How will the partners differentiate if they are not able to take liberties?
What happens to google when apple makes a bold new move into the cloud?
The reason vendors and carriers liked Android was because they cold make it their own. That?s the one thing it had going for it. Now, it does have an app ecosystem and will likely have even more apps running on it that are playable across more models due to the control, which is obviously Google reasoning for the bait-and-switch tactic at this point, but I wonder about previous comments about how WP& and other mobile OSes are cheaper for vendors than Android due to the licensing costs per unit being less than the in-house costs for getting Android to run on these devices.
This was the only solution for Google, I just hope (for their sake) it doesn?t blow up in their face, but I?m not optimistic. I think this will give their weaker competitors some much needed lead time to get back into the race.
Uh, maybe instead of competing with themselves they will compete with WP7, RIM, Apple, webOS???
The basic side effect of the Microsoft monopoly method, of which Android is a variant, is that hardware makers get put in a profit squeeze. If any of them are smart, they'll go back to programming a branch of Android, or going off on their own.
>> The OTHER open issue Google has, is that their whole Java/Droid framework is open, Chinese hackers have stripped out all their "forced advertising" code, that subsidizes their "inexpensive -- NOT cheap" product.
"closed" or open has never been the issue -- it's that the PLATFORM was not integrated. Who can develop and how apps get onto the device is a separate issue from that. But having a gatekeeper, is a bit of a hindrance for a developer but I'd argue -- the BEST thing for the consumer.
Now, in a decade, their might be an issue with Apple being too big and making 30% on all the apps they deploy -- but that again, is a negotiation between businesses -- as long as the consumer is getting a fair price and a reliable product -- they don't care.
This makes no difference to actual end-users. Limiting what changes the manufacturer and/or carrier can make to Android may make the UI experience more consistent, but it won't affect what I think is most important, namely the software upgrade path.
Both manufacturers and carriers will continue to deny or delay updates, and lock down the firmware to make it difficult for even 3rd parties from enabling you to do so.
The basic side effect of the Microsoft monopoly method, of which Android is a variant, is that hardware makers get put in a profit squeeze. If any of them are smart, they'll go back to programming a branch of Android, or going off on their own.
So they can't make their own layer of UI crap on the handset. I guess all that leaves is the screen size, type, CPU, GPU, battery life, voice performance, hardware quality, form factor...
They can still use Android, but they know it isn't worth much without the Google services part to it.
Everyone here complains about the GPL vs. BSD/ASL2. Now that you just witnessed what people can do with this BSD like license, you all are complaining?
I don't think the complaint is about GPL vs BSD at all. Rather, the complaint is that "they said it was open and now they are behaving as though it were closed."
I don't think too many people around here would really care if Google completely closed Android (well, if that were legally possible, it's not of course). It's just the hypocrisy of blasting Apple for being closed and then acting in "less-than-open" fashion that giving all the fanbois a field day.
Quote:
I'll remember that the next time someone comes in here calling the FSF a bunch of religious zealots or freetards.
Yeah, the FSF crowd are a bunch of religious zealots :-)
I'd like to know this -- didn't Google learn anything from Microsoft's mistakes? They seem to be headed down the same path; especially with the whole Bing thing.
I don't think the complaint is about GPL vs BSD at all...
If Android was 100% GPL they couldn't pull this "closed" behavior they are doing now.
Quote:
I'd like to know this -- didn't Google learn anything from Microsoft's mistakes? They seem to be headed down the same path; especially with the whole Bing thing.
"What do all men with power want? More power."
It's easy to judge from an armchair. I doubt me or anyone else would behave any differently if they have a chance to make billions.
I'm happy they are taking some control back, Samsungs awful Touch-wiz, and Motorolas Moto-blur UI overlays suck and give Android a bad name. Pure Google Android all the way. Its not like Android is loosing market share. It's number one but I want ultimate world dominance for Android.
Apple doesn't understand what open means. Remember when they said the Facetime protocol would be open? What it alls come down to is money and market share. Google is doing what they think they should to address the fragmentation issues. The problem with these huge companies like Apple and Google is every move they make, they'll piss off someone who knows how to come to forums like this one and complain extra loudly.
I'm happy they are taking some control back, Samsungs awful Touch-wiz, and Motorolas Moto-blur UI overlays suck and give Android a bad name. Pure Google Android all the way. Its not like Android is loosing market share.
Why? What possible personal deficiency would lead you to such a pointless aspiration?
Comments
How will the partners differentiate if they are not able to take liberties?
What happens to google when apple makes a bold new move into the cloud?
