Google Fights Back Against Android Fragmentation 373
bonch writes "Google is tightening its control over Android in an attempt to standardize the platform. Licensees must agree to a 'non-fragmentation clause' that gives Google final approval over operating system changes, allegedly sparking complaints to the Justice Department. This follows Google's recent decision to withhold the source to Honeycomb from non-privileged partners, a move that has drawn criticism from openness advocates. Google says that Honeycomb will be open sourced when it's ready for other devices."
Good thing it is open (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, mostly open. Except when it isn't.
Easy solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Case for Google's Control: Atrix (Score:5, Insightful)
So? Isn't the point of open source that other people can take it and modify it to try out ideas?
Re:The Case for Google's Control: Atrix (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Case for Google's Control: Atrix (Score:2, Insightful)
Google tried making phones and nobody wanted them. So now they're going to slowly stop sharing their OS, hey?
There's a company that's been doing that for a while now... oh yeah, Apple.
Hopefully this will temper some of the Apple hate (Score:0, Insightful)
Disclaimer: I'm an iPhone user.
I think this is a necessary move by Google, in the face of the carriers' crapware (and it was naive of Google to think that they would do anything otherwise). To be truly competitive with the iPhone, there needs to be a strong association of a consistent, positive experience with terms "Android" and "Google Phone." Random crapware on phones hurts their brand. Carriers need to be hit over the head with legalese, as the only means of accomplishing this. Google recognizes this and is taking steps to ensure they continue to gain market share and don't erode the brand.
So we can see that a fully open model doesn't work well in the mobile phone space. Decision to postpone the release of Honeycomb source, amongst other things, is an admission that "too open" hurts business in this space.
Most reasonable people are happy that Google is making this move. I am happy, because for me, this makes Android a more viable option in the future (and we all, as geeks, love to have options).
Most reasonable people will also understand that Apple's "uniform experience" position is not merely a stubborn act of greed, but is a conscious engineering design decision, rooted in reality of the carriers. Apple doesn't let AT&T preload crapware on the iPhone because they know it will damage the brand. Apple also knows that if given the opportunity to do so, AT&T WILL preload that crapware, without fail.
TL:DR version: Apple haters, how's that "Android is open" pie tasting now.
Re:The ultimate irony (Score:4, Insightful)
"Google wants a kind of openness which is good for everyone, especially including Google."
Right. Google wants what is good for Google. That is, they want Android on lots of devices so they can sell lots of ads.
Google thought making Android open source would be the best way to accomplish that, and it's worked pretty well so far. Except for this little bobble with fragmentation. Google couldn't care less whether you can upgrade the OS on your phone, or customize it as you wish. Actually, they probably prefer you can't, because hardware upgrades keep the manufacturers happy (more of them will use Android, more ads for Google) and no end user modifications prevent you from blocking their ads.
Notice how Google ISN'T making an issue out of carriers and manufacturers locking down Android phones.
Re:The Case for Google's Control: Atrix (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Case for Google's Control: Atrix (Score:5, Insightful)
The supposed argument for "open" would be that "all the bad carriers will get kicked out, people will get fed up with their bullshit products, and go to another vendor. Consumer choice!"
Erm, no. The US market is already among the worlds worst for carriers, seriously, here in New Zealand - basically any other developed nation - I take my Micro SIM out, flip in a new one from any of the three major carriers, and it Just Works. I bought my phone outright, but even "on contract" phones are sold "unlocked" in NZ.
The reality is, "The Free Market" involves crooked deals among The Big Boys, ie Google giving out favours to Manufacturer X, so they get "The Best Phone", often with an exclusive new version of the OS, while the others - including other very big companies, some of which were the FORMER poster child - have to quietly whine, and wait for the new update, if it comes at all.
Think about the number of "Android device makers", how many are actually worth shit? I'd think about five, max! HTC, Motorola, perhaps Samsung (very high end tech in some ways, utterly crap quality in others).... hell, off the top of my head I only got three that I'd consider decent. The rest seem to be "clone phone" makers, the same crap, competing on price, "gotta make if five dollars cheaper than the other guy".
And they all come loaded with BS! Except for the "stock" phone, which is what I'd go for. Oh, but theres not currently a "stock" phone with the larger screen? With a dual core CPU? So, people might be lured away from The Righteous Path, into crapware oblivion.
The majority of people seem to put up with the awful ads, the programs you cannot delete (without superpowers), they take it as a given.
Its the new version of "intel inside", everyone wants their little medals to show up, to build brand recognition, to profit from the consumer.
I'd rather have a "free market with rules", with a Google who sets limits, ie no trial apps that work for 15 days, then ask you for ten dollars, that will otherwise remain on your phone undelete-able for eternity.
If you're an Android user, speak up about this! Send a polite complaint email to the manufacturer, I dont think they will care about "your phone is the sux coause the motorolas has the sweet as screen...", and lets get people INTERESTED about how their devices SHOULD work!