

Then Welcome To Android - mrshoe
http://daringfireball.net/2010/09/the_welcome_to_android

======
bad_user
Open-source licenses have nothing to do with trademarks ... and articles from
daringfireball.net have zero insight while being biased to extremes.

Why do people read it? Probably because most people search for approval,
maybe?

The conditions were pretty clear from the start ... if you want to use the
Android trademark and have access to its marketplace, you have to play by
Google's rules, which are actually pretty relaxed and many people complain
that Android is too open, allowing mobile carriers to load crap on it.

This is the Achile's heel of "Free Software", and GPLv3 won't solve it because
you need the cooperation of the mobile carriers / phone makers.

I actually think that personal computing is were it is today because
Microsoft/IBM commoditized hardware, with all personal computers running the
same OS.

Google is copying the same recipe.

No matter how good iPhones get, people have different needs and different
styles. There are always going to be pinkish phones around or phones with
physical keyboards, or cheaper phones that you can buy for $100 without a
contract.

Creating an OS that attracts phone makers, which in turn drives customers
attention towards software, which in turn lowers prices on phones, which in
turn sells more Android devices, which in turn makes Google's search engine
ubiquitous for mobile phones ... Google is practically solving the chicken/egg
problem here :)

~~~
jacobolus
> _I actually think that personal computing is were it is today because
> Microsoft/IBM commoditized hardware, with all personal computers running the
> same OS._

That’s a vacuously true statement.

The question is whether “where it is today” is better (possibly cheaper) or
worse (less innovative) for Microsoft’s/Intel’s bullying. Any answer to that
is of course completely speculative. Personally I find the speculation behind
the “worse” answer most compelling.

Having a super cheap/free software platform ultimately discourages innovation
in software platforms (why spend a ton of resources competing with something
free and “good enough”), and so I hope that projects like Palm’s, Apple’s,
Microsoft’s, etc. continue for a good long time, if only to keep the pressure
on Google, a company well known for abandoning projects.

~~~
bad_user
> _The question is whether “where it is today” is better (possibly cheaper) or
> worse (less innovative) for Microsoft’s/Intel’s bullying_

I should have expanded on that.

I think it is better because computers got cheap and universal and a standard.
A PC used to cost thousands of dollars, and now you can get one for a couple
of hundred. I know first-hand what this meant, as I live in Eastern Europe and
I could only get one after I found something cheap.

Yeah, it sucked that Windows wasn't particularly innovative, but the software
running on top was innovative with lots of competition going on. The hardware
running on top was competitive too ... even Intel faced stiff competition.

So there are both good and bad parts about this ... and the environment is
certainly a lot better than the waled garden the mobile carriers are keeping
us in.

------
mcantelon
FUD. Unlike Apple, which mandates only One True App Store, Google does nothing
to prevent anyone from creating their own "app store" (or just selling their
app from their site, without relying on an "app store" at all).

As far as the Google Location Service claim I have a hard time believing
Google bars the use of other location services on the phone. They may require
the use of it with their Google branded apps, to maintain quality and prevent
the apps from being used to harvest location info (and having fallout from
that associated with their brand), but Google's apps are licensed separately
from the Android OS itself.

~~~
jsz0
From a practical standpoint not being allowed into the Android Market is a
death sentence. The only way alternative App Stores would catch on is: a)
carrier or handset maker replacements b) piracy stores c) increased
restrictions on Google's Market that create a demand for a free App Store.
None of these options are good for developers so maybe the FUD is somewhat
justified if the only solution is making it more difficult for a user to
obtain your app.

That being said it hasn't happened yet so making an issue out of it does seem
FUD-ish. It comes with the territory though. If you want to dominate a market
you have to expect scrutiny. People are endlessly entertained by (perceived)
hypocrisy. Google pimped Android as being the open alternative so anything
they do, however minor, to distance themselves from that is going to be big
news. Android has clearly hit that critical mass where negative stories are
becoming more interesting than positive ones.

~~~
moultano
You can install apps that aren't in an app store. You can just download the
app from a website like any other piece of software. You have to check a
checkbox in system settings to allow it, but you are prompted to do so upon
downloading the app.

~~~
evgen
_You_ can, and probably just about everyone on HN could do so, but the vast
majority of the phone-using public can't/won't. Defaults like this become
self-reinforcing and apps that prosper outside of the built-in distribution
channels will be very, very rare.

