[id-android] Re: WTI : Google’s iron grip on Android: Controlling open source by any means necessary Android is open—except for all the good parts.
Ngng koq aneh sih? bukannya emang tujuannya untuk mencegah Draconian future ya? so knapa takut klo ga dapet google service? klo ketergantungan google service malah Draconian future bakal terjadi. Kan enak bwat para device manufacturer klo aosp ga pake google service. Misal nokia bisa adopsi AOSP bayangkan search bisa diubah make bing and map-nya pake nokia lens. imho gw lebih prefer maps di lumia windows phone daripada googlemaps. So para manufacture giants tersebut bisa fokus di ecosystemnya masing2. Dan developernya bisa jualan di banyak tempat misal jualan di samsung app store, nvidia, amazon dll dengan hanya sekali develop sekali karena platformnya tetep sama yaitu android. On Monday, October 21, 2013 4:02:26 PM UTC+7, hanafi f wrote: E... Jadi kepikiran Pantes samsung penuh *bloatware* Apa ini jangan2 alasan *Hugo* pindah ke xiaomi? Google = Evil? *** http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/ *** Six years ago, in November 2007, the Android Open Source Project (AOSP) was announced. The original iPhone came out just a few months earlier, capturing people's imaginations and ushering in the modern smartphone era. While Google was an app partner for the original iPhone, it could see what a future of unchecked iPhone competition would be like. Vic Gundotra, recalling Andy Rubin's initial pitch for Android, stated: He argued that if Google did not act, we faced a Draconian future, a future where one man, one company, one device, one carrier would be our only choice. Google was terrified that Apple would end up ruling the mobile space. So, to help in the fight against the iPhone at a time when Google had no mobile foothold whatsoever, Android was launched as an open source project. In that era, Google had nothing, so any adoption—any shred of market share—was welcome. Google decided to give Android away for free and use it as a trojan horse for Google services. The thinking went that if Google Search was one day locked out of the iPhone, people would stop using Google Search on the desktop. Android was the moat around the Google Search castle—it would exist to protect Google's online properties in the mobile world. Enlarge / Android's rocketing market share Smartmo / Ron Amadeo Today, things are a little different. Android went from zero percent of the smartphone market to owning nearly 80 percent of it. Android has arguably won the smartphone wars, but Android winning and Google winning are not necessarily the same thing. Since Android is open source, it doesn't really belong to Google. Anyone is free to take it, clone the source, and create their own fork or alternate version. As we've seen with the struggles of Windows Phone and Blackberry 10, app selection is everything in the mobile market, and Android's massive install base means it has a ton of apps. If a company forks Android, the OS will already be compatible with millions of apps; a company just needs to build its own app store and get everything uploaded. In theory, you'd have a non-Google OS with a ton of apps, virtually overnight. If a company other than Google can come up with a way to make Android better than it is now, it would be able to build a serious competitor and possibly threaten Google's smartphone dominance. This is the biggest danger to Google's current position: a successful, alternative Android distribution. And a few companies are taking a swing at separating Google from Android. The most successful, high-profile alternative version of Android is Amazon's Kindle Fire. Amazon takes AOSP, skips all the usual Google add-ons, and provides its own app store, content stores, browser, cloud storage, and e-mail. The entire country of China skips the Google part of Android, too. Most Google services are banned, so the only option there is an alternate version. In both of these cases, Google's Android code is used, and it gets nothing for it. It's easy to give something away when you're in last place with zero marketshare, precisely where Android started. When you're in first place though, it's a little harder to be so open and welcoming. Android has gone from being the thing that protects Google to being something worth protecting in its own right. Mobile is the future of the Internet, and controlling the world's largest mobile platform has tons of benefits. At this point, it's too difficult to stuff the open source genie back into the bottle, which begs the question: how do you control an open source project? Google has always given itself some protection against alternative versions of Android. What many people think of as Android actually falls into two categories: the open parts from the Android Open Source Project (AOSP), which are the foundation of Android, and the closed
Re: [id-android] Re: WTI : Google’s iron grip on Android: Controlling open source by any means necessary Android is open—except for all the good parts.
