

Google's Microsoft Moment - Why Google Made Android - iamclovin
http://posterous.mclov.in/googles-microsoft-moment-why-google-made-andr

======
sz
It's hard for me to feel the same way about a Google-sponsored open source
project as I do about Microsoft's commercial ventures.

Maybe it's just the masterful PR, but I really do believe Google is actually
doing good here.

~~~
Bossman
I agree. I mean, most of Google's software projects are open source lately.
Not only that, but they encourage developers from all over to work on their
projects to make them better. I think the comparison to Microsoft in this
article are kind of off base here. I mean, look at WebM... Google acquired the
codecs and technology when they bought On2 a while back and now instead of
sitting on it or using it for proprietary purposes, they completely open it up
so people have a choice for an open web standard.

~~~
loewenskind
So if google does one thing you like, then their off the hook?

> Not only that, but they encourage developers from all over to work on their
> projects to make them better.

Of course they do... free labor that they can make money off of, even if
indirectly.

~~~
Bossman
No, that's not what I mean. I just think there's a lot more merit in what
Google is doing than what Microsoft did with things like IE, entering in
gaming, etc...and keeping everything proprietary on top of it.

Google shouldn't be immune to criticism, but I just think it's misplaced here.
Yeah, the draconian comment was stupid and probably not the best reasoning to
give, but they're doing things in a good way in my view.

~~~
loewenskind
It's true, they're not like Microsoft in their method. But every good thing
they do makes us more dependant on them. Even if the founders are without spot
(hard to believe given the "if you have something to hide" comment), they wont
live forever. What will we do when all competition has died off thanks to
Googles goodness and they decide that "evil" means "things that don't make us
more profits"?

I don't hate google, I use them for things. But I really hate the wreckless
abandon with which people embrace them. The market can't "correct" them when
they do wrong because they have another source for their income.

~~~
Bossman
Very true. I'm definitely more weary of them as they get bigger and expand
into more and more markets, but I think there will always be alternatives in
the future. I mean, who knew Microsoft would be second in so many areas at
this point?

~~~
loewenskind
I don't mean to paint a doomsday scenario, I know that if google turns evil
we'll find a way to break out of it.

It's just that in my opinion MS' lock in set the computer industry back at
least 10 years. I think we could have a lot more advanced technology today if
we hadn't been locked into an inferior platform for so long (today it's not as
inferior, but imo everything pre-win2000 had superior alternatives).

I would hate to suffer another set back by too many people betting on the same
horse again.

EDIT: Clarification

~~~
Bossman
I agree. And I think with the openness of the internet and free technologies
(especially ones that Google is now promoting), people will be able to break
free easier than they were when Microsoft was ruling. Information flows freer
now, a lot of things are becoming open source so people can make their own
changes or versions of software, and there's a lot more competition than there
was back in the day (especially in areas like the browser market).

------
bruceboughton
See also: [http://www.appleoutsider.com/2010/05/20/google-rewrites-
hist...](http://www.appleoutsider.com/2010/05/20/google-rewrites-history/)

"Good old competitive potshots are fair game, but this one is particularly
offensive when one recalls Google acquired Android in August of 2005. That’s
nearly 18 months before the world even knew about iPhone, let alone its
carrier model or prospects for success. And it’s nearly a full three years
before the App Store went live on July 11, 2008.

"Google is a publicly traded corporation that controls the flow of more and
more information every day. It’s very troubling to watch them rewrite history
in such a self-serving manner."

~~~
habitue
Before I read the article, based on your quotes here I guessed that someone
was saying Google bought Android specifically to copy the iPhone. I didn't
anticipate it would be Google themselves. Is it just me or does saying they
created Android in response to the iPhone make them look worse than the
reality?

~~~
LaPingvino
Reality is that Android started before we even knew about the iPhone. It just
matured after the iPhone launch, which makes the common guess that Google was
out to outdo Apple here explainable, but not more true at that point. Apple
profits from this image of course. Being the copycat tends to give you a
slightly worse image by default, and I think Apple likes it that way.

Nowadays the iPhone is a worthy competitor of course, and at this point
outdoing the iPhone is a logical step/consequence.

------
czhiddy
Since Google bought Android in 2005, I'm highly doubtful they were trying to
save us from a "draconian" iPhone-AppStore-centric world 3 years in advance.

~~~
SweltertheCook
The problem that I have with this comment (and many of the stories like the
one linked) is the simple fact that, although this is obviously a blatant
attempt to re-write history via corporate PR (something that Google does just
as often as any huge company), it really is true (in an overall sense-- Google
certainly is attempting to avoid a future where the iPhone is dominant.
Whether or not you think that's "draconian"... well, really, stop right there.
How many HN posts are there about various App Store debacles? Censorship? If
it isn't "draconian", it is certainly less than "free"). Google is doing
something to challenge Apple here, and they are doing it in all the right
ways.

