Google plotted to give Motorola early advantage over other Android licensees
In a bid to control the Android platform to derive the most value from it, Google privately outlined a series of policies, including giving early access advantage to Motorola and not developing Android "in the open."
Google's internal presentation was published by the judge overseeing Oracle's Java infringement case, and detailed by Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents. Like the Microsoft monopoly trial a decade ago, Oracle's lawsuit is bringing all kinds of details of Google's secret inner workings into public view.
"Oracle v. Google is a treasure trove of information about Google's Android-related dealings," Mueller observed.
Open after the fact
The presentation slide is titled, "If we gave it away, how can we ensure we get to benefit from it?" and recommends a set of policies that include "Do not develop in the open. Instead, make source code available after innovation is complete."
Google has regularly closed down Android development at every major release, including the tablet-oriented Android 3.0 Honeycomb this spring.
A second bullet point states "lead device concept: Give early access to the software to partners who build and distribute devices to our specification (ie, Motorola and Verizon). They get a non-contractual time to market advantage and in return they align to our standard."
Mueller also cited a declaration by Oracle stating, "I understand that Google participates in the design and build of some device makers' handsets, and provides the final Android build to the OEM."
Mueller himself notes that "is not like they simply publish the Android codebase on the Internet. According to Oracle, they 'participate in the design and build of [...] handsets.'
"Can you imagine that a company like Samsung, HTC, LG or Sony could still trust Google in this regard if Google actually competes with them through a subsidiary [of Motorola Mobility]?"
He adds that the policy "removes whatever little doubt anyone had left that Google certainly plays favorites with certain Android OEMs, and if the MMI deal goes through, it will play favorites with only one: its own subsidiary, of course."
Despite public assurances that Google's acquisition of Motorola Mobility would have no impact on how the company works with other Android licensees, and public statements by Google's partners that they are happy to be "protected" by Google, individual licensees have made plans to protect their own interests.
Most notably, Samsung's executives have initiated a plan to strengthen the company's own Bada platform and hire software development talent.
Google's internal presentation was published by the judge overseeing Oracle's Java infringement case, and detailed by Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents. Like the Microsoft monopoly trial a decade ago, Oracle's lawsuit is bringing all kinds of details of Google's secret inner workings into public view.
"Oracle v. Google is a treasure trove of information about Google's Android-related dealings," Mueller observed.
Open after the fact
The presentation slide is titled, "If we gave it away, how can we ensure we get to benefit from it?" and recommends a set of policies that include "Do not develop in the open. Instead, make source code available after innovation is complete."
Google has regularly closed down Android development at every major release, including the tablet-oriented Android 3.0 Honeycomb this spring.
A second bullet point states "lead device concept: Give early access to the software to partners who build and distribute devices to our specification (ie, Motorola and Verizon). They get a non-contractual time to market advantage and in return they align to our standard."
Mueller also cited a declaration by Oracle stating, "I understand that Google participates in the design and build of some device makers' handsets, and provides the final Android build to the OEM."
Mueller himself notes that "is not like they simply publish the Android codebase on the Internet. According to Oracle, they 'participate in the design and build of [...] handsets.'
"Can you imagine that a company like Samsung, HTC, LG or Sony could still trust Google in this regard if Google actually competes with them through a subsidiary [of Motorola Mobility]?"
He adds that the policy "removes whatever little doubt anyone had left that Google certainly plays favorites with certain Android OEMs, and if the MMI deal goes through, it will play favorites with only one: its own subsidiary, of course."
Despite public assurances that Google's acquisition of Motorola Mobility would have no impact on how the company works with other Android licensees, and public statements by Google's partners that they are happy to be "protected" by Google, individual licensees have made plans to protect their own interests.
Most notably, Samsung's executives have initiated a plan to strengthen the company's own Bada platform and hire software development talent.
Comments
I didn't think this was secret. in fact I expected something big to be revealed here.
I am disappoint.
Such poor behavior for a once admired Google.
It could have just as easily said ie. Samsung and T-Mobile. Basically, if you develop and include the Google services as Google wants, you get preferencial treatment. This would include companies like Samsung, HTC, Motorola, Verizon, Sprint, T Mobile and many others. I think this was well understood.
Slide essentially says Google will give preference to those who will follow their design closely. They've clearly done this in the past with the Nexus series of phones, first HTC, now Samsung. Using Motorola next time doesn't seem unreasonable.
Certainly pales in comparison to how Apple controls the entire process.
