

Do Not Anger the Alpha Android - pathik
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_15/b4223041200216.htm

======
makeramen
I'm with Google on this, although I do think they've dug themselves into a
hole here. They're making the right decision, though it will most definitely
be one of the toughest to deal with.

The way manufacturers customize Android really reminds me of the Ubuntu design
thread on HN a few days back that argued about the close/quit functionality on
Macs and PCs with some really ridiculous "solutions." Open-sourcing design (at
this scale) is just asking for trouble.

Every manufacturer/carrier keeps thinking they can come up with a better
Android, with better features, and more custom fit. All I've seen is slower
more bloated ROMs with extra eye-candy, built-in applications nobody wants,
and even reductions in the original Android feature-set (most notably
tethering). All the compromises the iPhone didn't make, Android did, and now
the entire platform suffers.

But the real lesson here is for the carriers. The carriers need to step up to
the new smartphone world, where phones are no longer a one-time sale, but a
long-term investment including support and software updates (especially if you
decided to customize your own version of Android).

The easier alternative would be of course just to let Google handle the
software updates (i.e. Nexus S, Nexus One, G1, etc). But then you don't get
all your fancy custom themes and subsidized applications. Boohoo. Can't have
your cake and eat it too.

~~~
aphexairlines
> But then you don't get all your fancy custom themes and subsidized
> applications.

PC makers have no problem adding to Windows and then letting the consumer get
updates straight from Microsoft. So they do have their cake and eat it too.

~~~
arron61
How are they adding to Windows? They make applications. They don't necessarily
alter the OS.

Plus PCs have a 7 layer stack where there are abstraction layers over the
devices and drivers, making this doable. Whereas phones are embedded systems
that have tight integration.

~~~
aphexairlines
Yes, not technically modifying the OS itself. But PC OSs are extensible --
manufacturers often implement/bundle their own power management, wifi
authentication mechanisms, disk monitors, etc, and of course apps.

Not to say that any of it is actually helpful, but then neither is the crap
that Motorola, HTC, Sony-Ericsson, Samsung, and friends bolt onto Android.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
PC Manufacturers do add crap, but they have also patched real holes in Windows
e.g. better wireless support before XP service pack 2 , out of the box anti-
virus, alternative Office apps, better browsers etc. The same is true of
Android as early versions were missing some major pieces.

It's a complex area with many shades of grey. The real problem is poor
software engineer practice regarding Android and Linux at these manufacturers
which leads to unnecessary delays and wheel re-invention. They seem to be
learning and getting much better at this though e.g. Sony Ericsson announcing
that they'd restrict their additions to the app level and make them easy to
turn off and replace in future, and announcing they'd do an extra update for
the X10 because they'd already done most of the work for the new phones that
share the same platform.

------
Osiris
Android clearly has a fragmentation problem. Worse than that, is the
dependency on device manufacturers to release updates to already released
handsets, which I'm sure many see as a waste of resources since they've
already sold the device and would rather put that into the next big thing.

Despite all the problems with the iOS ecosystem, Android has plenty of its
own, albeit very different, problems. I'm honestly jealous of the easy updates
to iOS that Apple releases. A unified OS that installs on all but the oldest
handsets regardless of carrier or model.

For Android, on the other hand, manufacturers have made it pretty clear that
what comes on the phone is most likely the version of the OS you'll ever see,
unless you root your phone replace the stock OS with an open source version of
Android.

I don't see that as an easy problem to solve due to the nature of the
ecosystem compared to Apple's completely integrated vertical.

~~~
arron61
Even if the device manufacturers do not alter the OS, it's still impossible
for Google to send one mass update that will apply to all the phones. Phone
OSes are too embedded for this to work. Carriers and manufacturers will still
need to do the updates, but it will definitely be a lot faster.

Look at Microsoft trying to update Windows Phone 7. There are no
customization, yet they have to carefully test on every device and have each
device be updated independently. Microsoft is barely able to handle 7-10
devices. When it reaches Android's level with 100 devices, it won't be able to
handle it either.

Apple has enough trouble updating iOS on iphone 4, iphone 3gs, and iphone 3g.

------
ZeroGravitas
A less sensationalist headline might be "Google updates the Android
Compatibility Definition Document":

<http://source.android.com/compatibility/index.html>

Unfortunately that would require you to acknowledge that Android has always
had limits if you wanted access to Google's services and would destroy your
"Google flip-flops on openness" story.

------
andrewl-hn-ncp
I feel like this unrest among device manufacturers and carriers is the main
reason why an alternative Android stack (With Bing Search/Maps and Amazon
AppStore, and possibly some input from Facebook) might be a success.

Google can effectively kill off this effort by making next versions of Android
close-source but that would heavily tarnish their reputation. So I feel like
it's very unlikely.

