You are behind the times. For starters they do require google's permission to license Android. Without that permission they can use one of the earlier versions of Android that is now Open Source, but they cannot market the handset as being Android.
This is the kind of misconceptions you get if you only read Appleinsider and use that as your source on Android.
You don't need permission to use Android. That's the meaning of open source. You do, however, have to conform with Google's wishes if you want to deploy Google's proprietary apps and you want the "with Google" branding on your handsets.
And they have never said they were backing away from that model. This whole idea that Google has closed up has come because Google said they would delay the public release of Honeycomb's source code. That was delay. They never said they would outright not release it. And that would in no way impact Nokia anyway, which isn't even focused on tablets right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer
As to being able to do what they want within Android - look at this article from Gizmodo
According to Bloomberg, Google has spent the last several months tightening the reigns on its Android partners. They're having licensees sign "non-fragmentation clauses" that give Mountain View final say over the platform tweaks that can cripple a perfectly good phone. The OEMs are up in arms, obviously, but they shouldn't be. Because what Google's doing is making sure consumers know exactly what they're getting. They're making "Android" mean something again.
The no fragmentation clause has to do with UI skins that actually cause fragmentation, preventing apps from running properly or delaying OS updates, or worse, launching phones which are sometimes two OS versions back. Google's enforcement is certainly not a bad thing for consumers. And surely an OEM like Nokia starting from scratch could build its UI to conform the rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer
Android is no longer wide open, and Nokia, as the biggest handset maker in the world obviously wants to be able to distinguish itself from other OEMS. In the Android space it perhaps was unable to negotiate special treatment, but MS obviously has fewer problems with fragmentation - because MS doesn't have a smartphone platform successful enough enough to have fragments.
However, Elop never cited fragmentation as a problem. He said that Android wasn't open enough. He went so far as to put out that bizarre graphic where Apple is shown as a closed box and Android is an open box with flaps. Show me once where Elop said that Nokia's biggest problem with Android was fragmentation.
He specifically did state that he wanted Google to allow it to "customize" the OS. Having used Symbian, I am hard-pressed to think of something they need to add to Android (OS feature-wise) that it doesn't already have. And if they wanted to add their own proprietary apps, why would Google stop them?
I can only surmise a few conclusions. First, when Elop says customization, what he probably meant was that he wanted the Google branding without Google. So he wants to be able to have, say, the Android Market on his phone but without Google Maps (Ovi Maps instead), and be able to sign Bing as the default search engine. Heck, he might not even want Android Market on there, but might still want the Google branding (which is more recognizable to customers probably than a little green robot). Next, he surely wanted transition money and probably tried to play Google and MS against each other. Google didn't want to anger its other partners by bailing out a potential rival of theirs. Since WP7 is not gaining traction, even among OEMs, MS has no such problem. And it sues OEMs to get them to make phones anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if MS also made an implicit threat that Nokia would face a lawsuit if it picked Android.
And while I can appreciate how decent WP7 is, I definitely fail to see how this is a good deal for Nokia. We'll see how much customization they have when their handsets come out. But I just can't see how WP7 is more customizable than Android. I'd love somebody to show me how. Heck, even their concept phones look like every other WP7 handset....because that how WP7 is designed. And I can't see how MS would let Nokia deviate from that, because that would cause fragmentation, the very thing they love to laud over Android.
This is the kind of misconceptions you get if you only read Appleinsider and use that as your source on Android.
You don't need permission to use Android. That's the meaning of open source. You do, however, have to conform with Google's wishes if you want to deploy Google's proprietary apps and you want the "with Google" branding on your handsets.
Oddly apparently Wiki also only read appleinsider -
Even though the software is open-source, device manufacturers can not use Google's Android trademark unless Google certifies that the device complies with their Compatibility Definition Document (CDD). Devices must also meet this definition to be eligible to license Google's closed-source applications, including the Android Market.
Use of the Android trademark is not automatic, you don't need permission but you do have to meet their requirements.
Quote:
And they have never said they were backing away from that model. This whole idea that Google has closed up has come because Google said they would delay the public release of Honeycomb's source code. That was delay. They never said they would outright not release it. And that would in no way impact Nokia anyway, which isn't even focused on tablets right now.
That and their fight against handset makers using Bing, against use of Skyhook, etc.
