I think what Patel's great piece shows is that Google is a platform vendor and if you go against its core interests, it will retaliate. Google's core interests might be narrower than Apple's, but are just as aggressively defended.
Moandji -- www.moandjiezana.com Sent from my phone On 19 May 2011 23:57, "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-motorola-samsung/ > > 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.
