Hacker News Reader

Comment by Athtar | Hacker News Reader

Here is the most interesting snippet for me:

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. Google has also tried to hold up the release of Verizon (VZ) Android devices that make use of Microsoft's (MSFT) rival Bing search engine, according to two people familiar with the discussions.

With Google being direct competitors with Facebook and Microsoft in the online space, they have a lot to gain by knowing their competitor's plans early/by being able to limit their influence.

View on HN

I don't understand how Google can maintain any control over those devices, though. My understanding was that anyone could download the Android source, sans Google applications like Gmail and Market, and install it on whatever they want.

If I were Facebook, I'd just avoid Google entirely and use alternative apps for everything. Amazon Appstore, Facebook Messaging for email, etc.

Google have not released the source to Honeycomb so no, anyone can't just go and download it.

Honeycomb is the outlier and will probably be released in a few months (actually, I think Google is stalling til they release Ice Cream Sandwich). And I doubt Facebook would release a tablet before they release a phone.

It may be an outlier but it proves that access to Android source is unreliable.

The way in which Android is open differs from many other open projects.

The source to Android is made public at or around the time the final version ships but until that point only select partners have access to the software. It's this approach that Google are going to strengthen - essentially if you don't obey their rules you won't be a select partner and you won't get early access to the new releases.

What this means is that if you don't obey Google's rules you'll be getting the software two or three months later than your competitors (and without all the support they will be getting), likely receiving it around the time they're actually bringing products to market. That's a pretty big competitive disadvantage if you're aiming to compete at anything close to the top end of the market.

So basically while you can use Android as you wish, if you don't obey Google's rules then you won't be able to do so in a way that allows you to be competitive.

The cynic in me says that this is getting mighty close to being open in name only.

Okay, but Facebook isn't really going head-to-head with everyone else shipping the stock version of Android with a slightly different coat of paint, so I don't think it's a huge deal if they're a few months behind.

Also, while there have been some performance optimizations in the latest builds of Android, from a feature perspective there hasn't been that much (NFC is the biggest one in Gingerbread). So even working on the previous release doesn't seem like a huge deal to me.

I don't think being behind matters that much. People online complain about version numbers; general consumers don't know. Amazon can release a phone running 2.3 loaded with Amazon Appstore, Cloud Player, tighter Facebook integration, and an overhauled UI (A good one) and consumers will eat it up.

If it's not that big a deal why are Android users so vocal about not getting updates?

Even if that is true if you're Facebook or Amazon and you're looking to differentiate yourself in that way it's one thing. If you're a handset manufacturer looking to make a kick-ass Android phone it's another entirely and there it would be a big deal.

I disagree that Android users are vocal about updates, after all, people are buying phones with 2.2 in mass. I think Facebook or Amazon can get away with releasing on 2.3 without any backlash whatsoever until/unless the next version has a major killer feature.

And that's the big unless.

You may be right for small point releases but when they revise the interface or introduce significant new features or something else which people will notice and want, it's going to put you at a disadvantage.

And because you don't have access to the new version you don't know whether it's going to be a significant release or not. You may be competitive, you may not, you simply don't know.

I honestly don't see how that doesn't put a company at a disadvantage - it's certainly not a level playing field and it's certainly not a situation I'd happily put myself in.

Some of Google's apps are going to be tricky to clone, though, particularly ones like Maps, Navigation, Goggles, and possibly YouTube, which rely in essential ways on Google's back-end services.

How much of a big deal this is would depend on what market segment they're going after, but mapping and location services are awfully handy across the board, and available on pretty cheap phones at this point.

Google Maps, Navigation, Goggles, and Youtube are all available from the Android Market. Now the real question is whether Facebook would still be able to get access to the Market if they skip the rest of the apps.

They don't because the Android Market app itself is one of Google's closed applications.

Google maintains some level of control now through its "Google Experience" deals which include: access to the Market, Gmail, Maps, and other apps; early access to new versions; but also a share in the ad revenue, which can't be trivial.

Maybe Google didn't really have the clout to exercise control until now, but I'm really glad it's finally happening.

What I hope this means is that Google will control everything on the OS level, and allow customizations by the manufacturers and carriers only on a skinning and app level. In a perfect world they would also enforce access to bootloaders, to allow easy rom changes.

Device manufacturers get a cut of ad revenue? News to me, source?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com