

Why Android houses should give Google the 'fork you' - fvbock
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/13/android_forking/

======
martythemaniak
There many things wrong with that article.

First, you gotta wonder at Amazon's PR machine - without even a product demo
or announcement, let alone a unit sold, they're already somehow Apple's #1
competitor.

Second, what Amazon has apparently chosen to do (the Nook way) isn't a "fork",
but a UI skin like MIUI. The OS would be the same and would be compatible with
all Android apps, but the graphics and the homescreen launcher different.

Third, you have to keep in mind the fact that not even Apple has been able to
offer a Google-free product - maps, youtube and gmail integration are still a
core, most-have part of iOS. An amazon tablet without Gmaps or navigation
would be pretty lacking compared to the competition. The barrier to handset
makers becoming full-fledged software and services providers is quite immense.

Having said all that, I think there's quite a bit of differentiation they
could do without trying to out-compete Google at their core-competency.
Android allows innovative new products to be built and handset makers have
been slow to take advantage of this. Examples are Motorola's Webtop, Kyocera's
dual-screen phone, HTC and Samsung's stylus-optional tablets, nVidia's Tegra
Zone, SE's Xperia Play etc. If they focused on executing offerings like these
rather than redoing Google's work, they could both differentiate themselves
and still take advantage of all the great features that come with a Google-
licensed Android.

------
Mavrik
Fragmenting Android even further would only kill their competitvness. None of
the developers want to go back to times when you had to build your app for
each manufacturer's phones separately.

Forking Android would just push more quality apps back to Apples consistent
platform.

------
roc
> _"the billion-dollar question is why mobile handset manufacturers bother to
> play ball with Mountain View at all."_

If the smartphone revolution has taught us _anything_ , it should be that you
don't just flip a switch and build a competitive smartphone OS. Microsoft and
Palm both created very polished, capable, user-friendly and robust operating
systems that have gone _nowhere_.

The Android situation isn't all roses for all partners. But there's a
considerable amount of work involved in even _attempting_ a fork and a
considerable amount of risk.

------
vondur
It seems to me as soon as they forked it, Oracle would be suing them. Again,
they would still have to pay for it. Maybe if they got together and purchased
WebOS, that would be a more viable option. I wonder if Amazon has dealt with
Oracle over the their fork of Android?

------
zitterbewegung
Could the android houses band together and create their own fork with a shared
software repository and a shared cloud? That could be a much better tactic
than going it alone from a cost perspective.

~~~
bradleyland
That'd be a sideways move. The handset manufacturers are looking for a way to
stand out. They need something that you can't get elsewhere. The problem is,
none of them are really sure of what that "something" is. Simply moving to a
non-Google version of Android doesn't differentiate anyone, it just creates a
level paying field where handsets continue to become commoditized.

------
mrj
Or they could forget doing their own fork and snag cyanogenmod or one of the
many great custom roms that build on the open source core.

Oh wait, Samsung already hired Cyanogen...

------
Mordor
How about phone manufacturers do both and see which sells the most phones
(like they normally do).

