

Google Tightening Control of Android - Athtar
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_15/b4223041200216_page_2.htm

======
haseman
As someone who's been working with Android from the beginning, I have to say:
About Time.

This is a required step if Google wants the platform to be taken seriously.
The only way to keep fragmentation out is to exert a fair amount of control
over the OEMs and Carriers who wish to differentiate (or Fragment) Android for
their own purposes.

It's going to be a fine balancing act for Rubin. If he pushes the
carriers/oems too far, they'll walk. If he doesn't push them hard enough, the
platform will disintegrate Java ME style.

Google is using the only leverage they have (early access and the google apps)
to make the platform one worth developing for. I, as someone who makes his
living doing it right now, am all for this move.

~~~
alphamerik
Agreed, I don't understand what all of the anger is about like in this highly
opinionated and skewed Ars Technica piece: [http://arstechnica.com/open-
source/news/2011/03/android-open...](http://arstechnica.com/open-
source/news/2011/03/android-openness-withering-as-google-withhold-honeycomb-
code.ars)

The source will be released when Google is happy with the product. For people
to be up in arms that they aren't releasing the source to an unfinished
product is ridiculous. Seems like they are damned if they do, damned it they
don't.

~~~
recoiledsnake
>The source will be released when Google is happy with the product. For people
to be up in arms that they aren't releasing the source to an unfinished
product is ridiculous. Seems like they are damned if they do, damned it they
don't

The Motorola Xoom is already out.. so how is Honeycomb an unfinished product
if it's in consumers' hands? The basic spirit of FOSS is that users and
developers should be able to modify the code. The article you linked to says
this:

>The lack of Honeycomb code availability is especially bad for enthusiasts who
were hoping to be able to install custom firmware on their Android tablets.
Without the code, it will be difficult for the modding community to produce
custom builds that fix the software problems that plague the Xoom and other
upcoming Android tablets. Users who were looking forward to better Honeycomb
builds for the Nook Color and other budget devices are also going to have to
wait.

>For now, only a privileged few hardware vendors will have access to Honeycomb
while the rest are left with uncertainty about the future of the platform.
Even after the matter is resolved, the fact that Google is willing to withhold
source code at its whim for competitive reasons is going to continue to cast a
dark shadow over the company's increasingly hollow claim that Android is an
open platform.

I don't see how the above is wrong.

>The source will be released when Google is happy with the product.

Doesn't Android use the Linux kernel which is GPL'ed (among other parts)? Can
they legally withhold code for a shipping product by saying the software isn't
finished?

~~~
daniel_solano
> Doesn't Android use the Linux kernel which is GPL'ed (among other parts)?
> Can they legally withhold code for a shipping product by saying the software
> isn't finished?

Yes, the kernel is GPL, so they have released that source. It's the rest of
the platform they are withholding, which is generally under an Apache license.

------
pkulak
Good. It's always bothered me that Verizon can take an Android phone and make
a bunch of money by whoring it out to Microsoft and anyone else who will pay
to have their crapware permanently installed. Carriers and manufacturers have
ruined just about every Android phone they've gotten their hands on. Android
is really becoming a nice OS, and it deserves better.

~~~
bonch
But what about "openness?" I thought Android was supposed to be the answer to
Apple's tight control?

~~~
probablycorey
Android is still much more open than Apple. A developer can actually view the
Android source code, you can deploy an application to a device without
Google's permission, you can access much more of the OS features from Android
than with the iPhone.

The only people this limits "openness" for is device manufactures, which most
developers would probably consider a good thing.

~~~
bonch
> Android is still much more open than Apple.

Instead of being an open platform, we're apparently devolving into specifying
particular degrees of openness. If you want to play that game, the Darwin
operating system that provides the foundation of iOS is also open source, and
it doesn't require a license to use or approval from Apple over modifications.

> A developer can actually view the Android source code

No, Google is withholding Honeycomb's source code for the indefinite future--
unless you're lucky enough to be one of Google's privileged partners.

