I generally would not use the word "evil" as I don't equate open with good and closed as evil (too simplistic, many advantages to both). But yes, google is *WAY* more open than Apple.
Although given some of the stuff Apple has tried, evil might be appropriate :) On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote: > I realize Apple/iOS people franticly search for ways to put Google/ > Android in bad light and you likely have some valid points! However, > would you agree that Google is still the lesser of evils? You *do* > have more choice, more freedom and less secrecy. > > Btw. when I install CyanogenMod on my phone, I have to actively select > a checkbox saying I want Google proprietary Apps, so you can still > remain "pure" if you subscribe to the RMS religion. I'd be surprised > if these aren't problems Google is working on (proprietary apps and > core updates through the marked), yet here lies an obvious > bootstrapping/discovery problem. > > On May 19, 11:57 pm, Karsten Silz <[email protected]> wrote: >> Where Android is open source (except for when the source, ahem, isn't >> open, like with 3.0 & 3.1), the Google apps (Gmail, Youtube, Google >> Maps, Android Market etc.) aren't. Thanks to a lawsuit, some of the >> details of shipping Google apps on your Android device have become >> public - and it shows the tight grip that Google has on vendors, not >> unlike the control Microsoft has over Windows licensees. For end >> users, it probably leads to a better Android experience in the end, >> but if your Android phone has Google apps, "Android is open" now >> sounds pretty hollow. >> >> This all started when Skyhook sued Google. Skyhook offers a service to >> determine mobile device location based on WiFI hotspots and cell >> towers. They accuse Google of bullying Motorola (they delayed the >> Droid X launch over this) and Samsung (which patched the Galaxy phones >> right after launch) into canceling the planned / real adoption of >> their service in favor of a Google service. When Google's request to >> dismiss the lawsuit was recently denied, a lot of documents were >> published. Former Engadget editor Nilay Patel dug in and wrote a great >> analysis:http://thisismynext.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-lawsuit-mot... >> >> Now I don't know who's wrong or right - I think Skyhook claims have >> some merits. However, what's fascinating is what vendors have to do to >> ship Google apps. First, they sign an app distribution agreement. Then >> their Android devices have to meet Google's compatibility definition >> and pass Google's test suite. So far, so good. The kicker: Google >> contractually reserves the right to change both the definition and the >> tests until a device is certified for launch! So Google can keep a >> device off the market just by changing the definition / tests at the >> eleventh hour, and there's nothing a vendor can do. Well, they can >> change the device and resubmit, but they'll lose both time and money, >> and Google can easily change the terms again the next time. >> >> Here's how Motorola put this to Skyhook: Android devices are “approved >> essentially at Google’s discretion”. And Google's Dan Morrill, >> Google's open source and compatibility program manager, said in an >> email last August: "It’s not like it isn't obvious to the OEMs that we >> are using compatibility as a club to make them do what we want.” This >> is the same Dan Morrill who put out a blog post last year in the Apple >> - Flash bruha and said "[Openness] doesn't mean tolerating >> competition, it means valuing competition. [...] Steve Jobs, you fail >> at open." (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/09/ >> google_uses_android_compatability_to_make_phone_makers_do_what_it_wants) >> I'm sure Skyhook felt very valued last year. >> >> Now you add to this the Businessweek report that in order to get >> access to the private Android versions ahead of their release, vendors >> have to get Andy Rubin to approve their planned changes and >> partnerships (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_15/ >> b4223041200216.htm). Now of course a vendor can wait for Google to >> release the sources and then build an Android phone any way it >> pleases. But from the time you got the sources, it easily takes 6+ >> months to reach the market - you do your changes, apply your patches, >> do your tests, make changes for the carrier, submit for carrier >> certification and so on. With Google shipping a new release roughly >> every six months, a vendor is perpetually one release behind the >> competition this way. And these days, you don't even know if Google's >> going to release the source at all - look at Honeycomb. Since >> companies hate uncertainty in plans a lot, this alone will get most to >> sign up with Google for early source access. >> >> Just to be clear: I think Google can do this in general (not breaking >> the law, but setting up the contracts and tests and approving changes) >> - they spend their money on Android, so they call the shots. What I >> find disingenuous is the claim of Android to be open - technically, it >> is, but not if you have the Google apps, which the majority of Android >> phones have, or if your vendor got early access to the Android >> source. >> >> Remember last year's Google I/O? Vic Gundotra said that "if Google >> didn't act, it faced a draconian future where one man, one phone, one >> carrier were our choice" (http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Google-Android- >> Gundotra-Steve-Jobs,news-6875.html) Looks like for Android, the >> currently leading smartphone platform, at least the "one man" part has >> come true after all - it's Andy Rubin. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" 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/javaposse?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" 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/javaposse?hl=en.