Google can effectively keep them half-a-version behind, though by giving an
access to a next Android version to a limited group of "blessed" manufacturers
but they still have to release at least the GPL-covered portions of source
code when those new devices become available for consumers. This is usually
some low-level stuff (changes to Linux kernel and maybe some device-
integration code), so Amazon & co. don't have to maintain their own stack of
device APIs which is a big win for them. On an application level, though, I
doubt that as the platform matures being one version behind is a big issue,
and Amazon, Microsoft and Facebook can provide effective substitutions for
Google software and services and can bring up a compelling UI to attract
consumers.

------
alain94040
_Google has tried to hold up the release of Verizon (VZ) Android devices that
make use of Microsoft's (MSFT) rival Bing_

 _Google has been demanding that Android licensees give Google the final say
on how they can tweak the Android code. Google's Rubin says that such clauses
have always been part of the Android license_

This is very serious. Consumers won't care (just like they don't care about
Apple being closed). It's our job to care and take notice. If anything, it may
open our eyes, that Google may be a corporation like all others and will
aggressively use its leverage to hurt competitors and partners.

~~~
yanw
They are confusing things here, they can add whatever search engine they like
but it won't get the 'With Google' approval sticker unless it uses Google Apps
and services.

They are confusing the non-fragmentation approval sticker with total
prevention, which is quite frankly dishonest on the part of businessweek.

~~~
blub
Is this just a sticker though or is it an all-or-nothing including things like
Android Market + all Google services?

The Google services are tightly integrated with the OS, kind of like IE was
back in the day with Windows.

~~~
yanw
Market, Maps, Gmail.

And it's nothing like Windows (I'm sick of this analogy) Android is open
source, you can and many do, sell non-approved phones, they can use the Amazon
store (another app store is the biggest testimony for openness). Android is
also the only platform to have multiple browser options (Firefox 4 was
recently released for it).

~~~
blub
> Market, Maps, Gmail.

I think the comparison IE-Windows vs. Google services-Android when it comes to
coupling is relevant. Google is using services to force manufacturers down
certain paths.

An Android phone without Market, Maps and Gmail isn't much of an Android
phone:

* No maps => apps can't use any mapping capabilities.

* No Gmail => can you still send e-mail from the SDK? I've heard that pretty much all other e-mail provider integration sucks.

* No market => Your phone customers can't buy any apps out of the box.

Today there may be alternatives such as Amazon's app store, but back then you
either did what Google said or no Android for you! (I think you couldn't even
use the Android name in fact)

~~~
yanw
It's open source software given for free so any slight bit of control Google
tries to exercise doesn't really tip the scale to the other side, specially
when alternatives exist.

Also I recommend the K-9 mail client, it's very good:
<https://market.android.com/details?id=com.fsck.k9>

~~~
blub
Ok, so let's say that you make phones.

1\. MS comes and says we'll give you 3Om$ if you use Bing as a search engine.
2\. You say "Cool!" 3\. Google comes and says, if you use Bing, you can't use
Gmail, the Android Market or Gmaps any more. You also can't call it Android
any more.

You call this "slight bit of control", I call it extorsion.

P.S: Why do you keep mentioning that Android is open-source? This is
completely irrelevant to the discussion.

~~~
yanw
That's not true, the Verizon Android phone that uses Microsoft's search engine
has the market and gmail installed, it just doesn't have the sticker.

And the fact that it's open source is very relevant here as it implies minimum
restrictions.

~~~
blub
This directly contradicts your earier statement about Maps, Market, Gmail :)
If you feed me bad input I will come to incorrect conclusions...

~~~
yanw
I apologize for any lack of clarity :)

------
trotsky
_Google's Rubin says that such clauses have always been part of the Android
license, but people interviewed for this story say that Google has recently
tightened its policies. Facebook, for example, has been working to fashion its
own variant of Android for smartphones. Executives at the social network are
unhappy that Google gets to review Facebook's tweaks to Android, say two
people who weren't comfortable being named talking about the business._

Facebook learns what it means to be a sharecropper.

------
rbarooah
So much for 'let the market decide'.

~~~
2muchcoffeeman
The free market did decide.

~~~
rbarooah
I guess 'open' _doesn't_ always win.

------
yanw
I don't understand the critical tone nor the logic behind this piece and I
can't imagine what those complaints to the DOJ might look like "We can freely
access and use the source code but we want more!"

Also the Elop comment was hilarious, and since when does businessweek care
about open source?!

~~~
mtarnovan
You have a very broad definition of "free". If Google really tried to use the
leverage it has with Android to get Verizon to drop Bing as the default search
engine, I can definitely see a problem there. Their intentions might be good
(for the consumer, at least), but their methods just got pretty strong handed.
Oh, and Honeycomb won't be open sourced any time soon, so there's that, too.

~~~
yanw
Again, as I replayed to another comment here:

 _They are confusing things here, they can add whatever search engine they
like but it won't get the 'With Google' approval sticker unless it uses Google
Apps and services.

They are confusing the none-fragmentation approval sticker with total
prevention, which is quite frankly dishonest on the part of businessweek._

