Google's open source koolaid
Google pretends to be the modern day Robin Hood that is stealing intellectual property from companies in technologically rich west and giving it to companies in poorer Asian countries. It has already wrecked companies like Nokia, RIM, Palm and Motorola and propped up Samsung, HTC, Huawei and ZTE. In this way it appeals to the globalist socialist fanatics as an entity that is redistributing wealth to poor. Truth is that Google that has no experience and expertise in operating system technology. Sun, Apple and Microsoft have about 4 decades of experience in developing os. There was no way Google could build this much expertise on its own, It was smart enough to know that the only way it can protect its advertising monopoly and revenue is by having a dominant operating system of its own. Since it did not have the capabilities to build, it poached employees from Sun, Apple, and stole their technology and *handed it over free to asian handset vendors. This way it thought it will be protected against litigation while allowing it to extend its monopoly in web services.
Besides this farce the other lie being propagated is that Andriod is an open source movement, intended to empower the powerless individual developers, while the sad reality is that it has killed the mobile open source movements like linux and java, by stealing their code and credit, underming their rules and thus destroying their ecosystem. *This koolaid is so intoxicating that it has created a cult of dimwits who will swear that google can do no evil. They will never ask google to open source its search engine software. Imagine if yahoo poaches google employees and open sources it's search engine technology, would google still claim that software should not be protected by intellectual property rights. *But then hypocrisy is the currency narcissists use to deal with dim wits.
Besides this farce the other lie being propagated is that Andriod is an open source movement, intended to empower the powerless individual developers, while the sad reality is that it has killed the mobile open source movements like linux and java, by stealing their code and credit, underming their rules and thus destroying their ecosystem. *This koolaid is so intoxicating that it has created a cult of dimwits who will swear that google can do no evil. They will never ask google to open source its search engine software. Imagine if yahoo poaches google employees and open sources it's search engine technology, would google still claim that software should not be protected by intellectual property rights. *But then hypocrisy is the currency narcissists use to deal with dim wits.
Comments
Google pretends to be the modern day Robin Hood that is stealing intellectual property from companies in technologically rich west and giving it to companies in poorer Asian countries. It has already wrecked companies like Nokia, RIM, Palm and Motorola and propped up Samsung, HTC, Huawei and ZTE.
I think there is some truth to this but there are other factors. Nokia was very lazy and held onto Symbian far too long. Their stock went into free-fall around mid-2007 and it wasn't Android that did that. RIM are just too set in their ways, they try to innovate outside the designs they've always had but their customers are business people who don't think freely enough so they end up stagnating their product lines with old designs.
I feel Palm should have had more success. There were complaints about the hardware but they had very capable products. I think their biggest failing was Web OS. It just didn't inspire the development community in much the same way Apple's original web apps didn't either. It was only with a proper SDK that the games and advanced apps came along that people love. Palm eventually did this but only in early 2010, which was way too late.
The roadmap of the competition hasn't been too bad but they just started late and tried to compete against an already refined product and OS.
Android has taken off by being the equivalent of Symbian - just everywhere you look on every device that isn't an iPhone while mimicking its behaviour. They have done this as you say by building off and stealing other people's hard work and giving it away for free.
When I consider Android, I always think of the alternative scenarios though. Apple has an end-to-end model that will never take 100% of any market because it locks out other companies. This means they will have to compete with someone, whether it's Blackberry, Microsoft or Google. I would rather that Google was the main competitor than Microsoft or Blackberry because the latter two companies are too corporate. They don't seem to have the same motivations that Google and Apple have - they respect the status quo and that doesn't breed innovation.
I like that Google respects Apple and although they criticise the 'walled garden' to justify what they did with Android, I don't believe they would ever want to see Apple fail like other competitors clearly would.
Where Android gets problematic is when you have companies like Samsung who have clearly stolen Apple's intellectual property for its own huge gain and could only have done it with the help of Android but I'd say that issue is not a reason Android exists and rather an unfortunate consequence due to greed that is prevalent in all walks of life.