Your post is another example of the justifications we often see from Android
supporters for behaviors that Apple has been criticized for in the past, such
as withholding source code and holding final approval over third-party
development. Google declared pretty loudly that Android exists to prevent a
"draconian future" of strict control. However, Google is now exerting aspects
of that control.

~~~
pkulak
The problem is that I want my OS to be open to me, so that I can do with it as
I choose. If you give that openness to the person above me who sells me my
phone, they're just going to use it to take away my freedoms with the OS, like
we've seen Verizon doing for years now. I want it, and if I have to take it
from Verizon, then fine, I don't care about conforming to some FOSS ideal.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
Which is great, right up until Google decide that the latest version which was
on the new phone you just bought isn't going to be made available for the
foreseeable future.

The issue is surely that something is open or it isn't? The minute that Google
start closing off or controlling bits of it, don't you have to ask yourself
whether the thing you care about is next and therefore whether it's actually
open or just probably open?

And for me probably open isn't really open enough.

------
rbarooah
Google makes some of the source available when they want to but restricts what
people can do with it using licenses, and now they insist on giving their
approval to modifications.

Can we finally stop saying Android is 'open' now when it's blatantly false?

Imagine the headline read 'Apple Tightening Control of WebKit'. How is this
any different?

I truly want to see an Open tablet on which the community could realize the
Dynabook vision. I thought the Xoom might be a good starting point but with
Google capriciously exercising power over the software, it's pretty clear that
Android isn't going to give us that.

On the bright side, Moore's law will give us tablets that will run stock Linux
pretty soon, and then all we need is a BSD-licensed, community built touch
layer.

~~~
archgoon
>On the bright side, Moore's law will give us tablets that will run stock
Linux pretty soon, and then all we need is a BSD-licensed, community built
touch layer.

Could you explain how Moore's Law is relevant here? How you get from "Number
of transistors per IC will double in 18 months" to "Linux on a tablet pretty
soon"? Tablet development isn't being limited by processing power as far as I
know.

~~~
rbarooah
I think power is very much an issue.

Most people I know who have an iPad 1 complain that speed is an issue. The
iPad 2 certainly fixes that, but Apple's have focussed a lot on optimization
and their stack is all built around compiled code.

To me that suggests that tablet performance is only just adequate today.

If we want to realize the dream of a truly open, programmable-on-the-device
tablet, we're going to need it to burn some cycles on languages that aren't as
efficient as C, and frameworks that haven't been as tuned as iOS.

------
dolinsky
For those who would like to start on page one, here's a link
[http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_15/b42230412...](http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_15/b4223041200216.htm)

------
Athtar
Here is the most interesting snippet for me:

 _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. Google has also tried to
hold up the release of Verizon (VZ) Android devices that make use of
Microsoft's (MSFT) rival Bing search engine, according to two people familiar
with the discussions._

With Google being direct competitors with Facebook and Microsoft in the online
space, they have a lot to gain by knowing their competitor's plans early/by
being able to limit their influence.

~~~
jkincaid
I don't understand how Google can maintain any control over those devices,
though. My understanding was that anyone could download the Android source,
sans Google applications like Gmail and Market, and install it on whatever
they want.

If I were Facebook, I'd just avoid Google entirely and use alternative apps
for everything. Amazon Appstore, Facebook Messaging for email, etc.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
The way in which Android is open differs from many other open projects.

The source to Android is made public at or around the time the final version
ships but until that point only select partners have access to the software.
It's this approach that Google are going to strengthen - essentially if you
don't obey their rules you won't be a select partner and you won't get early
access to the new releases.

What this means is that if you don't obey Google's rules you'll be getting the
software two or three months later than your competitors (and without all the
support they will be getting), likely receiving it around the time they're
actually bringing products to market. That's a pretty big competitive
disadvantage if you're aiming to compete at anything close to the top end of
the market.

So basically while you can use Android as you wish, if you don't obey Google's
rules then you won't be able to do so in a way that allows you to be
competitive.

The cynic in me says that this is getting mighty close to being open in name
only.

~~~
MatthewPhillips
I don't think being behind matters that much. People online complain about
version numbers; general consumers don't know. Amazon can release a phone
running 2.3 loaded with Amazon Appstore, Cloud Player, tighter Facebook
integration, and an overhauled UI (A good one) and consumers will eat it up.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
If it's not that big a deal why are Android users so vocal about not getting
updates?

Even if that is true if you're Facebook or Amazon and you're looking to
differentiate yourself in that way it's one thing. If you're a handset
manufacturer looking to make a kick-ass Android phone it's another entirely
and there it _would_ be a big deal.

~~~
MatthewPhillips
I disagree that Android users are vocal about updates, after all, people are
buying phones with 2.2 in mass. I think Facebook or Amazon can get away with
releasing on 2.3 without any backlash whatsoever until/unless the next version
has a major killer feature.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
And that's the big unless.

You may be right for small point releases but when they revise the interface
or introduce significant new features or something else which people will
notice and want, it's going to put you at a disadvantage.

