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.
As much as people online complain about fragmentation, there is no evidence (yet) that the general consumer cares that much. "Google experience" devices are not outselling the customized devices.
People need to tone down the rhetoric, in my opinion. Android already is being "taken seriously". Let's not make small problems out to be big problems. Android doesn't have any big problems, as it's being adopted by manufacturers and consumers at a rapid pace.
Is fragmentation really the issue? I think the issue is quality. Every android phone I've used was very different from the last. My friends G1 isn't a lot like my Vibrant and my Vibrant isn't a lot like my old EVO. Three different GUIs! Heck, Samsung decided to put in their own filesystem on the Vibrant and all Vibrant owners suffer from random lag.
Each phone has a different camera app, different gallery, different everything. Its annoying. They're all more or less phoned in - if you pardon the pun.
What google really needs to do is address its ugly stock GUI and put some shiny on there. Put in a decent media player. Put in lots of Apple-quality apps so that OEMs don't feel the need to completely redo everything because the stock android looks like something a defense contractor would make.
Maybe they can even make custom GUI enhancements run in userspace so that updates don't require redoing them. There should be a skinnable layer on top of system widgets. Heck, once you have that then google can start pushing out its own updates to phones and OEMs won't need to wait 8 months to port them over.
One can dream, I guess. Or I can buy an iphone again or move to Win7. My little Android experiment isn't really going anywhere. Its just as locked down as an iphone in practice and I suffer with Samsung's or HTC's low quality enhancements.
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.
> "Google is using the only leverage they have (early access and the google apps)"
Walking isn't such a big issue these days. Which is likely why Google feels secure doing this. Windows CE is dead. Phone 7 is struggling. Nokia essentially gave up, removing MeeGo as a concern.
So where does, say, HTC go if Google pushes them to drop the Sense UI?
They certainly don't have the software expertise to fork and run. None of the Android OEMs do. At the rate mobile is advancing, they'd be irrelevant in 18 months. And there is literally no-one else who is delivering a product they can use to maintain their sales.
I honestly wonder if Google isn't more concerned about Amazon than the OEMs.
As for carriers... they're only a real issue in the US; where Android's growth isn't that strong anyway. I mean, is it even possible for AT&T and Verizon to support Android less these days? I haven't seen a single Droid ad since January.
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.
I remember when Verizon disabled Bluetooth file transfer on some of their "feature" phones, forcing users to use send a MMS or e-mail, thus inducing data charges.
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.
>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.
Can you assuming that you have C skills tell Linus that we all should use a new file system called FUD? NO! Is Linux any less open because you cannot ? NO!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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'.
Not exactly the same, iOS is not and will never be open source. Google is only delaying the source release of honeycomb until they are happy with the product.
[+] [-] haseman|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] MatthewPhillips|15 years ago|reply
People need to tone down the rhetoric, in my opinion. Android already is being "taken seriously". Let's not make small problems out to be big problems. Android doesn't have any big problems, as it's being adopted by manufacturers and consumers at a rapid pace.
[+] [-] drzaiusapelord|15 years ago|reply
Each phone has a different camera app, different gallery, different everything. Its annoying. They're all more or less phoned in - if you pardon the pun.
What google really needs to do is address its ugly stock GUI and put some shiny on there. Put in a decent media player. Put in lots of Apple-quality apps so that OEMs don't feel the need to completely redo everything because the stock android looks like something a defense contractor would make.
Maybe they can even make custom GUI enhancements run in userspace so that updates don't require redoing them. There should be a skinnable layer on top of system widgets. Heck, once you have that then google can start pushing out its own updates to phones and OEMs won't need to wait 8 months to port them over.
One can dream, I guess. Or I can buy an iphone again or move to Win7. My little Android experiment isn't really going anywhere. Its just as locked down as an iphone in practice and I suffer with Samsung's or HTC's low quality enhancements.
[+] [-] alphamerik|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] roc|15 years ago|reply
Walking isn't such a big issue these days. Which is likely why Google feels secure doing this. Windows CE is dead. Phone 7 is struggling. Nokia essentially gave up, removing MeeGo as a concern.
So where does, say, HTC go if Google pushes them to drop the Sense UI?
They certainly don't have the software expertise to fork and run. None of the Android OEMs do. At the rate mobile is advancing, they'd be irrelevant in 18 months. And there is literally no-one else who is delivering a product they can use to maintain their sales.
I honestly wonder if Google isn't more concerned about Amazon than the OEMs.
As for carriers... they're only a real issue in the US; where Android's growth isn't that strong anyway. I mean, is it even possible for AT&T and Verizon to support Android less these days? I haven't seen a single Droid ad since January.
[+] [-] pkulak|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dsuriano|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bonch|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rbarooah|15 years ago|reply
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|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] othermaciej|15 years ago|reply
Why did you use this example? Apple isn't tightening control of WebKit. WebKit is a considerably more open project than Android.
[+] [-] shareme|15 years ago|reply
Can you assuming that you have C skills tell Linus that we all should use a new file system called FUD? NO! Is Linux any less open because you cannot ? NO!
please effing stop with the damn fud
[+] [-] dolinsky|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Athtar|15 years ago|reply
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|15 years ago|reply
If I were Facebook, I'd just avoid Google entirely and use alternative apps for everything. Amazon Appstore, Facebook Messaging for email, etc.
[+] [-] aristidb|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ShabbyDoo|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|15 years ago|reply
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_15/b42230412...
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|15 years ago|reply
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|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] daniel_solano|15 years ago|reply
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|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] naner|15 years ago|reply
Haha, oops! That is kind of funny. I can't believe Google didn't anticipate this type of thing.
[+] [-] kenjackson|15 years ago|reply
But I guess with the new Amazon market the old Google carrot/stick is no longer as compelling.
[+] [-] lftl|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] protomyth|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mberning|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MatthewPhillips|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alphamerik|15 years ago|reply