I'm a bit disappointed. Google may have legal problems, perhaps even serious ones, but I can't tell from reading his blog. It doesn't appear I can trust FossPatents for an honest take on them anymore. Maybe I never could, but didn't have eyes open enough to notice.
Until somewhat recently I had viewed FossPatents as a fair and unbiased source of news on the patent law front. I've noticed that Mr Mueller's's recent posts have been nearly all about Google and/or Android, and decidedly negative. In the most recent he actually seems almost giddy with joy at what he seems to hope are serious Google problems, but at least some of which have been known for some time. The idea that Google works with specific handset manufacturer's for Nexus devices, as an example, is both normal and expected. Sometimes it's Samsung, as it is now, and sometimes others like HTC or Moto. Yet Mr. Mueller would imply there's something new and devious in that supposed "shocking new development".
I'm a bit disappointed. Google may have legal problems, perhaps even serious ones, but I can't tell from reading his blog. It doesn't appear I can trust FossPatents for an honest take on them anymore. Maybe I never could, but didn't have eyes open enough to notice.
Wow, another person who doesn't agree with you that you publicly disparage. Maybe where there's smoke and raging flames there's fire? Rather than a conspiracy to create something you personally don't agree with?
The word is SHEPHERD, not sheppard. Dumbasses.
I'm confused ... what are you referencing? I don't see the word Shepherd anywhere in the article, nor in any of the comments.
"Sheppard" can be a correct spelling if it's referring to a name. If you're talking about the dog breed(s) or the profession then it is spelled "Shepherd," but I don't know it makes you a genius for pointing it out. All it really does is make you come off as a dick ... like you've never made a spelling or grammar mistake in your life.
Wow, another person who doesn't agree with you that you publicly disparage. Maybe where there's smoke and raging flames there's fire? Rather than a conspiracy to create something you personally don't agree with?
Hard to say. As I first said, whether I agreed with him or not didn't matter, I felt he was an unbiased source and one that I could trust to report the facts as they were, good or bad, for Google or Apple or anyone else. The tone of some of his recent blogs has changed my opinion.
Good to see the Google "Don't Be Evil" mantra has been tacitly applied by the company to mean, "When Google Does It ... It's Not Evil, But When Anyone Else Does It Is."
Google's mantra may be "Don't be Evil", but the advertisers that Google serves has an overriding mantra of "Sell more products!"
I'm confused ... what are you referencing? I don't see the word Shepherd anywhere in the article, nor in any of the comments.
...
Not supporting but it is in the slide itself. Perhaps you had pics blocked instead hence cannot see it. Can happen when viewed in iPhone mode.
Hard to say. As I first said, whether I agreed with him or not didn't matter, I felt he was an unbiased source and one that I could trust to report the facts as they were, good or bad, for Google or Apple or anyone else. The tone of some of his recent blogs has changed my opinion.
actually, your problem is the trtuth. Google is being exposed in court for the thieves and phonies they really are.
ie Motorola and Verizon.
It could have just as easily said ie. Samsung and T-Mobile. Basically, if you develop and include the Google services as Google wants, you get preferencial treatment. This would include companies like Samsung, HTC, Motorola, Verizon, Sprint, T Mobile and many others. I think this was well understood.
Actually, what Google want is more than just including their Google services on every device...they also want to ensure no non-standard interfaces (ie. HTC Sense, Motoblur, Touchwiz) are layered on top to prevent fragmentation. The problem is the OEM's depend on this for differentiation of their products which then lets them see higher returns on their handsets by using brand loyalty so they will not willingly give them up otherwise they would have already done it as this is what Google has been asking for.
If they layers are more important to consumers then the OEM's can replace the underlying OS (ie. older versions of Android or even replace Android completely (ie. Meego)) and still sell handsets and Google know this. Since the OEM's will not give up their only real differentiator I do not see how Google can ever get them back into line. The OEM's saw what happenned to the PC industry and know that relying only on hardware is not a long term business strategy. If Google do not release Android versions in a timely manner then Android will continue to become more fragmented over time which means the nightmare for developing for Android will continue.
Hard to say. As I first said, whether I agreed with him or not didn't matter, I felt he was an unbiased source and one that I could trust to report the facts as they were, good or bad, for Google or Apple or anyone else. The tone of some of his recent blogs has changed my opinion.
As I tried to say to you before... I felt that he didn't even present the facts. Many of Florian's headlines are almost as bad as DED's imo.
... but now that it isn't going Google's way...
So Google has been lying all along?
Such poor behavior for a once admired Google.
Trust is like virginity -- Once broken, Never mended!