And because you don't have access to the new version you don't know whether
it's going to be a significant release or not. You may be competitive, you may
not, you simply don't know.

I honestly don't see how that doesn't put a company at a disadvantage - it's
certainly not a level playing field and it's certainly not a situation I'd
happily put myself in.

------
aristidb
If this means they can force device makers to actually ship updates, I'm all
for it.

~~~
ShabbyDoo
This is my biggest complaint about Android. I have one of the original Droids,
and it's already obvious that Verizon/Motorola aren't going to do more than
the minimum amount of upkeep from now on.

~~~
wewyor
I have an original droid as well and you should seriously consider rooting it
and putting something like cyanogen mod on it, it works well on my end.
(Though I seriously doubt me buying another android phone that isn't something
like a Nexus phone).

~~~
ShabbyDoo
I am running an alternate firmware, but I don't like that I have to do so much
fiddling.

------
ChuckMcM
Link points to page2, page 1 is here:

[http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_15/b42230412...](http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_15/b4223041200216.htm?campaign_id=technology_related)

tl;dr version - Google is allegedly asserting greater control over what folks
who ship Android can do (presumably as part of the license for the Google apps
bit). They are uneven in their enforcement.

Often times articles like this have some base message or meme they are
channeling but this one doesn't seem to have much focus. One would guess it
was this bold claim:

"There will be no more willy-nilly tweaks to the software. No more
partnerships formed outside of Google's purview. From now on, companies hoping
to receive early access to Google's most up-to-date software will need
approval of their plans. And they will seek that approval from Andy Rubin, the
head of Google's Android group."

But its not really backed up by the story line. The story is more a "they are
lying about openness, they are really evil" kind of thing that I've noticed
quite a few places are picking up. There is insinuations about the justice
department and anti-trust. Frankly it reads like something Microsoft would
say.

That being said, if Microsoft really is behind articles of this tone, then I'd
suggest they take a different approach and offer carriers a replacement for
the Google apps package (mail, maps, search, chat etc) and create windows
mobile/android that would certainly tweek Google's nose.

------
nicetryguy
I am happy about this

Suppose google doesnt approve changes to the source code before the companies
release products. Suppose the changes to that source code stop certain apps
from working on certain phones, therefore putting it on the shoulders of the
developers to make certain their app works on every different phone.

It would hurt the quality of the apps and the platform if Android lost its
mostly seamless cross platform ability

------
ReadyNSet
Seems Nokia was more than justified in choosing WP7 against Android

~~~
daniel_solano
I doubt it. I am sure that had it gone Android it would have been a high
profile partner with Google.

I am inclined to believe Nokia went with Microsoft primarily because Microsoft
needs Nokia more than Google needs Nokia, i.e. Microsoft offered more money.

------
laujen
This is very good news for us developers. Hopefully a fixed set of screen
dimensions and expectations can be established so we know what we are writing
for. Every time a big name Android app gets released, a laundry list of which
devices it works on and which ones it doesn't gets made, too. I hate this.
Either our software needs to run on Android or it doesn't.

------
naner
_Google has also tried to hold up the release of Verizon (VZ) Android devices
that make use of Microsoft's (MSFT) rival Bing search engine, according to two
people familiar with the discussions._

Haha, oops! That is kind of funny. I can't believe Google didn't anticipate
this type of thing.

------
kenjackson
This seems opposed to my original impressions of the Android vision. I thought
the original carrot/stick was the Android market.

But I guess with the new Amazon market the old Google carrot/stick is no
longer as compelling.

~~~
lftl
It's not just the Market, it's all the Google created apps so: Gmail, Voice,
Maps, Navigation. Maybe even the Youtube app is included?

------
protomyth
At this point, my definition of "open" is an open source license combined with
public development.

------
mberning
I'm sure all the android fanboys will consider this a 'good move' since Google
is doing it. When Apple does the same thing it is considered draconian and
'closed'.

~~~
MatthewPhillips
Please reserve such comments for Techcrunch articles. Let's keep HN at adult-
level conversations.

~~~
mberning
Please let people police the site with their upvotes and downvotes. Your
highbrow analysis of my comment adds even less to the discourse.

~~~
stanleydrew
I respectfully disagree. While I wish it weren't true, comments are voted down
for more than just lack of value. In this case you might think that a bunch of
"android fanboys" are voting you down because they disagree with your comment.
The upvotes on the "highbrow analysis" show you that there is a specific
problem with the tone and quality of your comment, not just the content.
That's (hopefully) constructive criticism.

