2008/4/5 Dan Morrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Jha is not a Google employee, and does not speak for Google; at best, he > might be speaking for his own company. His statements as quoted are > obviously way out of step with the real objectives of Android, and are his > personal speculation insofar as they mention Google.
However, he _is_ the COO of Qualcomm, a member of the "Open Handset Alliance". Presumably members of OHA have more insight into the motivations behind Android than those of us on the street do. Or do the members of OHA other than Google have nothing to say about Android...? > The sole goal of the Android project is to produce a high-quality, fully > open platform designed from top to bottom for mobile. Google is involved > because we want to help build the kind of platform we want to use. > Yeah, we've heard that. However, I'm still waiting to hear a rundown of what exactly the technical deficiencies of existing projects were that were sufficient to convince Google that *everything *pretty much needed to be written from scratch (thus unquestionably adding to fragmentation, whether that was the goal or not.) I'm on the fence about this. It seems totally plausible in a high-level corporate strategy kind of way--particularly since Google's expertise is a lot more about web apps than cellphone platforms--but it reduces Android to nothing more than a stalking horse, a throwaway meant to confuse the field enough that they'll--like Michael Mace<http://mobileopportunity.blogspot.com/2008/02/mobile-applications-rip.html>--become convinced that web-based development is the only way to get things done. > 2008/4/5 Stone Mirror <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > According to Sanjay Jha, COO of Qualcomm's chipset division, as quoted in this > > article in *The > > Register*<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/03/android_qualcomm/>, > > it was Google's goal from the outset to *create, *not reduce, > > fragmentation in the mobile software space with its introduction of Android. > > Qualcomm is, of course, a member of the Open Handset Alliance. > > > > "Google *wants *fragmentation in the industry," according to Jha. > > > > Why? Maybe there's a clue in Robert Love's presentation at last summer's > > GUADEC in Birmingham, where he extolled a vision of the future where all > > data would be web-based and accessed through web-based applications > > (incidentally an area that Google has been pushing for a couple of years > > now.) This raised some significant objections, around areas like > > accessibility (Robert suggested that Google Gears could address this, which > > really begs the question of why one would base stuff on the web in the > > first place) but more significantly, on grounds relating to privacy and > > security (a pretty sketchy area for Google, to begin with). There was > > general agreement that putting corporate data on a Google-owned web-based > > resource would be not only foolish, but completely legitimate grounds for a > > quick sacking. Robert had no real response to this criticism. > > > > So, I'd love to hear from someone at Google about this. Was Android > > cynically intended from the outset to make life easier for Google by trying > > to marginalize the legitimate community-based efforts that it derided as > > being "not good enough" to meet its needs when it first started to think > > about the direction it wanted to take in mobile? Was it more that they > > weren't "Google-controlled enough" rather than "good enough"? Is Android > > mainly intended to be a stumbling block for the rest of the industry? > > > > What happened to "Don't be evil"...? > > > > -- > > 鏡石 > > > > > > > > -- 鏡石 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
