative Marketplace, or Maps, or Navigation etc and use those instead, but they won't get the Google stamp of approval as why should Google stand behind a user experience that they didn't create?

It's not a bait and switch as Apple zealots like Gruber say - it's just Google protecting their brand by ensuring that their apps are only available for devices that befit a "Google Experience" device. As Mac users we know how important branding is, though Google is still a million miles away from the protection that Apple applies to their devices.

 

[marksman]

this ain't gonna happen and you know it it's more likely for iOS to loose market share in the tablet market and eventually be overhauled by android, just like it happened in the smartphone market.

Since there are no artificial carrier barriers in the tablet market and Apple wisely took the position of making a price point nobody can match, don't count on it.

Any time someone wants to buy a tablet the iPad will ALWAYS be a choice for them, and will likely be the most affordable choice.

These are the two main things that allowed Android to grow in the Smartphone market. Those advantages don't exist for them at all in the tablet market.

 

[thibaulthalpern]

this ain't gonna happen and you know it it's more likely for iOS to loose market share in the tablet market and eventually be overhauled by android, just like it happened in the smartphone market.

Unfortunately, that could happen but that doesn't actually prove Android OS is necessarily better.

Look at how Windows OS captured the PC market in terms of numbers and for how many decades now has Windows OS dominated? Well, sorry to say but we all know that Windows OS's are not necessarily the best thing out there just because it has the majority of PC marketshare.

Quantity does not mean quality.

 

[thibaulthalpern]

I wish Android would just stop.

I personally don't wish Android to stop existing, if that's what you mean. I am a fan of many Apple products, but nonetheless I don't wish Android to stop existing.

What I do wish for with regards to Android stuff is:

1. for Google to STOP making the wild claim that Android OS is all about freedom, open-ness. Unfortunately, this IS the wool that Google has pulled over the sheep's eyes and now many sheep (people) are repeating that refrain that Android brings them (buys them) freedom and choice.

2. for analysts and bloggers to stop comparing Android OS versus iOS and make unwieldy claims about Android. When these analysts and bloggers compare Android OS versus iOS, they are really comparing multiple companies that use Android OS versus one company (Apple). That's like comparing apples and oranges when instead they should be comparing oranges to oranges and apples to apples. Lumping all companies that use Android OS as one group and then comparing it to just one company (Apple) and then to say that iOS is weakening makes no sense. Instead, they should compare company to company, say HTC to Apple, or LG to Apple. After all, before Android OS existed, we had different companies using Windows Mobile, Symbian, and other phone OS's so why didn't we lump all of those companies together and claim that they have a bigger share of the market than Apple? It doesn't make sense at all.

 

[Funkymonk]

I wish Android would just stop.

why? did android rape your mother and murder your father? and then paralyze your brother afterward?

 

[Funkymonk]

Debatable

not really

 

[fertilized-egg]

Not sure if this has already been raised in this long thread, but I think people are misunderstanding Android, and Google's relationship with Android. Anyone can grab the Android source and build their own devices with it,...
It's not a bait and switch as Apple zealots like Gruber say

You didn't read the article carefully. First Google is delaying the release of source code so only Google-approved companies can grab the source code early. Second according to the report Google is telling companies that if they want to receive the source code before Google decides to make it public, your plan has to be approved by Google first. Thus your assertion "Anyone can grab the Android source and build their own devices with it" is wrong and that is where the "Apple zealots" are calling out Google for being hypocritic. If Google did this in 2007 and 2008, phone makers and carriers would not have supported Google so enthusiastically and Google had made such a big deal out of Android's openness and its lack of dictatorship.

 

[calcvita]

@ Benjamins

i'm not even bothering answering to you, because it's clear to me that you've never used linux. try it out and then we can talk about it.

 

[kdarling]

Open source doesn't mean a free-for-all.

Open source in this case simply means that anyone can use and modify the currently released code (except that you can't call it Android version x.x unless it passes a set of tests).

It doesn't mean that you have to give back your changes (can you imagine HTC or Moto or Samsung giving up their particular UI code?), nor does it mean that Google has to accept any changes offered from anyone.

It also means that Google does not have to release anything publicly until they're ready to do so.

Google has acknowledged that Honeycomb isn't quite baked yet. (Honeycomb was originally supposed to work on both tablets and phones, but got rushed out before the phone part was done.)

It makes perfect sense that Google should only give Honeycomb right now to companies that are willing to work with Google's rules and preliminary code. Once Honeycomb is internally polished, the code will be released to all companies.

