What Kindle Means for Android | Hacker News Reader

What Kindle Means for Android

blog.geekli.st

27 pointsjstrimpel55 comments

It's kind of amusing to me how every now and then someone proclaims that Google has "lost control" of Android and how this must be some kind of crisis and portends a looming disaster.

Then we will have a series of people proclaiming how Android is not really open and what a farce Google's pretense of openness is, and what fools we were to ever believe that Google intended to make an open source operating system.

Frequently this will be followed by people lamenting "fragmentation" and demanding that Google put a stop to it by putting tight controls on who can implement Android and how they can do it.

These are all different sides of the same coin. Openness = fragmentation, openness = loss of control, openness = diversity, choice, innovation and endless possibility. It has benefits and downsides to be sure, but to think Google didn't know they were giving up some control of Android when they released it as open source is absurd - open sourcing something is by definition giving up control of it.

Actually I think Google's openness is a quasi. Otherwise you wouldn't see them blocking the acer phone.

Acer is free to use Android in any phone they want. They would just have to use a different app store than Google Play.

So, Android's openness is absolute. Google's openness (Google Play, Gmail, etc) is not.

point in fact, this is not what happened.

And yet they aren't blocking the Kindle. So how do you square that?

I'm sure they would if they could. Amazon is not a member of OHA so google has nothing to enforce that ban with.

So you agree with the flip side argument that Google is just enforcing existing business agreements to which all parties are signatories, you just choose to interpret it as uncharitably as possible for Google.

Yawn. Business is business. Using open source software doesn't magically absolve you of responsibility to your contracted partners, nor give you the right to jerk your suppliers around. The simple truth is that Amazon handled this gracefully and produced a great product, and Acer screwed it up and wrecked things for their partner Alibaba. Making Google out to be the bad guy is just fanboism.

I agreed with you until the last sentence.

>Business is business

Funny, that reminds me of the scorn heaped on Apple for the patent lawsuits against Samsung. Or on Oracle and Microsoft. Business is business, right? Regardless of other companies getting hurt?

Also reminds me of this post by Gruber supporting Apple on in app purchases:

http://daringfireball.net/2011/03/dirty_percent

It's really ironic how people claim their favorite company is better than the others because of blah blah blah reasons, but when it comes to power plays hurting third parties like this, support it by saying "business is business".

Samsung didn't violate a contract it signed with Apple. The situations really aren't very similar.

Not following at all. Enforcing an existing, voluntary contract is indeed the routine practice of "business" as I understand it. Suing a competitor for patent infringement in an effort to kill its product is not. I don't see a double standard there.

how would google block Kindle?

First, can we stop with the FUD about Google "banning" Acer from releasing a phone. This ArsTech article covers most of it but basically Alibaba was planning to release an OS that could run Android apps but was not certified by the OHA. And Acer as a member of OHA has to enforce Android compatibility on their devices to enforce consistency in Android. The same thing people complain about Android (fragmentation) is what they were trying to avoid.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/09/google-blocked-acers-...

Regarding the article, whatever Google has controlled since the beginning they have never lost, which is providing the "Google Experience" On Android.

I think this is an extremely naive view... Devices that don't have gmail, maps, chrome and play is a huge loss for google. It's very much in google's interest to discourage these types of forks, but that's the nature of open source.

While I agree with your general sentiment, I think the terminology "lost" only makes sense if they "had" it in the first place. Bringing a new device to the market that doesn't pander to Google hardly qualifies as Google "losing" something (Except perhaps in the MPAA sense of the term).

The article talks of "losing control" not "losing revenue" hence what my post was talking about.

There will obviously be some lost revenue, but not really enough for Google to care. At least for now. Mainly Kindle hasn't done much to scare Google.

I remember when the first Kindle Fire came out and people were hailing it the end of Google and Android. Silk was going to eat Chrome for breakfast. Amazon Appstore would be the defacto "Android Marketplace". etc etc. I've yet to see any of that come to fruition.

I don't think it's FUD to point out the inconsistency that comes with on one hand proclaiming Android to be open and with the other blocking a third party company OEM Acer from shipping Aliyun phones under the threat of pulling early access to betas etc. Being Open implies the chance to fork and fragmentation. Google might be doing good for Android, but it seems to be going further away from being "open". AOSP is open, Android, not so much.

> I don't think it's FUD to point out the inconsistency that comes with on one hand proclaiming Android to be open and with the other blocking a third party company OEM Acer from shipping Aliyun phones under the threat of pulling early access to betas etc.

What you're saying is misleading. Acer were the ones who broke the rules and Google enforced them, for good reason too.

If you sign up and agree to be in an organization in order to gain early access to firmware, then you should abide by the rules of the organization. Otherwise, don't join.

> Being Open implies the chance to fork and fragmentation

Yup. If you don't want to play by Google's rules, do what Amazon did and make your own version. Or as a better example, do what Archos has been doing for near 3+ years.

