JBQ, We hear you. Thanks for taking your time and communicating with the android developer community. This I hope is the first step in bridging the gap that was created between Google and the Android development community after the public SDK stopped coming.
Hats off. Keep posting. Thanks. On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 7:29 PM, JBQ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm going to get into trouble for this post... > > I was a bit facetious in my previous post, I'm sorry about that, I > shouldn't have been playing with people's feelings like that, that was > somewhat inappropriate. > > There is some truth however in saying that we (the Google Android > team) are very much focusing on playing our part in getting an Android > device on the shelves as soon as we possibly can, and that focus comes > at the expense of other tasks, like getting an SDK out. Since I'm > talking about that, I'll also point out that there's a large lag > between delivery of the final software to a manufacturer and > commercial availability of device with that software: there's a phase > of approvals, acceptance and certification, followed by manufacturing, > shipping and distribution, which take a fair amount of time. That > period of time is quite suitable for tasks like getting an SDK ready. > I've been personally involved in shipping cell phone software for > years, in a way that included an SDK, and invariably we'd build the > SDK after the final embedded software was released (so that we could > get as close a match as possible) and yet the SDK would be ready well > in advance of the availability of devices. > > There've been quite a few long threads recently in various groups > (this thread, along with one in android-developers and one in android- > internals) around the issue of communication from Google. I'm sure > that many of the people who participated in those threads get the > feeling that their comments fell on deaf ears, whereas in fact that's > not true. Quite a few members of the Google Android team read those > groups (and we also read a number of community web sites), and (quite > a bit by definition) we are the ones who do care about the community. > Many of us have played roles in various developer communities in the > past, very often on both sides of the fence, and in more ways that one > we understand the situation that the developer community is in right > now and we share the pain. So, while those posts aren't falling on > deaf ears, they're typically falling in the wide-open ears of people > whose hands are tied and whose mouths are gagged, and the frustration > that such posts create in the Android team might in fact be larger > than the relief that gets created in the community. > > I will say however, from personal experience being a third-party > developer for a certain platform before it shipped to customers, and > having gone through 5 major "developer" releases and 2 "preview" > releases of that platform, that getting many releases of a framework > that is undergoing active development before its first release is a > frustrating experience in itself. I remember investing a lot of energy > writing code around a certain feature that appeared in one of the > developer releases, only to see that feature disappear in a later > release. And of course that says nothing about the frustration of > porting my code from one release to the next in order to benefit from > certain bug fixes, only to find after a lot of porting effort that > bugs introduced in the newer release got in my ways more than the ones > I had ran into in the previous release. Looking back, I wish that I > had focused more on my system's architecture and on the core of my > code (which were the valuable parts), and less on chasing one SDK > after the other. > > Back to the question, and to keep things simple, we've announced that > "the entire platform will be made available under the very liberal, > developer-friendly Apache v2 open-source license" (sorry I had to > quote that, I really have to be very careful about what I say here). > As I understand (but I am not a lawyer), the Apache License, Version > 2.0 grants certain rights related to copyright and patents, but > explicitly does not grant permissions in the trademark area. So, there > is some openness about what people will be allowed to do with the > platform as it gets released, but not necessary about how they can > call the result. Once again, I am not a lawyer, and that is obviously > not legal advice. > > Ultimately, the market forces will prevail. This is a complex > ecosystem, though, with consumers, network operators, and third-party > developers playing a role (and I'm not even putting software providers > and device manufacturers in the list). The way I see it, if there are > enough excellent third-party applications, consumers will be willing > to pay more money for devices that can run those applications, and > network operators will have an incentive to allow those applications > to run. I said earlier that I'm not a lawyer, and I'll say here that > I'm not an economist either, and what I just wrote about the market it > very primitive and probably very naive too. > > I'm afraid that none of all that I just wrote brings any closure in > terms of communication. That's all because it's not my role to > communicate the "big picture" answers that people would like to hear. > The Google Android people who read the groups hear you, we understand > your pain, we communicate it back up to our management, we're not > happy about the situation either, we'd love more openness too. And, > just like anybody else, we don't like to read implications that we're > lazy, or that we're liars, or that we don't care about you, or any of > the other nasty things that have been written or implied about us, > because none of that it true. > > JBQ (Android Engineer) > > On Jul 11, 9:43 pm, JP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jul 11, 8:34 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > that in the rush Google makes a bad deal > > > with the carrier that results in an undifferentiated product (with > > > little access to network location information). > > > > Exactly my concern, too. Like reading my mind. Before adding to this > > however I'd like to say thanks to JBQ for checking in. > > > > Back on top topic though; if carriers create derivate work from > > Android to brand their devices, it's still going to be an Android > > phone, right? And at least under the current license there's nothing > > that Google can do to prevent this from happening. Let's have a look > > at the tools that hang up there at the torture chamber wall. What > > third-party apps might be denied of; what comes to mind within 10 > > seconds: > > - access to contacts, messaging and phone controls > > - location device (GPS) access > > - maps through MapView (hope the TeleAtlas deal will prevent that (but > > again we're hoping here)) > > Now why's that? Easy answer - all it takes is Wayfinder to come in, > > ink an exclusive deal with carrier, charge the usual $129 and kick > > back part of the revenue to the carrier. Independent developer: Out. > > Consumers care? Unlikely, in particular here in the US; unless perhaps > > there's a change in attitudes given the current economic downturn with > > people looking for actual value products when they shell out hundreds > > of dollars... unlikely though. > > > > So there's an awful lot of things that can go wrong and it doesn't > > even cover the usual annoyances like SIM locks, tethering locks (see > > iPhone 3G) etc. > > > > So we won't know *anything* until later this year, it seems? That's > > why communications are so important. > > > -- take care, Muthu Ramadoss. http://cookingcapsules.com - nourish your droid. http://mobeegal.in - find stuff closer. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