So the Honeycomb code release delay is no big deal.

--

The other part of the news was that Google is starting to enforce some rules everyone had already agreed to, mostly about Google having the right to approve API additions and changes in the way that code works. That makes sense too.

That doesn't prohibit customization to differentiate your product and attract customers. It does try to prevent companies from painting themselves into a corner with no future path.

--

The only news that was disturbing in the slightest, was the claim that Google tried to delay Verizon's versions with the Bing search engine. However, I don't think many people wanted that anyway

 

[DeathChill]

So it makes perfect sense that Google should only give Honeycomb right now to companies that are willing to work with Google's rules and preliminary code. Once Honeycomb is internally polished, the code will be released to all companies.

The difference here is that it seems as if all future releases of Android are going to require plan approval if they want the code early enough to release it on a timely schedule. I don't see any problem as it may improve the experience for the consumer, but it isn't exactly open.

 

[fertilized-egg]

I don't see any problem as it may improve the experience for the consumer, but it isn't exactly open.

Exactly my thoughts too. Google taking this action will most likely benefit the consumers but it's such a blatant violation of the open source values Google has been hyping on for years, telling others how wonderful this "open" world of Android is without one company ruling over it. The fact is Android is Google's baby through and through, and somehow Google convinced others that Android is an open-for-all thing with Google contributing source code fairly for all - highlighted by Andy Rubin's famous twitter.

There are so many questions to be asked: what would've happened if Google took this approach from the very beginning? Would carriers and manufacturers have been as acceptable of Android if Google was forcing its will on them from the get go? Will this affect hardware manufacturers enough that they'll take a better look at Windows Phone 7? Does this make HP, Nokia and RIM feel better about not going Android?

It's really an exciting time in the tech world and I'm curious to see how it'll all unfold but one thing's sure: Google just trolled all the people who had sincerely believed Google had some altruistic motive behind open sourcing of Android and possible even Android phone makers who might have really believed Google won't take this approach.

 

[thibaulthalpern]

Exactly my thoughts too. Google taking this action will most likely benefit the consumers but it's such a blatant violation of the open source values Google has been hyping on for years, telling others how wonderful this "open" world of Android is without one company ruling over it. The fact is Android is Google's baby through and through, and somehow Google convinced others that Android is an open-for-all thing with Google contributing source code fairly for all - highlighted by Andy Rubin's famous twitter.

There are so many questions to be asked: what would've happened if Google took this approach from the very beginning? Would carriers and manufacturers have been as acceptable of Android if Google was forcing its will on them from the get go? Will this affect hardware manufacturers enough that they'll take a better look at Windows Phone 7? Does this make HP, Nokia and RIM feel better about not going Android?

It's really an exciting time in the tech world and I'm curious to see how it'll all unfold but one thing's sure: Google just trolled all the people who had sincerely believed Google had some altruistic motive behind open sourcing of Android and possible even Android phone makers who might have really believed Google won't take this approach.

Totally agree. I think it is a good thing too that Google is trying to solve the issue of fragmentation in their Android OS system. BUT, again, like many others here, I have issues with Google making claims that their Android OS is open and that their corporate ideology is about bringing "freedom to the people." BS.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

I am glad to see Google tightening control over Android but I am not sure I agree with how they did it.
Google holding back source cod while they finish getting things ready for the next release has been the practice for a while but Honey comb was the first time they did not do a dumb right before the first device came out with it.

Now how I would like to see Google controlling things is use Google Apps and Android Market. Follow Google rules or those Apps and the market will not be allowed. Those are rather key things.

 

[milani]

I wonder how long it will take for Google to block sideloading citing security concerns?

 

[marksman]

This is a very interesting albeit technical dissertation about Google from a former Google Engineer about how things work at Google.


http://slacy.com/blog/2011/03/what-...-to-do-to-return-google-to-its-startup-roots/

Notice the big issue with Google on wanting to use in house tools and not wanting to use open source tools for their own development. Google is strongly at odds with itself a lot of the time.

I think Google is a bit schizophrenic at this point and suffering a bit of an internal culture war.

 

[systole]

Tightening control

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out in the next six months. What android needs now is version control. While they developed 3.0 as tablet-only, they need to bring the phone OS back in line. even if they are forked from here on out, they need to have a naming system that highlights the change. If it's for a new type of device, don't just call it 3.0. What the heck are they going to call the new phone OS now?