~~~
moultano
It's really easy to change the default though. You don't have to go deep into
a menu to find the setting, it _prompts_ you when you download the app. It's
no worse than any other scary warning that users have become inured to on
every other platform.

~~~
jbrennan
I would be willing to wager the vast majority of users never become "used to"
dealing with every other platform. My general understanding is most of them
are are completely terrified of computers.

Modern smartphone OSes (iOS and Android at least) have a chance to take all
the scary away. So far, iOS is doing well, and Android looks to be too. But
really only because they have non-scary user interfaces with stellar defaults.
And as far as most users are concerned, defaults are just how the OS _works_.

------
macrael
I feel like a lot of the comments here are missing the point in discussing
alternative app stores and the importance of side loading. The lawsuit was not
filed by Motorola, arguing that they have a right to Google's app store. The
allegations come from Skyhook, claiming that Google broke the law by coercing
Motorola and Samsung into breaking contracts they had signed.

I'm all for Google being more discriminating in licensing their apps and app
store. It would be great if they prevented crap like un-installable apps or
disabling tethering as prerequisites for compliance. But here, they allegedly
prevented Motorola from using a different location service, a service that in
Motorola's mind was better than the one Google provided, on their phones.

Motorola could have taken a stand and forgone Google approval, but that
wouldn't have really helped anything. Whatever boon Skyhook presented to
Motorola wasn't worth the hassle of rolling their own app store, their own
mail and calendar apps, and forgoing whatever other Google assistance comes
with a "compliant" handset. So, Skyhook got left by the wayside, and
Motorola's new phones are a little bit worse because Google said so.

It's true that if Google's terms become very onerous, all of these handset
makers and carriers do have the ability to fork and go their own way which is
important and "open". But throwing their weight around like this to prioritize
their own services over competitors, especially when they stand idly by as
Verizon makes the Android experience worse for their customers, smacks of
hypocrisy in the face of their VP's quoted comments.

This is interesting news, worthy of good discussion. I'm disappointed that
Gruber's take is the only one that made the front page, it appears people's
opinion of him muddy the conversation.

~~~
jacobolus
I think what happened is that people read Gruber’s post without stopping to
figure out the context (frankly, not all that hard to figure out, but
apparently just hard enough). To be fair, he could have been a bit more
explicit about what this is all about instead of assuming his readers have
been paying attention to the story.

I’m also pretty disappointed in the responses in this discussion though. One
of the most knee-jerk lowest signal-to-noise discussions I’ve ever seen here.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
It's a response to a one-note troll, of course the signal to noise ratio is
going to be low.

For those not following along at home, Gruber's contention is that Android's
problem is that it is open. Not just open, but _too_ open in fact. Except in
this post where quotes a Google employee talking about Android being open so
he can contrast it with how _non-open_ Google's Android is by competing with
Skyhook.

No wonder the comments are confused, he's arguing both sides of this issue.

------
combray
I'm not sure why all these commenters here are going with the knee jerk, mind-
numbing "apple fan boy" response. This isn't about apple or whatever the app
store policies are.

The point of the law suit is that Android doesn't give everyone the "choice"
that they think. This is a story because Google says that they are unlike
Apple and give everyone a choice, but they (allegedly) use their weight to
force carriers to use Google software instead of theird party.

(Apple, for the record, doesn't do crap like this. You know up front that you
need to join the mothership, and they clearly upfront about shutting you down
as soon as you deviate.)

Basically, Google ain't no FSF.

~~~
beej71
Yes, Google prides themselves on that, and it looks bad when they pull things
like this, but their generosity is not unbounded.

But they do an awful lot of stuff with the Android platform that is really
"open" without equal in the market, and I'm pretty sure they're still
qualified to keep pushing that angle.

I agree with you on why this is a story. But it's not a very compelling one.
What are these Android enthusiasts going to do? Go with Apple?

------
wccrawford
Yes, Google has complete control over the Android Market. Good thing that's
not the only way to install apps! Someone could create a competing market if
they wanted. That someone hasn't already actually surprises me.

~~~
mcantelon
At least one exists (and probably more):

<http://slideme.org/>

------
watty
Ugh, much better article here: [http://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/news/2010/09/skyhook-goog...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/news/2010/09/skyhook-google-made-oems-break-business-deals-ripped-
patents.ars)

------
jrockway
This seems like saying that Costco is starving the poor because you have to
have a membership to shop there. It's true, you do, but there are plenty of
other stores selling the same products that don't require the membership. You
don't like Costco's rules, you can go somewhere else.

Archos did this; they couldn't use Google's marketplace on the A5IT, so they
made their own market. Now it sucks because they have no clue how to program,
but the fact that it's possible shows how open Android is.

Don't like Google's rules? You can completely remove all traces of them from
the code they gave you.

~~~
j_b_f
True, and I believe Verizon is in the process of doing just that.

~~~
jrockway
Yeah. As a Google fan, I think this is sad, but I don't really care. I don't
intend to do business with Verizon, so they can install whatever anti-hacking
devices on their phones they like. Is it harmful to users and society? Yes.
Can they do it if the want to? Right now, yes.