Ketika Apple mengeluarkan iphone, Google berpikir... Gimana kalo Apple berkuasa sendirian... Mengatur seluruh ekosistem. Makanya, google beli itu android. Nah, sekarang... Android jadi penguasa pasar... Google mulai berpikir untuk menguasai ekosistem android sendirian. -- | @h4nafi | japri : y...@terserah.de | On 21 Oct 2013 18:52, Yudhistira Dwi Putra yudhistira.d.pu...@gmail.com wrote: Ngng koq aneh sih? bukannya emang tujuannya untuk mencegah Draconian future ya? so knapa takut klo ga dapet google service? klo ketergantungan google service malah Draconian future bakal terjadi. Kan enak bwat para device manufacturer klo aosp ga pake google service. Misal nokia bisa adopsi AOSP bayangkan search bisa diubah make bing and map-nya pake nokia lens. imho gw lebih prefer maps di lumia windows phone daripada googlemaps. So para manufacture giants tersebut bisa fokus di ecosystemnya masing2. Dan developernya bisa jualan di banyak tempat misal jualan di samsung app store, nvidia, amazon dll dengan hanya sekali develop sekali karena platformnya tetep sama yaitu android. On Monday, October 21, 2013 4:02:26 PM UTC+7, hanafi f wrote: E... Jadi kepikiran Pantes samsung penuh *bloatware* Apa ini jangan2 alasan *Hugo* pindah ke xiaomi? Google = Evil? *** http://arstechnica.com/**gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-** grip-on-android-controlling-**open-source-by-any-means-**necessary/http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/ *** Six years ago, in November 2007, the Android Open Source Project (AOSP) was announced. The original iPhone came out just a few months earlier, capturing people's imaginations and ushering in the modern smartphone era. While Google was an app partner for the original iPhone, it could see what a future of unchecked iPhone competition would be like. Vic Gundotra, recalling Andy Rubin's initial pitch for Android, stated: He argued that if Google did not act, we faced a Draconian future, a future where one man, one company, one device, one carrier would be our only choice. Google was terrified that Apple would end up ruling the mobile space. So, to help in the fight against the iPhone at a time when Google had no mobile foothold whatsoever, Android was launched as an open source project. In that era, Google had nothing, so any adoption—any shred of market share—was welcome. Google decided to give Android away for free and use it as a trojan horse for Google services. The thinking went that if Google Search was one day locked out of the iPhone, people would stop using Google Search on the desktop. Android was the moat around the Google Search castle—it would exist to protect Google's online properties in the mobile world. Enlarge / Android's rocketing market share Smartmo / Ron Amadeo Today, things are a little different. Android went from zero percent of the smartphone market to owning nearly 80 percent of it. Android has arguably won the smartphone wars, but Android winning and Google winning are not necessarily the same thing. Since Android is open source, it doesn't really belong to Google. Anyone is free to take it, clone the source, and create their own fork or alternate version. As we've seen with the struggles of Windows Phone and Blackberry 10, app selection is everything in the mobile market, and Android's massive install base means it has a ton of apps. If a company forks Android, the OS will already be compatible with millions of apps; a company just needs to build its own app store and get everything uploaded. In theory, you'd have a non-Google OS with a ton of apps, virtually overnight. If a company other than Google can come up with a way to make Android better than it is now, it would be able to build a serious competitor and possibly threaten Google's smartphone dominance. This is the biggest danger to Google's current position: a successful, alternative Android distribution. And a few companies are taking a swing at separating Google from Android. The most successful, high-profile alternative version of Android is Amazon's Kindle Fire. Amazon takes AOSP, skips all the usual Google add-ons, and provides its own app store, content stores, browser, cloud storage, and e-mail. The entire country of China skips the Google part of Android, too. Most Google services are banned, so the only option there is an alternate version. In both of these cases, Google's Android code is used, and it gets nothing for it. It's easy to give something away when you're in last place with zero marketshare, precisely where Android started. When you're in first place though, it's a little harder to be so open and welcoming. Android has gone from being the thing that protects Google to being something worth protecting in its own right. Mobile is the future of the Internet, and controlling the world's largest
Re: [id-android] Re: WTI : Google’s iron grip on Android: Controlling open source by any means necessary Android is open—except for all the good parts.