I have a Droid, and a good friend has an iPhone. There are times when I really
wish I had his phone instead of my Droid, but there are also a lot of times he
wished he had an Android device. Like it or not, Apple has competition, and
that's forcing them to innovate rather than letting developers do it for them
via the App store. Tethering, built in MiFi-like capability-- these are things
that Apple's good friends in the App store can't do for them, and Google is
right to go after them. Likewise, although it is very likely I'll try to turn
off/disable Flash support if my Droid is ever updated to 2.2 (or if I ever
root it and go with Cyanogen, etc), it is a weakness of the iPhone, iPad, and
going after Apple where it will actually hurt is more than fair game.

Again, I don't think giving Google a pass here (or worshipping at their
temple) is a good idea per se. But I do think that a lot of the criticisms
leveled at Google for this comment have less to do with Google's real sin-- PR
manipulation-- and more to do with the fact that a great deal of Apple
supporters are a bit chagrined that Google is doing so well against the
iPhone.

Just look at Gruber. I mean, I love the guy-- read his site every day, as I
think it is some of the best Apple analysis out there-- but as Google I/O has
gone on, his normally cogent commentary has degenerated into what basically
amounts to one-line (or one-paragraph) sniping over Google's attempts to
challenge Apple. As if Apple somehow has the right to complete 100% dominance
of the consumer smartphone market.

Again, like Google or not, I think its hard to argue that Android isn't a
serious challenger to the iPhone (and soon the iPad, if Android-lovers have
their way). And its hard to argue that this is ultimately good for consumers--
certainly much, much better than an Apple-run world where political satire is
banned from our phones simply because it might ruffle a few feathers or
distract from Steve Job's vision of the "perfect" App Store.

~~~
commandar
>Just look at Gruber. I mean, I love the guy-- read his site every day, as I
think it is some of the best Apple analysis out there-- but as Google I/O has
gone on, his normally cogent commentary has degenerated into what basically
amounts to one-line (or one-paragraph) sniping over Google's attempts to
challenge Apple. As if Apple somehow has the right to complete 100% dominance
of the consumer smartphone market.

The thing about all that to me is the way he's been almost intentionally been
obtuse about some things in order to snark about them. He's been conflating
the difference between private system APIs and undocumented application APIs
on Android lately, even after acknowledging a response from Tim Bray about the
whole thing a couple of weeks ago.

Andy Rubin made a comment a while back about how Google doesn't use private
APIs in Android, and Gruber's just been chomping at the bit to somehow use
this as an example of Google's hypocrisy. So when Google says something like
"You really shouldn't be doing things like accessing the SMS app's internal
undocumented methods because there's no guarantee they'll be there on all
distributions of Android" [because the SMS app is just another application and
not a core system component], Gruber jumps up and down pointing at it as an
example of how Google lied about not using private APIs.

Maybe it's just me, but telling developers that they should stick to public
system level APIs rather than try to muck around with the internals of
applications _that aren't a part of the core system_ hardly sounds like some
tacit admission that Google is really using private APIs on the sly to me.
Google's entire point about private APIs is that you can do anything you see a
Google app do using the public system APIs because that's what the Google apps
are using in the first place, rather than relying on hidden systems calls that
aren't made available to normal developers.

It's frustrating, because when Gruber is right, his analysis is usually a
great read (plus I love Markdown). But lately he's been fanboying so hard on
this and a couple of other things that it's gotten painful for me to follow
him.

~~~
commandar
If anyone's interested, here's one of the DF posts about this:
<http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/05/06/curious>

Tim Bray's reply: [http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2010/05/06/Private-
AP...](http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2010/05/06/Private-APIs)

------
Prolorn
_“If we did not act, we faced a draconian future. Where one man, one company,
one carrier was the future.”

– Google Vice-President of Engineering Vic Gundotra explains why the company
made Android._

That sounds to me like Gundotra committed the fallacy of backdating present
justifications/motivations to the original act. I assume this was in a speech
at Google I/O? It does read a tad pretentious.

Though, while I don't think cognitive backdating is a healthy habit (keeping
in mind it's a common mistake, one we all actually fall prey to), it also
seems a bit grandiose to call this a "Microsoft moment".

It's good to keep Google on its toes, of course, but Gundotra's misspeak
doesn't strike me as sufficient reason to draw all manner of parallels to
Microsoft. Google's actions to date do not seem equivalent, in my estimation.
And hopefully, by catching such misconceptions, we'll remind them not to
actually make mistakes in the future like Microsoft has made.