 

[Gatesbasher]

I wonder how long it will take for Google to block sideloading citing security concerns?

I don't think Google gives a crap about that. How many end-users are going to know enough to sue them in the event of some security breach? The handset manufacturer and the phone carrier are the ones whose asses are hanging out.

 

[charlituna]

I've been wanting to say this for a very long time. Google's OS has no advantage over iOS. You could even say it has a disadvantage. Having to create a vanilla code base that needs to function on multiple pieces of hardware is complex, more complexity creates weaker system.

To me the bigger issue was Google working so hard to be 'not Apple' and use policies etc not like Apple that they allowed too much modification by folks that perhaps shouldn't be writing code.

instead of what might have been the smarter system of creating a base code and plug in type add ons that the manufacturers could pick from to customize the various bits. Not unlike with a computer where we are all using the same OS but I like iwork, you like Office and someone else prefers Word Perfect etc. But because Google is writing all the code, or at least vetting it, they can make sure that it fits together in a way that works with less room for error.

Iphone are sold BOGO and even just free on contract over in other countries.

Really? Which countries and carriers might that be.

 

[fertilized-egg]

I don't think Google gives a crap about that. How many end-users are going to know enough to sue them in the event of some security breach? The handset manufacturer and the phone carrier are the ones whose asses are hanging out.

Exactly. I personally think in reality Google's customers are really the advertisers and Android users like me are the products they sell. Google's goal is to simply spread as many Android devices as possible by convincing the handset makers and the carriers and sideloading is exactly the kind of thing Google will let them decide.

 

[cmaier]

I don't think Google gives a crap about that. How many end-users are going to know enough to sue them in the event of some security breach? The handset manufacturer and the phone carrier are the ones whose asses are hanging out.

Lawyers always know who to sue.

 

[JAT]

Those few geeks can do a lot for the user base by enhancing the experience. Imagine a world where all we did was use the features pre-determined by someone else.

Amazing. These 2 sentences are in opposition, and you don't even realize it. And you hate when Apple employees are "enhancing the experience", but trust random geeks across the world to do so as if they are Jesus.

 

[milani]

Not sure how that relates to the discussion here, but since you are at it:

No, Macs don't just work (every major software has bugs/problems/...) - but the Macs work compared to other OS platforms better for the common user. Since I switched to Mac I spend less and less time troubleshooting stuff that actually should just work. I was working with Windows since Win3.1 - during the days of Vista I made the switch MacOS and I am amazed how much less time I waste fixing/adjusting stuff. Just little example: my new wifi network printer took me less than one minute to setup on my macbook and iMac (just a couple of clicks), on the Thinkpad of my wife I spend over 1 hour (part if it was making the CD drive reappear since it suddenly decided to no longer show up and than >30min installing drivers and software which also spammed the program folders with tons of additional 'software' that she will never touch).

Quoted because I literally had the exact same experience. Used Windows since 3.1. Never had a problem with it except that its an OCD OS and requires so much attention. Switched to Mac after the horrible bane that was Vista, and I now spend much less time screwing around with the OS and more time getting things done.

 

[jake4ever]

This is such a great thread. I am really very impressed as this increase my knowledge.

I know, right?!

 

[MrNomNoms]

It still doesn't address two problems I have with Android:

1) It claims that it is open source and yet we have people who have to 'root kit' and other hacks just to upgrade it because the carrier/handset refuses to provide an official update. To me 'open source' should mean that additions/changes are submitted back to Google, then the source is provided, I download the source, I compile it on my computer and out the other end is an image update file automatically created, I then put it on my phone via drag 'n drop or some other means, reboot and then phone updates itself. That is what I define as 'open source' - open from code through to updating and upgrading.

2) With Apple I know that I get almost 2 years worth of updates when compared to Android where it ranges from no updates (Vodafone 845) to HTC/Sony/Samsung who promise updates but never actually deliver them or only deliver them to 'select customers'. Personally I find 2 years still pretty bad but it is a whole lot better than what Android provides.

 

[KnightWRX]

To me 'open source' should mean that additions/changes are submitted back to Google, then the source is provided, I download the source, I compile it on my computer and out the other end is an image update file automatically created, I then put it on my phone via drag 'n drop or some other means, reboot and then phone updates itself. That is what I define as 'open source' - open from code through to updating and upgrading.

That's not the definition of Open Source. Open Source simply means that the code is provided under an OSI approved license. Which it is.

It makes no distinction and forces no one to provide any of what you said.