Quote:
The no fragmentation clause has to do with UI skins that actually cause fragmentation, preventing apps from running properly or delaying OS updates, or worse, launching phones which are sometimes two OS versions back. Google's enforcement is certainly not a bad thing for consumers. And surely an OEM like Nokia starting from scratch could build its UI to conform the rules.
Actually it's more likely that an OEM like Nokia would want to break the rules in order to stand out. That's what they're saying they wanted to do, and it's not so unreasonable that we should assume that they're lying about it.
Quote:
Show me once where Elop said that Nokia's biggest problem with Android was fragmentation.
I never said he did. I said that Nokia's problem is Google's anti-fragmentation drive. Fragmentation is Google's problem.
Quote:
But I just can't see how WP7 is more customizable than Android. I'd love somebody to show me how.
It's more customizable because Microsoft is more desperate.
This is the kind of misconceptions you get if you only read Appleinsider and use that as your source on Android.
You don't need permission to use Android. That's the meaning of open source. You do, however, have to conform with Google's wishes if you want to deploy Google's proprietary apps and you want the "with Google" branding on your handsets.
The google apps are really part of the OS as most people see it. To be fair it is the part that google totally developed on their own without open source code - however legal - from SUN/Oracle Java. So we cant really expect them to open source that :-)
Quote:
And they have never said they were backing away from that model. This whole idea that Google has closed up has come because Google said they would delay the public release of Honeycomb's source code. That was delay. They never said they would outright not release it. And that would in no way impact Nokia anyway, which isn't even focused on tablets right now.
The google apps are really part of the OS as most people see it. To be fair it is the part that google totally developed on their own without open source code - however legal - from SUN/Oracle Java. So we cant really expect them to open source that :-)
Honeycomb is for everything.
Google Apps and Android are two totally separate developments. For instance, Google Maps are available on several platforms other than Android, and require a license for use.
As for your second point, Honeycomb was meant for tablets and NOT handsets according to Google and the OHA themselves. You're perhaps thinking of the upcoming Ice Cream build, which is intended to be a unifying OS for both handsets and tablets, again according to the developers.
The point is they open source what they want to, and not what they dont.
Ok, maybe HoneyComb is not IceCream ( why dont they use numbers FFS) but if honeycomb is delayed, and the followup is delayed, then this delay also affects the later product. Word.
( I wonder if Apple have not played a blinder here - if google's resources were all phones they would be pushing ahead on that OS alone, producing a Tablet OS and them merging it back is harder for Google. Apple had panned a tablet from the start, and is basically putting a lot of it's desktop OS into both anyway. Google has to put lots of resources into a product which has not set the world alight, and the phone OS gets delayed).
( I wonder if Apple have not played a blinder here - if google's resources were all phones they would be pushing ahead on that OS alone, producing a Tablet OS and them merging it back is harder for Google. Apple had panned a tablet from the start, and is basically putting a lot of it's desktop OS into both anyway. Google has to put lots of resources into a product which has not set the world alight, and the phone OS gets delayed).
I doubt that Google would be out developing iOS in terms of features even if there had never been an iPad. Google might be capable of doing so, but they simply don't have a financial need to do it. iOS devices generate substantial revenues for Google, killing iOS isn't any kind of priority for them. Android is designed to drive out dumb-phones and smartphones that use Bing.
Droid fanbois may want to kill the iPhone, but Google has no financial interest in doing so for as long as they remain the default search engine on iOS.
Samsung Inc. has emerged as a world’s largest Smartphone manufacturer leaving behind Nokia which was on top position from last 14 years. There as a tough competition to achieve this title as world’s largest device manufacturer Apple was also in the race. Finally Korean giant was able to achieve this position which was once thought impossible.
Additionally, Samsung left behind Apple, which was top Smartphone seller worldwide by capturing 31 percent market share during the first 3 months of current year. Despite of launching Windows Smartphones, Nokia also experienced 24 percent decline in its shipments.
It is not a rule, it is also not crazy. It is reality for their competitors. Samsungs market share advantage does not translate to more leverage from suppliers because they make 10x the number of different smart phones than Apple does. They have a wide variety of configurations and I doubt there is any particular part they buy more of then Apple.
