Do Not Anger the Alpha Android | Hacker News Reader

Do Not Anger the Alpha Android

businessweek.com

38 pointspathik31 comments

I'm with Google on this, although I do think they've dug themselves into a hole here. They're making the right decision, though it will most definitely be one of the toughest to deal with.

The way manufacturers customize Android really reminds me of the Ubuntu design thread on HN a few days back that argued about the close/quit functionality on Macs and PCs with some really ridiculous "solutions." Open-sourcing design (at this scale) is just asking for trouble.

Every manufacturer/carrier keeps thinking they can come up with a better Android, with better features, and more custom fit. All I've seen is slower more bloated ROMs with extra eye-candy, built-in applications nobody wants, and even reductions in the original Android feature-set (most notably tethering). All the compromises the iPhone didn't make, Android did, and now the entire platform suffers.

But the real lesson here is for the carriers. The carriers need to step up to the new smartphone world, where phones are no longer a one-time sale, but a long-term investment including support and software updates (especially if you decided to customize your own version of Android).

The easier alternative would be of course just to let Google handle the software updates (i.e. Nexus S, Nexus One, G1, etc). But then you don't get all your fancy custom themes and subsidized applications. Boohoo. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

> But then you don't get all your fancy custom themes and subsidized applications.

PC makers have no problem adding to Windows and then letting the consumer get updates straight from Microsoft. So they do have their cake and eat it too.

How are they adding to Windows? They make applications. They don't necessarily alter the OS.

Plus PCs have a 7 layer stack where there are abstraction layers over the devices and drivers, making this doable. Whereas phones are embedded systems that have tight integration.

Yes, not technically modifying the OS itself. But PC OSs are extensible -- manufacturers often implement/bundle their own power management, wifi authentication mechanisms, disk monitors, etc, and of course apps.

Not to say that any of it is actually helpful, but then neither is the crap that Motorola, HTC, Sony-Ericsson, Samsung, and friends bolt onto Android.

PC Manufacturers do add crap, but they have also patched real holes in Windows e.g. better wireless support before XP service pack 2 , out of the box anti-virus, alternative Office apps, better browsers etc. The same is true of Android as early versions were missing some major pieces.

It's a complex area with many shades of grey. The real problem is poor software engineer practice regarding Android and Linux at these manufacturers which leads to unnecessary delays and wheel re-invention. They seem to be learning and getting much better at this though e.g. Sony Ericsson announcing that they'd restrict their additions to the app level and make them easy to turn off and replace in future, and announcing they'd do an extra update for the X10 because they'd already done most of the work for the new phones that share the same platform.

Agree 100%. Do you (or does anyone else) think that Larry Page is now on the wheel has something to do with this change of direction?

But then you don't get all your fancy custom themes and subsidized applications.

I've got a Nexus S and I think this is a feature :-)

"Every manufacturer/carrier keeps thinking they can come up with a better Android, with better features, and more custom fit."

Every manufacturer needs to find a way to differentiate themselves from the other manufacturers out there. When the typical customer walks into a showroom and is ready to decide on a handset, they have no idea what is on the phone other than the initial UI and form factor they see. Only the alpha geeks know that this handset over here is running Froyo while this one over here has Gingerbread.

"The carriers need to step up to the new smartphone world, where phones are no longer a one-time sale, but a long-term investment including support and software updates"

So that means they need to bow down to the endless stream of attention-defecit Gizmodo readers that want that new x.x.1 release now now now? I'm not defending the carriers, but knowing how they work and how a buggy handset release can cripple an entire network, I don't blame them for taking the cautious route.

Android clearly has a fragmentation problem. Worse than that, is the dependency on device manufacturers to release updates to already released handsets, which I'm sure many see as a waste of resources since they've already sold the device and would rather put that into the next big thing.

Despite all the problems with the iOS ecosystem, Android has plenty of its own, albeit very different, problems. I'm honestly jealous of the easy updates to iOS that Apple releases. A unified OS that installs on all but the oldest handsets regardless of carrier or model.

For Android, on the other hand, manufacturers have made it pretty clear that what comes on the phone is most likely the version of the OS you'll ever see, unless you root your phone replace the stock OS with an open source version of Android.

I don't see that as an easy problem to solve due to the nature of the ecosystem compared to Apple's completely integrated vertical.

Even if the device manufacturers do not alter the OS, it's still impossible for Google to send one mass update that will apply to all the phones. Phone OSes are too embedded for this to work. Carriers and manufacturers will still need to do the updates, but it will definitely be a lot faster.

Look at Microsoft trying to update Windows Phone 7. There are no customization, yet they have to carefully test on every device and have each device be updated independently. Microsoft is barely able to handle 7-10 devices. When it reaches Android's level with 100 devices, it won't be able to handle it either.

Apple has enough trouble updating iOS on iphone 4, iphone 3gs, and iphone 3g.

A less sensationalist headline might be "Google updates the Android Compatibility Definition Document":

http://source.android.com/compatibility/index.html

Unfortunately that would require you to acknowledge that Android has always had limits if you wanted access to Google's services and would destroy your "Google flip-flops on openness" story.