Memangnya sebelumnya siapa penguasa ekosistem android? Bukannya memang google dari dulu? :D Dibedakan ya, ranah mobile sama Android ekosistem :) On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 7:22 PM, hanafi f n...@jual.es wrote: Ketika Apple mengeluarkan iphone, Google berpikir... Gimana kalo Apple berkuasa sendirian... Mengatur seluruh ekosistem. Makanya, google beli itu android. Nah, sekarang... Android jadi penguasa pasar... Google mulai berpikir untuk menguasai ekosistem android sendirian. -- | @h4nafi | japri : y...@terserah.de | On 21 Oct 2013 18:52, Yudhistira Dwi Putra yudhistira.d.pu...@gmail.com wrote: Ngng koq aneh sih? bukannya emang tujuannya untuk mencegah Draconian future ya? so knapa takut klo ga dapet google service? klo ketergantungan google service malah Draconian future bakal terjadi. Kan enak bwat para device manufacturer klo aosp ga pake google service. Misal nokia bisa adopsi AOSP bayangkan search bisa diubah make bing and map-nya pake nokia lens. imho gw lebih prefer maps di lumia windows phone daripada googlemaps. So para manufacture giants tersebut bisa fokus di ecosystemnya masing2. Dan developernya bisa jualan di banyak tempat misal jualan di samsung app store, nvidia, amazon dll dengan hanya sekali develop sekali karena platformnya tetep sama yaitu android. On Monday, October 21, 2013 4:02:26 PM UTC+7, hanafi f wrote: E... Jadi kepikiran Pantes samsung penuh *bloatware* Apa ini jangan2 alasan *Hugo* pindah ke xiaomi? Google = Evil? *** http://arstechnica.com/**gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-** grip-on-android-controlling-**open-source-by-any-means-**necessary/http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/ *** Six years ago, in November 2007, the Android Open Source Project (AOSP) was announced. The original iPhone came out just a few months earlier, capturing people's imaginations and ushering in the modern smartphone era. While Google was an app partner for the original iPhone, it could see what a future of unchecked iPhone competition would be like. Vic Gundotra, recalling Andy Rubin's initial pitch for Android, stated: He argued that if Google did not act, we faced a Draconian future, a future where one man, one company, one device, one carrier would be our only choice. Google was terrified that Apple would end up ruling the mobile space. So, to help in the fight against the iPhone at a time when Google had no mobile foothold whatsoever, Android was launched as an open source project. In that era, Google had nothing, so any adoption—any shred of market share—was welcome. Google decided to give Android away for free and use it as a trojan horse for Google services. The thinking went that if Google Search was one day locked out of the iPhone, people would stop using Google Search on the desktop. Android was the moat around the Google Search castle—it would exist to protect Google's online properties in the mobile world. Enlarge / Android's rocketing market share Smartmo / Ron Amadeo Today, things are a little different. Android went from zero percent of the smartphone market to owning nearly 80 percent of it. Android has arguably won the smartphone wars, but Android winning and Google winning are not necessarily the same thing. Since Android is open source, it doesn't really belong to Google. Anyone is free to take it, clone the source, and create their own fork or alternate version. As we've seen with the struggles of Windows Phone and Blackberry 10, app selection is everything in the mobile market, and Android's massive install base means it has a ton of apps. If a company forks Android, the OS will already be compatible with millions of apps; a company just needs to build its own app store and get everything uploaded. In theory, you'd have a non-Google OS with a ton of apps, virtually overnight. If a company other than Google can come up with a way to make Android better than it is now, it would be able to build a serious competitor and possibly threaten Google's smartphone dominance. This is the biggest danger to Google's current position: a successful, alternative Android distribution. And a few companies are taking a swing at separating Google from Android. The most successful, high-profile alternative version of Android is Amazon's Kindle Fire. Amazon takes AOSP, skips all the usual Google add-ons, and provides its own app store, content stores, browser, cloud storage, and e-mail. The entire country of China skips the Google part of Android, too. Most Google services are banned, so the only option there is an alternate version. In both of these cases, Google's Android code is used, and it gets nothing for it. It's easy to give something away when you're in last place with zero marketshare, precisely where Android started. When you're in first place though, it's a little harder
Re: [id-android] Re: WTI : Google’s iron grip on Android: Controlling open source by any means necessary Android is open—except for all the good parts.