Google provides timely improvements that they eventually send back upstream, but they have no obligation to instantly provide these updates to AOSP to everyone.

Of course Archos recently changed their tune and started releasing tablets with Google Play starting with the G9 generation...

>What you're saying is misleading. Acer were the ones who broke the rules and Google enforced them, for good reason too.

I find it interesting that you don't think it's misleading for an organization called the "Open Handset Alliance" to have rules stating they can't ship handsets using competing platforms that can run Android apps. Or that it's misleading to call Android open and then withhold key apps, the app store itself and early access which are neither free nor Free or open. So Aliyun/Alibaba is basically screwed because no major OEM can ship their devices regardless of how good their OS is. How is calling Android open not misleading? What other open project has such restrictions? Linux? Firefox? Apache? I don't think even MySQL has such restrictions.

I don't really want to argue with you over the word, "open" since that seems like where this discussion is heading.

Who cares about that point? Fine, OHA is a bad name. That still doesn't absolve Acer of joining and agreeing to abide by the consortium's rules.

Android is open, Google apps are not. None of Google's apps are necessary to run Android.

It isn't FUD. Google is behaving inconsistently with what they say, and that makes Google a less-than-reliable partner in open source cooperation.

Acer was slapped down, yet Haier, also an OHA member, makes both Aliyun and Android devices.

Google claims Aliyun is "incompatible" and also claims Alibaba is stealing apps, or, at least, distributing them without the developers' permission. So, which is it?

Numerous OHA participate in the OPhone OS development and use. OPhone is roughly equivalent to Aliyun, and is used by China Mobile. Ophone good, but Aliyun bad?

The problem is arbitrariness. For each one of Google's justifications for yanking Acer's chain, there is something in Google's track record that is inconsistent.

Since this thread is off-topic enough, I'll just end with, 1) didn't hear about Haier but then again, Haier is such a small player in phones so maybe Google doesn't care. 2) OPhone, no clue about compatibility or whatnot and I don't really want to spend more time reading through Chinese documentation on it so you tell me if it is truly equivalent to Ailyun.

When Amazon somehow gets denied access to AOSP by Google, then I'll care. Maybe Google is being unfair with Acer, but then again Acer is making money with Google and vice-versa so I'm not surprised Google is selectively enforcing the policy.

Maybe this is just me, but if they have their own app store, their own UI, their own idioms and their own devices.... from any useful user or branding perspective, how are they Android phones?

And so more importantly, why does it matter for Android? It doesn't mean Android is more fragmented, because those phones aren't Android phones, it just means one more competitor in the smart phone market.

If anything, it makes it easier for developers, because Amazon phones will be easier to port to than another random smart phone brand.

It is, essentially, a completely different OS which happens to run the same applications.

And now ask yourself the key question: Is Google more a mobile OS vendor / mobile device manufacturer or more a mobile application developer?

The way android is used by Amazon is essentially how apple used unix core to get the basics right when creating a new software platform. A smart move obviously. What surprises me is how none of the big android players have not seen an opportunity here and created their own experience on top of it. That is the easiest way to differentiate yourself from the myriad of other cheap android device makers.

Im sure there is a lot of hand wringing going on behind the scenes for this to not have happened yet but its inevitable.

The issue for the Samsungs and HTCs of the world is they don't really have the other assets that Amazon has. Thus they are less able/willing to turn down things like access to Google Play and Search.

> What surprises me is how none of the big android players have not seen an opportunity here

I guess you haven't heard of HTC Sense, Motoblur, Samsung's Touchwiz, etc. and how users mostly hate them.

Savvy users seem to prefer taking Amazon's Android Kindles and installing vanilla Androids on them.

Are these savvy users the majority of the kindle users? Sense and Motoblur are but very thin skins on android. Nothing like a end to end experience that Amazon has developed. No wonder majority of people hate these quick hacks.

Amazon has what the others (including Google) don't have--an established digital commerce solution that people use and amazing customer support. Goggle falls flat but sort of seems to be trying to work on it, but I don't trust them the way I already trust Amazon. There's zero reason for me to purchase a book on Play instead of a Kindle as far as I can tell.

You forgot to mention that the kindle app is available free on stock android.

And do you realize that you can't download kindle books on to them unless you already own a kindle device. That app was only designed for portability of your existing library. Amazon in no way give up their biggest advantage over android devices.

That's not true. I don't own a kindle device yet I have books I purchased on the Kindle store (when Amazon had a sale in the past) appear in the Kindle app on my Nexus7.

Maybe it's just that the app does not allow purchasing (never looked)?

The app allows purchasing. If it didn't, that wouldn't benefit Amazon (see: iOS).

How do you manage to get the books the at the kindle sale price when you don't own a kindle? Strange, when I got my Nexus 7, I did give the kindle app a try but it wouldn't let me purchase any books unless I paid the hardcover price. I have amazon prime, but without owning a kindle device, these ebook sales are meaningless to me.

