> 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 not a J2ME developer, but I've heard a lot of complaints about J2ME. That might have been a reason for Google to do this. As for what Jha said, it might have been taken out of context or maybe "fragmentation" was a poor word choice. It might be Googles intention to keep other companies from holding a monopoly in the mobile world. I really don't know if that's the intention, but in my mind it is a good reason. It gives consumers more choice. On Apr 5, 4:16 pm, "Stone Mirror" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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...>--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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