The reason vendors and carriers liked Android was because they cold make it their own. That?s the one thing it had going for it. Now, it does have an app ecosystem and will likely have even more apps running on it that are playable across more models due to the control, which is obviously Google reasoning for the bait-and-switch tactic at this point, but I wonder about previous comments about how WP& and other mobile OSes are cheaper for vendors than Android due to the licensing costs per unit being less than the in-house costs for getting Android to run on these devices.
This was the only solution for Google, I just hope (for their sake) it doesn?t blow up in their face, but I?m not optimistic. I think this will give their weaker competitors some much needed lead time to get back into the race.
Uh, maybe instead of competing with themselves they will compete with WP7, RIM, Apple, webOS???
The basic side effect of the Microsoft monopoly method, of which Android is a variant, is that hardware makers get put in a profit squeeze. If any of them are smart, they'll go back to programming a branch of Android, or going off on their own.
Step 1) Close barn door.
Step 2) Check for horses.
Step 3) Profit!
>> The OTHER open issue Google has, is that their whole Java/Droid framework is open, Chinese hackers have stripped out all their "forced advertising" code, that subsidizes their "inexpensive -- NOT cheap" product.
"closed" or open has never been the issue -- it's that the PLATFORM was not integrated. Who can develop and how apps get onto the device is a separate issue from that. But having a gatekeeper, is a bit of a hindrance for a developer but I'd argue -- the BEST thing for the consumer.
Now, in a decade, their might be an issue with Apple being too big and making 30% on all the apps they deploy -- but that again, is a negotiation between businesses -- as long as the consumer is getting a fair price and a reliable product -- they don't care.
Both manufacturers and carriers will continue to deny or delay updates, and lock down the firmware to make it difficult for even 3rd parties from enabling you to do so.
Open/Closed whatever
a new word - Android is Clopen
Maybe you already know this and that's where you got this word.
The restaurant industry uses the word "clopen". If servers have to close one evening and then open the next day it's called a clopen.
Open/Closed whatever
a new word - Android is Clopen
Clopen or Oplose?
Clopen or Oplose?
Android is now Glügled?
You can still fork Android, though, can't you?
You can stick a fork in it.
The basic side effect of the Microsoft monopoly method, of which Android is a variant, is that hardware makers get put in a profit squeeze. If any of them are smart, they'll go back to programming a branch of Android, or going off on their own.
So they can't make their own layer of UI crap on the handset. I guess all that leaves is the screen size, type, CPU, GPU, battery life, voice performance, hardware quality, form factor...
They can still use Android, but they know it isn't worth much without the Google services part to it.
Everyone here complains about the GPL vs. BSD/ASL2. Now that you just witnessed what people can do with this BSD like license, you all are complaining?
I don't think the complaint is about GPL vs BSD at all. Rather, the complaint is that "they said it was open and now they are behaving as though it were closed."
I don't think too many people around here would really care if Google completely closed Android (well, if that were legally possible, it's not of course). It's just the hypocrisy of blasting Apple for being closed and then acting in "less-than-open" fashion that giving all the fanbois a field day.
I'll remember that the next time someone comes in here calling the FSF a bunch of religious zealots or freetards.
Yeah, the FSF crowd are a bunch of religious zealots :-)
I'd like to know this -- didn't Google learn anything from Microsoft's mistakes? They seem to be headed down the same path; especially with the whole Bing thing.
I don't think the complaint is about GPL vs BSD at all...
If Android was 100% GPL they couldn't pull this "closed" behavior they are doing now.
I'd like to know this -- didn't Google learn anything from Microsoft's mistakes? They seem to be headed down the same path; especially with the whole Bing thing.
"What do all men with power want? More power."
It's easy to judge from an armchair. I doubt me or anyone else would behave any differently if they have a chance to make billions.
You can still fork Android, though, can't you?
I wouldn't worry too much. IMHO Android has been "forked" from the beginning. I've always said it's a big forking mess.
The open source pre-gingerbread parts yes.
They never said Honeycomb won't be open source. There is no change in the license type.
But "open" is Android's claim to fame! Welcome to reality Google! Open leads to fragmentation.
Hey, Android is officially fragmented for quite some time. Check this.
If Android was 100% GPL they couldn't pull this "closed" behavior they are doing now.
Can anything really be less than 100% GPL? I thought you either have to make it 100% GPL or 0% GPL.
I'm happy they are taking some control back, Samsungs awful Touch-wiz, and Motorolas Moto-blur UI overlays suck and give Android a bad name. Pure Google Android all the way. Its not like Android is loosing market share.
Why? What possible personal deficiency would lead you to such a pointless aspiration?