

How Google Controls Android: Digging into the Skyhook Filings - kenjackson
http://thisismynext.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-lawsuit-motorola-samsung/

======
kenjackson
Lots of interesting stuff in the story.

For example the part where Google blocks Motorola from using Skyhook, but then
Samsung ships with Skyhook. Moto goes back to Google to request a waiver so it
can ship Skyhook:

"•Google denied the waiver on June 22, saying that Andy Rubin had already
denied Sanjay Jha’s request for a waiver. Oh, and “compatibility is a learning
process,” and “Motorola should not be concerned with other OEMs and their
devices.” Look not at the world, Motorola. Look only inside yourself."

How can a phone company not be concerned with other OEMs and their devices?
That's like telling Google to not be concerned with other search engines.

------
mckoss
The announcement that they were going to strengthen the requirements on
vendors to get the Google apps received enthusiastic applause at Google IO.
Manufacturers and carriers have shown a desire to "differentiate" their offers
even if it means installing crapware that slows down their ability to keep up
with platform updates.

I think Google is taking the right steps to keep Android a high quality
platform to the benefit of developers and end users.

~~~
joebadmo
I agree. At some point, openness for vendors/carriers is in tension with
openness for users. As a user, I'm happy to see Google clamp down on the
vendors/carriers, if it means they're finally taking my side. Hopefully that's
what it means. (I'm encouraged to see that ChromeOS hardware will be mandated
to be jailbreakable.)

------
spiffworks
On the face of it, it just seems like clever agreement drafting by Google.
Google's agreement with Motorola requires Motorola to allow location data
collection by Google, whereas it's agreement with Skyhook explicitly forbids
it. At that point, it's simply a question of Motorola choosing its most
valuable partner. Whether this is anticompetitive or not is clearly up for
question. Regardless, it's become really clear that Google has far more power
over shipping devices than it has ever admitted in public.

------
sdz
This is extremely interesting. One thing I didn't understand was how this
location database is being built. Is Google collecting GPS signals and WIFI
hotspots so that the two can be associated to pinpoint your location? If so,
does that mean Android phones are periodically sending your location back to
Google? Do Apple, Nokia, RIM, and Microsoft do the same thing?

~~~
drewvolpe
Yes, exactly. And that's what the fight is over. Google doesn't want to get
cut out from having android phones send them the wifi points they see as
Google needs that data to build their database.

Apple used to use Skyhook and more recently has created their own by having
iPhones send them data. The recent privacy blow up over the iPhone's keeping a
location log wasn't actually the user's location, but a cache of their version
of the skyhook database.

------
PetrolMan
A piece I may have just missed in the article is what the advantage of using
Skyhook is/was over the Google offering.

From the Skyhook website:

Skyhook's Devices can easily provide location-awareness to any Wi-Fi enabled
device. Its portable architecture delivers location while minimizing device-
specific implementation time. Skyhook's Core Engine is an entirely software-
only location system and does not require specialized hardware chipsets. The
lightweight client can be configured to run across a broad range of mobile
operating systems, devices and platforms.

So was the advantage just speed of implementation and the cost of the
hardware?

~~~
alanfalcon
The advantage seemed to be the perception (based in reality or not) that
Skyhook's services resulted in better (faster/more reliable) results than
Google's offering. It's possible that Skyhook's sales team just did a better
job of selling an identical product, but the e-mails seem to indicate that
Google definitely had historically offered an inferior product (thought they
felt their current offering was equal to or better than Skyhook's).

~~~
drewvolpe
It is interesting how quick the Googlers were to dismiss Motorola's test.
Rather than understand what their potential customer looked for in their
product, they simply said "we tested it in San Francisco and our results were
better".

------
mikle
Apart from me being a bit shocked at how this seems like evil (and Google
"Does no evil") this raised an interesting issue: Look at how rabid Google is
about Data.

------
blinkingled
Is Google stupid enough to be damned by forgetting history? This all sounds
too much like Microsoft in the Antitrust era.

It's a freaking location database. You don't risk bad PR and anti competitive
label for WiFi location data. All phones pretty much can do cell tower based
or proper AGPS based location.

------
MatthewPhillips
Nilay Patel always writes interesting stuff, glad he's in technology.

Looks anticompetitive to me folks. They're using their dominant position in
mobile to support their dominant position in location. Someone's head needs to
roll over this.

~~~
ajross
I'm not going to defend the behavior ethically, but this isn't clear to me
legally. It's not at all clear that their "dominant" in either of these
sectors. Currently Android is just barely ahead of iOS in smart phones, and at
the time of the detailed events lagged substantially.

There's nothing legally wrong with "bundling" one product with another. It
happens all the time, in all sorts of markets. It only becomes a problem under
antitrust law, and I don't see Android as a monopoly yet.

But yeah, it's a little shady. Clearly there is harm to the user base if there
isn't robust competition for location services.

------
billmcneale
It's funny to see Mac advocates criticize Google for letting Android go wild
and suffer fragmentation from it and then criticize them as well if they
decide to enforce a few rules to improve consistency.

Damned if you do...

~~~
pennig
I see it as two separate concerns. The first time around, folks criticized the
result of the "open" nature of the platform (i.e. fragmentation). Now, these
folks are criticizing the so-called hypocrisy in the "open" mantra itself.