Well, I thought that it was common knowledge that Amazon spreads access widely. AFAIK it's also available on iOS and of course e-ink readers. That platform indirection is a strong reason why I would make an Amazon purchase instead of Play. Similarly, lack of device access for Play (Roku, TiVo) is another reason I prefer to purchase video content on Amazon (I've been purchasing subscriptions for series that are automatically delivered to my TiVo in lieu of cable subscription for a few years now). Not to mention that Play's handling of music does byzantine obtuse things on my phone whereas Amazon MP3 is quite sensible in its directory and file naming. Amazon just feels more open and accessible. Not to repeat the biggie--responsive customer support.

  What surprises me is how none of the big android players have not seen an opportunity here and created their own experience on top of it.

What? We're only now seeing devices without mfg skins/customizations.

Because being sucessful on mobile is about creating the entire experience. If any other manufacturer created their own platform on Android, they wouldn't have the Google apps licensed to them, and consequently wouldn't look as attractive to consumers. Gmail, Google Maps, thousands of apps on Google Play, all these are valuable assets that consumers wouldn't be willing to give up.

Amazon is in a better position than most but they haven't yet created a general purpose device. All their tablets are a window to purchase more Amazon stuff. If they could create an entire ecosystem with a proper device to back it up, they could probably up-end Google. But slowly, Android on tablets is taking off now. I mean, Google recently released stats for number of tablets activated daily, which they hadn't done until now. Maybe that's because Google feels Android tablets are finally making a dent in the marketplace.

Amazon's differentiation is price and a content ecosystems together with a great marketing channel, not the UI. Nothing that fits the model of the device makers.

You're sort of right, but not 100%: It wasn't Apple that added a Unix core to anything -- it was really Steve Jobs at NeXT who did that, and then Apple just happened to buy NeXT.

Fortunately for developers Amazon hasn't forked the OS too much. The APIs for the latest release are the ICS APIs which is OK since most devs will still be targeting Froyo or Gingerbread for another year or so. The only problem is if you use some of the Google APIs, mainly Maps, in which case you'll have to get clever, either with reflection or your build system, to include Amazon's maps in your app.

If Amazon ever tries to do a major fork at the API level we'll be in trouble, but they have shown no sign of that as of yet.

There is a reason they haven't forked because there is a value in the ecosystem. What they have done is that the have starved Google of the revenue it makes out of android and that is where the opportunity is for major device makers which I don't get how they not see it.

I'm not following...why would major device manufacturers want to starve Google?

so that they can eat Google's lunch?

Yes. Google lost control of an operating system which they consciously decided to release as open source and free software.

Somehow, I don't think they were trying hard to retain control of the OS.

they're trying very hard these days:

http://marketingland.com/google-acer-android-aliyun-21631

No. That's not trying hard. They could have just made Android closed-source, which is easy and simple.

In this case, they don't want an OHA member to ship products with Android forks that break app compatibility. Amazon is neither an OHA member and its OS does not break compatibility. Even if it did, why would it hurt Google or Android anymore than, say, using a completely different OS?

Charlie knows what's up! Amazon has all of the pieces in place to remain a disruptive force in the industry.

But didn't Google block Acer pretty recently? I understand that Acer was part of an industry group, but if Google is delivering a stream of improvements to Android can't they just lock up future updates?

Well, until 2017 there's a pesky promise to Chinese regulators: http://news.cnet.com/8301-32969_3-57437774-300/china-to-goog...

Of course, Google's willingness to make that promise says something about their current plans and the contingencies they foresee.

that's interesting — i'd assumed they wrote off china, but that really goes the other way

There's a limited market for Google's services in China (if only because the government generally blocks them), but Motorola sells plenty of phones in China and makes even more.

The whole point of Android from Google's perspective was to give them the ability to control search on mobile without having to buy their way in like they did on the Windows desktop and they do on iOS. Every year Google spends hundreds of millions of dollars to Apple, Mozilla, Dell, HP, etc. to be the default search provider, have their toolbar installed, have Chrome be the default, or whatever way they want to be the search default, and it is worth every penny, but owning their own platform in Android means they control their own destiny on the future computing platform - phones, tablets, tv's, and other embedded computing systems.

Fragmentation is not a problem because Google still is the primary Android services provider. If Samsung or HTC started doing what Amazon is doing and selling Android phones without Google apps and search as a default, then Google's in trouble.

Google's biz model is to give away Android for free, but make up for it in money from the Play market, mobile ads, and mobile search.

"Fragmentation is not a problem because Google still is the primary Android services provider."

Doesn't the article point out that some of the bigger companies using Android, like Amazon and (in the linked article about TVs) Lenovo, are doing their own versions of Android that use none of Google's services? So Google is left high and dry - the other companies have taken the Android code but given Google nothing in return. This is how I understood the claim that Google has lost control of Android.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com