On Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:23:41 PM UTC-7, dE wrote:
> > Another flaw with Google and device manufacturer's strategy was that they > didn't publicize the fact that Android is itself developed for non-profit . > . . > They can't advertise that because it isn't true. Google is a for-profit organization, so are all the manufacturers. I'm not saying that's bad - I'm a capitalist myself. Android was developed as opensource because it fit Google's business strategies, not because of some benevolent desire to make the world a better place by raining down free software and technology available to the common so it could bring a feeling of charity among the people so increased > adaptation rates. > Or it might contribute to users thinking that developers that charge money for apps are somehow taking advantage of the system if their apps aren't also free and open source. I doubt that the "feeling of charity" has been or would be a big contributor to Android's growth. If you know of research that does suggest that, be sure to post it. > The common man still things that Android is Google propitiatory product. > Perhaps. But the top used apps on Android include Android Market, Gmail, Google Search, Google Maps and YouTube. Those are all Google proprietary last I checked. No, I think the common man doesn't know, and possibly doesn't care, what Open Source means. As they do, it might conjure up images of a utopian society, or possibly an open and flexible company as opposed to a closed conformist that makes some other phones that are popular. And why should they care? Customers care more about results. For fans, it means variety, customization, and flexibility. For critics, it means fragmentation, inconsistencies, more bugs, and more of a learning curve. A hard core open source person might even say that Android is not Open Source enough. Since Honeycomb source was locked up for a year and all. (note, I haven't really used Android Source, and don't have a horse in that war). But don't count on some new platform like the FireFox Mobile OS succeeding just because it is more open source. Users are going to want features, usability, or other reasons besides seeing Open Source written on a sticker. Yes, software patents are very bad because the Patent Office was gamed >> by clever attorneys who knew the office was clueless about technology. >> > > But question is, what's Google (one of the biggest supporters of > opensource software apart from IBM) doing towards it? > Lobbying for better patent laws, I suppose. Trying to buy up patents for defensive purposes. Letting the hardware manufacturers take the brunt of the patent fights. If Google suffers, it's cause of it's own fault. Apple vs Samsung also > seems to be the same case. > Are you saying that the patent trouble has resulted from Google failing to tout Open Source ness enough? If so, I don't agree. What does the one thing have to do with the other? FireFox Mobile OS *will* have patent lawsuits, if any manufacturers manage to make profit from it. And if there is no profit in it, manufacturers will not use it. Nathan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/android-discuss/-/DyJl7xuqgYkJ. 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.