The number of devices to offer is a choice that the brand makes. I'm sure there's plenty of rebadging going on making some parts interchangeable between models, but it's still pretty ridiculous to offer a dozen new phone models a year.
Comments
You are behind the times. For starters they do require google's permission to license Android. Without that permission they can use one of the earlier versions of Android that is now Open Source, but they cannot market the handset as being Android.
This is the kind of misconceptions you get if you only read Appleinsider and use that as your source on Android.
You don't need permission to use Android. That's the meaning of open source. You do, however, have to conform with Google's wishes if you want to deploy Google's proprietary apps and you want the "with Google" branding on your handsets.
And they have never said they were backing away from that model. This whole idea that Google has closed up has come because Google said they would delay the public release of Honeycomb's source code. That was delay. They never said they would outright not release it. And that would in no way impact Nokia anyway, which isn't even focused on tablets right now.
As to being able to do what they want within Android - look at this article from Gizmodo
According to Bloomberg, Google has spent the last several months tightening the reigns on its Android partners. They're having licensees sign "non-fragmentation clauses" that give Mountain View final say over the platform tweaks that can cripple a perfectly good phone. The OEMs are up in arms, obviously, but they shouldn't be. Because what Google's doing is making sure consumers know exactly what they're getting. They're making "Android" mean something again.
The no fragmentation clause has to do with UI skins that actually cause fragmentation, preventing apps from running properly or delaying OS updates, or worse, launching phones which are sometimes two OS versions back. Google's enforcement is certainly not a bad thing for consumers. And surely an OEM like Nokia starting from scratch could build its UI to conform the rules.
Android is no longer wide open, and Nokia, as the biggest handset maker in the world obviously wants to be able to distinguish itself from other OEMS. In the Android space it perhaps was unable to negotiate special treatment, but MS obviously has fewer problems with fragmentation - because MS doesn't have a smartphone platform successful enough enough to have fragments.
However, Elop never cited fragmentation as a problem. He said that Android wasn't open enough. He went so far as to put out that bizarre graphic where Apple is shown as a closed box and Android is an open box with flaps. Show me once where Elop said that Nokia's biggest problem with Android was fragmentation.
He specifically did state that he wanted Google to allow it to "customize" the OS. Having used Symbian, I am hard-pressed to think of something they need to add to Android (OS feature-wise) that it doesn't already have. And if they wanted to add their own proprietary apps, why would Google stop them?
I can only surmise a few conclusions. First, when Elop says customization, what he probably meant was that he wanted the Google branding without Google. So he wants to be able to have, say, the Android Market on his phone but without Google Maps (Ovi Maps instead), and be able to sign Bing as the default search engine. Heck, he might not even want Android Market on there, but might still want the Google branding (which is more recognizable to customers probably than a little green robot). Next, he surely wanted transition money and probably tried to play Google and MS against each other. Google didn't want to anger its other partners by bailing out a potential rival of theirs. Since WP7 is not gaining traction, even among OEMs, MS has no such problem. And it sues OEMs to get them to make phones anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if MS also made an implicit threat that Nokia would face a lawsuit if it picked Android.
And while I can appreciate how decent WP7 is, I definitely fail to see how this is a good deal for Nokia. We'll see how much customization they have when their handsets come out. But I just can't see how WP7 is more customizable than Android. I'd love somebody to show me how. Heck, even their concept phones look like every other WP7 handset....because that how WP7 is designed. And I can't see how MS would let Nokia deviate from that, because that would cause fragmentation, the very thing they love to laud over Android.
This is the kind of misconceptions you get if you only read Appleinsider and use that as your source on Android.
You don't need permission to use Android. That's the meaning of open source. You do, however, have to conform with Google's wishes if you want to deploy Google's proprietary apps and you want the "with Google" branding on your handsets.
Oddly apparently Wiki also only read appleinsider -
Even though the software is open-source, device manufacturers can not use Google's Android trademark unless Google certifies that the device complies with their Compatibility Definition Document (CDD). Devices must also meet this definition to be eligible to license Google's closed-source applications, including the Android Market.
Use of the Android trademark is not automatic, you don't need permission but you do have to meet their requirements.