Iya om klo di artikelnya Draconian future itu ditujukan ketika takut apple ga ada pesaingnya. Nah artikel ini seakan2 ngebuat google ternyata yang bakal bikin Draconian future karena banyak orang ketergantungan atas google services. Menurut gw harusnya para manufacturer jangan takut ga dapet google service. Kan manufakturer bisa pake service laen contohnya ya tadi misal nokia make AOSP kan bisa aja searchnya pake Bing, maps pake nokia lens, email kan bisa setup pake email native client and ga mesti gmail kan? Ymail juga masih asik untuk dipake koq :D On Monday, October 21, 2013 7:22:03 PM UTC+7, hanafi f wrote: Ketika Apple mengeluarkan iphone, Google berpikir... Gimana kalo Apple berkuasa sendirian... Mengatur seluruh ekosistem. Makanya, google beli itu android. Nah, sekarang... Android jadi penguasa pasar... Google mulai berpikir untuk menguasai ekosistem android sendirian. -- | @h4nafi | japri : y...@terserah.de javascript: | On 21 Oct 2013 18:52, Yudhistira Dwi Putra yudhistir...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: Ngng koq aneh sih? bukannya emang tujuannya untuk mencegah Draconian future ya? so knapa takut klo ga dapet google service? klo ketergantungan google service malah Draconian future bakal terjadi. Kan enak bwat para device manufacturer klo aosp ga pake google service. Misal nokia bisa adopsi AOSP bayangkan search bisa diubah make bing and map-nya pake nokia lens. imho gw lebih prefer maps di lumia windows phone daripada googlemaps. So para manufacture giants tersebut bisa fokus di ecosystemnya masing2. Dan developernya bisa jualan di banyak tempat misal jualan di samsung app store, nvidia, amazon dll dengan hanya sekali develop sekali karena platformnya tetep sama yaitu android. On Monday, October 21, 2013 4:02:26 PM UTC+7, hanafi f wrote: E... Jadi kepikiran Pantes samsung penuh *bloatware* Apa ini jangan2 alasan *Hugo* pindah ke xiaomi? Google = Evil? *** http://arstechnica.com/**gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-** grip-on-android-controlling-**open-source-by-any-means-**necessary/http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/ *** Six years ago, in November 2007, the Android Open Source Project (AOSP) was announced. The original iPhone came out just a few months earlier, capturing people's imaginations and ushering in the modern smartphone era. While Google was an app partner for the original iPhone, it could see what a future of unchecked iPhone competition would be like. Vic Gundotra, recalling Andy Rubin's initial pitch for Android, stated: He argued that if Google did not act, we faced a Draconian future, a future where one man, one company, one device, one carrier would be our only choice. Google was terrified that Apple would end up ruling the mobile space. So, to help in the fight against the iPhone at a time when Google had no mobile foothold whatsoever, Android was launched as an open source project. In that era, Google had nothing, so any adoption—any shred of market share—was welcome. Google decided to give Android away for free and use it as a trojan horse for Google services. The thinking went that if Google Search was one day locked out of the iPhone, people would stop using Google Search on the desktop. Android was the moat around the Google Search castle—it would exist to protect Google's online properties in the mobile world. Enlarge / Android's rocketing market share Smartmo / Ron Amadeo Today, things are a little different. Android went from zero percent of the smartphone market to owning nearly 80 percent of it. Android has arguably won the smartphone wars, but Android winning and Google winning are not necessarily the same thing. Since Android is open source, it doesn't really belong to Google. Anyone is free to take it, clone the source, and create their own fork or alternate version. As we've seen with the struggles of Windows Phone and Blackberry 10, app selection is everything in the mobile market, and Android's massive install base means it has a ton of apps. If a company forks Android, the OS will already be compatible with millions of apps; a company just needs to build its own app store and get everything uploaded. In theory, you'd have a non-Google OS with a ton of apps, virtually overnight. If a company other than Google can come up with a way to make Android better than it is now, it would be able to build a serious competitor and possibly threaten Google's smartphone dominance. This is the biggest danger to Google's current position: a successful, alternative Android distribution. And a few companies are taking a swing at separating Google from Android. The most successful, high-profile alternative version of Android is Amazon's Kindle Fire. Amazon takes AOSP, skips all the usual Google add-ons, and
Re: [id-android] Re: WTI : Google’s iron grip on Android: Controlling open source by any means necessary Android is open—except for all the good parts.