I feel like this unrest among device manufacturers and carriers is the main reason why an alternative Android stack (With Bing Search/Maps and Amazon AppStore, and possibly some input from Facebook) might be a success.

Google can effectively kill off this effort by making next versions of Android close-source but that would heavily tarnish their reputation. So I feel like it's very unlikely.

Google can effectively keep them half-a-version behind, though by giving an access to a next Android version to a limited group of "blessed" manufacturers but they still have to release at least the GPL-covered portions of source code when those new devices become available for consumers. This is usually some low-level stuff (changes to Linux kernel and maybe some device-integration code), so Amazon & co. don't have to maintain their own stack of device APIs which is a big win for them. On an application level, though, I doubt that as the platform matures being one version behind is a big issue, and Amazon, Microsoft and Facebook can provide effective substitutions for Google software and services and can bring up a compelling UI to attract consumers.

Google has tried to hold up the release of Verizon (VZ) Android devices that make use of Microsoft's (MSFT) rival Bing

Google has been demanding that Android licensees give Google the final say on how they can tweak the Android code. Google's Rubin says that such clauses have always been part of the Android license

This is very serious. Consumers won't care (just like they don't care about Apple being closed). It's our job to care and take notice. If anything, it may open our eyes, that Google may be a corporation like all others and will aggressively use its leverage to hurt competitors and partners.

They are confusing things here, they can add whatever search engine they like but it won't get the 'With Google' approval sticker unless it uses Google Apps and services.

They are confusing the non-fragmentation approval sticker with total prevention, which is quite frankly dishonest on the part of businessweek.

Is this just a sticker though or is it an all-or-nothing including things like Android Market + all Google services?

The Google services are tightly integrated with the OS, kind of like IE was back in the day with Windows.

Market, Maps, Gmail.

And it's nothing like Windows (I'm sick of this analogy) Android is open source, you can and many do, sell non-approved phones, they can use the Amazon store (another app store is the biggest testimony for openness). Android is also the only platform to have multiple browser options (Firefox 4 was recently released for it).

> Market, Maps, Gmail.

I think the comparison IE-Windows vs. Google services-Android when it comes to coupling is relevant. Google is using services to force manufacturers down certain paths.

An Android phone without Market, Maps and Gmail isn't much of an Android phone:

* No maps => apps can't use any mapping capabilities.

* No Gmail => can you still send e-mail from the SDK? I've heard that pretty much all other e-mail provider integration sucks.

* No market => Your phone customers can't buy any apps out of the box.

Today there may be alternatives such as Amazon's app store, but back then you either did what Google said or no Android for you! (I think you couldn't even use the Android name in fact)

It's open source software given for free so any slight bit of control Google tries to exercise doesn't really tip the scale to the other side, specially when alternatives exist.

Also I recommend the K-9 mail client, it's very good: https://market.android.com/details?id=com.fsck.k9

Ok, so let's say that you make phones.

1. MS comes and says we'll give you 3Om$ if you use Bing as a search engine. 2. You say "Cool!" 3. Google comes and says, if you use Bing, you can't use Gmail, the Android Market or Gmaps any more. You also can't call it Android any more.

You call this "slight bit of control", I call it extorsion.

P.S: Why do you keep mentioning that Android is open-source? This is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

That's not true, the Verizon Android phone that uses Microsoft's search engine has the market and gmail installed, it just doesn't have the sticker.

And the fact that it's open source is very relevant here as it implies minimum restrictions.

This directly contradicts your earier statement about Maps, Market, Gmail :) If you feed me bad input I will come to incorrect conclusions...

I apologize for any lack of clarity :)

>If anything, it may open our eyes, that Google may be a corporation like all others and will aggressively use its leverage to hurt competitors and partners.

I hate the fact that some people don't get this, but anything that makes more people aware is a good thing.

Google's Rubin says that such clauses have always been part of the Android license, but people interviewed for this story say that Google has recently tightened its policies. Facebook, for example, has been working to fashion its own variant of Android for smartphones. Executives at the social network are unhappy that Google gets to review Facebook's tweaks to Android, say two people who weren't comfortable being named talking about the business.

Facebook learns what it means to be a sharecropper.

So much for 'let the market decide'.

The free market did decide.

I guess 'open' doesn't always win.

Free markets don't always decide for the best product, and there's plenty of history to prove that.

I don't understand the critical tone nor the logic behind this piece and I can't imagine what those complaints to the DOJ might look like "We can freely access and use the source code but we want more!"

Also the Elop comment was hilarious, and since when does businessweek care about open source?!

You have a very broad definition of "free". If Google really tried to use the leverage it has with Android to get Verizon to drop Bing as the default search engine, I can definitely see a problem there. Their intentions might be good (for the consumer, at least), but their methods just got pretty strong handed. Oh, and Honeycomb won't be open sourced any time soon, so there's that, too.

Again, as I replayed to another comment here:

They are confusing things here, they can add whatever search engine they like but it won't get the 'With Google' approval sticker unless it uses Google Apps and services.

They are confusing the none-fragmentation approval sticker with total prevention, which is quite frankly dishonest on the part of businessweek.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com