And they have never said they were backing away from that model. This whole idea that Google has closed up has come because Google said they would delay the public release of Honeycomb's source code. That was delay. They never said they would outright not release it. And that would in no way impact Nokia anyway, which isn't even focused on tablets right now.
That and their fight against handset makers using Bing, against use of Skyhook, etc.
The no fragmentation clause has to do with UI skins that actually cause fragmentation, preventing apps from running properly or delaying OS updates, or worse, launching phones which are sometimes two OS versions back. Google's enforcement is certainly not a bad thing for consumers. And surely an OEM like Nokia starting from scratch could build its UI to conform the rules.
Actually it's more likely that an OEM like Nokia would want to break the rules in order to stand out. That's what they're saying they wanted to do, and it's not so unreasonable that we should assume that they're lying about it.
Show me once where Elop said that Nokia's biggest problem with Android was fragmentation.
I never said he did. I said that Nokia's problem is Google's anti-fragmentation drive. Fragmentation is Google's problem.
But I just can't see how WP7 is more customizable than Android. I'd love somebody to show me how.
It's more customizable because Microsoft is more desperate.
This is the kind of misconceptions you get if you only read Appleinsider and use that as your source on Android.
You don't need permission to use Android. That's the meaning of open source. You do, however, have to conform with Google's wishes if you want to deploy Google's proprietary apps and you want the "with Google" branding on your handsets.
The google apps are really part of the OS as most people see it. To be fair it is the part that google totally developed on their own without open source code - however legal - from SUN/Oracle Java. So we cant really expect them to open source that :-)
And they have never said they were backing away from that model. This whole idea that Google has closed up has come because Google said they would delay the public release of Honeycomb's source code. That was delay. They never said they would outright not release it. And that would in no way impact Nokia anyway, which isn't even focused on tablets right now.
Honeycomb is for everything.
The google apps are really part of the OS as most people see it. To be fair it is the part that google totally developed on their own without open source code - however legal - from SUN/Oracle Java. So we cant really expect them to open source that :-)
Honeycomb is for everything.
Google Apps and Android are two totally separate developments. For instance, Google Maps are available on several platforms other than Android, and require a license for use.
As for your second point, Honeycomb was meant for tablets and NOT handsets according to Google and the OHA themselves. You're perhaps thinking of the upcoming Ice Cream build, which is intended to be a unifying OS for both handsets and tablets, again according to the developers.
Ok, maybe HoneyComb is not IceCream ( why dont they use numbers FFS) but if honeycomb is delayed, and the followup is delayed, then this delay also affects the later product. Word.
( I wonder if Apple have not played a blinder here - if google's resources were all phones they would be pushing ahead on that OS alone, producing a Tablet OS and them merging it back is harder for Google. Apple had panned a tablet from the start, and is basically putting a lot of it's desktop OS into both anyway. Google has to put lots of resources into a product which has not set the world alight, and the phone OS gets delayed).
( I wonder if Apple have not played a blinder here - if google's resources were all phones they would be pushing ahead on that OS alone, producing a Tablet OS and them merging it back is harder for Google. Apple had panned a tablet from the start, and is basically putting a lot of it's desktop OS into both anyway. Google has to put lots of resources into a product which has not set the world alight, and the phone OS gets delayed).
I doubt that Google would be out developing iOS in terms of features even if there had never been an iPad. Google might be capable of doing so, but they simply don't have a financial need to do it. iOS devices generate substantial revenues for Google, killing iOS isn't any kind of priority for them. Android is designed to drive out dumb-phones and smartphones that use Bing.
Droid fanbois may want to kill the iPhone, but Google has no financial interest in doing so for as long as they remain the default search engine on iOS.
Samsung Inc. has emerged as a world’s largest Smartphone manufacturer leaving behind Nokia which was on top position from last 14 years. There as a tough competition to achieve this title as world’s largest device manufacturer Apple was also in the race. Finally Korean giant was able to achieve this position which was once thought impossible.
Additionally, Samsung left behind Apple, which was top Smartphone seller worldwide by capturing 31 percent market share during the first 3 months of current year. Despite of launching Windows Smartphones, Nokia also experienced 24 percent decline in its shipments.
The number of devices to offer is a choice that the brand makes. I'm sure there's plenty of rebadging going on making some parts interchangeable between models, but it's still pretty ridiculous to offer a dozen new phone models a year.