If people care, they will vote with their wallet. If people don't care, then I
guess I'm stuck on T-Mobile. (Actually, I use Sprint. But I vote T-Mobile as
least-likely-to-fuck-everyone-for-no-reason.)

------
cageface
I can't say I've had much cause to regret my DFB boycott yet. The Google vs
Apple fanboy thing has become tedious.

~~~
ryandvm
Indeed. I can't even read Gruber anymore because it feels like Steve Jobs is
pacing back and forth behind him sipping green tea and telling him what to
type.

------
doki_pen
Open source has nothing to do with it. First of all, these devices ship with
Google branding. There is licensing and restrictions involved. Secondly, I'm
sure google owns the name "Android", much the way Mozilla owns the name
Firefox. You can fork it all you want, but you can't call it Firefox. Third,
I'm sure Motorola and company get it under a special negotiated licence. They
would never want it as GPL, as that would mean they have to release all their
code. I don't know the details, but those seem like three very solid reasons
why they would have to play by Google's rules.

~~~
rimantas
It sure has nothing to do with the open source. It's about what Google says
and what Google does. Go read the article.

------
storm
Yes, Google forces OEM to include some of their apps and use some of their
service components to carry the Android name. It's an outrage. Not at all open
like Apple's dealings with their OE-er, wait

Gruber is definitely consigned to the killfile now - this is the most blindly
partisan waste of bytes I've seen yet. We'd all do well to stop pouring so
much collective time and energy into divisive, navel-gazing bullshit like this
- and the cyclic exchanges that they inevitably spawn.

~~~
irons
"Divisive"? You think Gruber's sowing discord among the Android faithful? I
think he's highlighting a lawsuit that exposes some hypocrisy in Google's
public branding, branding which some people have taken a wee bit too close to
heart.

------
smallchou
Because no one in the history of the world (especially not a lawyer) has ever
written a legal document that biased facts in any way?

~~~
Legion
There's no Reality Distortion Field in effect so the author of that blog is in
unfamiliar territory.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Didn't Apple just drop skyhook as well? Isn't that worth mentioning?

------
melvinram
Of course you can't give up ability to use your name/trademark without making
sure that it maintains it's integrity. Why is John surprised or find it
remarkable?

I'm surprised Google hasn't gone much further then they have. Looking at the
crap AT&T is pulling with their "Android" phones must make Google disgusted
but it's the price of free & open source.

Trademark is the only point of control and I'm glad they are exercising their
rights. Carriers almost never care about their users. At least with Google
their interests are at least semi-aligned with making the users (me) like
their experience with Android phones.

~~~
elblanco
Don't forget that in the U.S. legal system, a company is obligated to protect
its trademark or loose it.

------
danielrhodes
I don't know about the location thing, that seems a bit against the openness
of Android, but qualifying a device/modification of Android to have access to
the Marketplace is not. This isn't between the developer and Google, it's
between OEMs and Google. Google doesn't want to hold the responsibility when
OEMs make some modification to Android and their customers get a bad
impression of a service because the OEM decided to make some incompatible
change. Android devices and versions are already fragmented enough, and not
having some kind of compliance built-in would be a downward spiral. In some
cases, some OEMs and carriers have chosen to go with their own marketplace
rather than use the Android Marketplace.

------
Tyrannosaurs
This is a fair story (though overstated) because, as with carrier
modifications, it's another example of a theoretically open platform being
restricted in practice.

Yes OEMs don't need Google's approval to use Android, but will they go against
Google's wishes if Google branding helps shift handsets, and if by going along
with Google they get closer involvement with the OS development, upgrades and
so on?

Yes anyone else can set up another App Store but how much of a benefit is that
when Google use their vast might to make it unlikely that 90% of people owning
phones will ever know anything but the Google sanctioned one?

I don't think it's a case of Google vs. Apple, more a case of the theory of
openness against the practice of it.

You'd be foolish to overstate what this means for Android, but similarly you'd
be unwise not to see that the practicalities of the situation mean that it's
not quite as perfectly open as many would hope.

------
joe-mccann
Oh McGruber and you're Apple fanaticism, this is the second thing I've read
today by highly regarded devs attempting to defecate on Android's stance on
"open-ness" and it is simply pathetic.

The Apple fanboys are clinging to desperate tactics when they x-promote
garbage like this.

Of course, take statements out of context from Google I/O and match them up
with something to the narrative you are trying to portray: Google as a liar
and a cheat.

How about Google having some authority on a marketplace THEY host or services
THEY offer? Yeah that is totally unreasonable, right?

And yes, you CAN choose to download and install apps from anywhere and you can
build your own services and dump them on your devices. So that is a closed
system?

Shameful and pathetic...the desperation is deafening...