Setuju. Tergantung apa gak sama Google ya kembali pabrikan atau user Android nya. ▒ Android 4.3 @ Google neXus4™ ▒ On Oct 21, 2013 9:03 PM, Yudhistira Dwi Putra yudhistira.d.pu...@gmail.com wrote: Iya om klo di artikelnya Draconian future itu ditujukan ketika takut apple ga ada pesaingnya. Nah artikel ini seakan2 ngebuat google ternyata yang bakal bikin Draconian future karena banyak orang ketergantungan atas google services. Menurut gw harusnya para manufacturer jangan takut ga dapet google service. Kan manufakturer bisa pake service laen contohnya ya tadi misal nokia make AOSP kan bisa aja searchnya pake Bing, maps pake nokia lens, email kan bisa setup pake email native client and ga mesti gmail kan? Ymail juga masih asik untuk dipake koq :D On Monday, October 21, 2013 7:22:03 PM UTC+7, hanafi f wrote: Ketika Apple mengeluarkan iphone, Google berpikir... Gimana kalo Apple berkuasa sendirian... Mengatur seluruh ekosistem. Makanya, google beli itu android. Nah, sekarang... Android jadi penguasa pasar... Google mulai berpikir untuk menguasai ekosistem android sendirian. -- | @h4nafi | japri : y...@terserah.de | On 21 Oct 2013 18:52, Yudhistira Dwi Putra yudhistir...@gmail.com wrote: Ngng koq aneh sih? bukannya emang tujuannya untuk mencegah Draconian future ya? so knapa takut klo ga dapet google service? klo ketergantungan google service malah Draconian future bakal terjadi. Kan enak bwat para device manufacturer klo aosp ga pake google service. Misal nokia bisa adopsi AOSP bayangkan search bisa diubah make bing and map-nya pake nokia lens. imho gw lebih prefer maps di lumia windows phone daripada googlemaps. So para manufacture giants tersebut bisa fokus di ecosystemnya masing2. Dan developernya bisa jualan di banyak tempat misal jualan di samsung app store, nvidia, amazon dll dengan hanya sekali develop sekali karena platformnya tetep sama yaitu android. On Monday, October 21, 2013 4:02:26 PM UTC+7, hanafi f wrote: E... Jadi kepikiran Pantes samsung penuh *bloatware* Apa ini jangan2 alasan *Hugo* pindah ke xiaomi? Google = Evil? *** http://arstechnica.com/**gadgets**/2013/10/googles-iron-**grip-on-** android-controlling-**open-**source-by-any-means-**necessary/http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/ *** Six years ago, in November 2007, the Android Open Source Project (AOSP) was announced. The original iPhone came out just a few months earlier, capturing people's imaginations and ushering in the modern smartphone era. While Google was an app partner for the original iPhone, it could see what a future of unchecked iPhone competition would be like. Vic Gundotra, recalling Andy Rubin's initial pitch for Android, stated: He argued that if Google did not act, we faced a Draconian future, a future where one man, one company, one device, one carrier would be our only choice. Google was terrified that Apple would end up ruling the mobile space. So, to help in the fight against the iPhone at a time when Google had no mobile foothold whatsoever, Android was launched as an open source project. In that era, Google had nothing, so any adoption—any shred of market share—was welcome. Google decided to give Android away for free and use it as a trojan horse for Google services. The thinking went that if Google Search was one day locked out of the iPhone, people would stop using Google Search on the desktop. Android was the moat around the Google Search castle—it would exist to protect Google's online properties in the mobile world. Enlarge / Android's rocketing market share Smartmo / Ron Amadeo Today, things are a little different. Android went from zero percent of the smartphone market to owning nearly 80 percent of it. Android has arguably won the smartphone wars, but Android winning and Google winning are not necessarily the same thing. Since Android is open source, it doesn't really belong to Google. Anyone is free to take it, clone the source, and create their own fork or alternate version. As we've seen with the struggles of Windows Phone and Blackberry 10, app selection is everything in the mobile market, and Android's massive install base means it has a ton of apps. If a company forks Android, the OS will already be compatible with millions of apps; a company just needs to build its own app store and get everything uploaded. In theory, you'd have a non-Google OS with a ton of apps, virtually overnight. If a company other than Google can come up with a way to make Android better than it is now, it would be able to build a serious competitor and possibly threaten Google's smartphone dominance. This is the biggest danger to Google's current position: a successful, alternative Android distribution. And a few companies are taking a swing at separating Google from Android. The most successful,
