Where Android is open source (except for when the source, ahem, isn't open, like with 3.0 & 3.1), the Google apps (Gmail, Youtube, Google Maps, Android Market etc.) aren't. Thanks to a lawsuit, some of the details of shipping Google apps on your Android device have become public - and it shows the tight grip that Google has on vendors, not unlike the control Microsoft has over Windows licensees. For end users, it probably leads to a better Android experience in the end, but if your Android phone has Google apps, "Android is open" now sounds pretty hollow.
This all started when Skyhook sued Google. Skyhook offers a service to determine mobile device location based on WiFI hotspots and cell towers. They accuse Google of bullying Motorola (they delayed the Droid X launch over this) and Samsung (which patched the Galaxy phones right after launch) into canceling the planned / real adoption of their service in favor of a Google service. When Google's request to dismiss the lawsuit was recently denied, a lot of documents were published. Former Engadget editor Nilay Patel dug in and wrote a great analysis: http://thisismynext.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-lawsuit-motorola-samsung/ Now I don't know who's wrong or right - I think Skyhook claims have some merits. However, what's fascinating is what vendors have to do to ship Google apps. First, they sign an app distribution agreement. Then their Android devices have to meet Google's compatibility definition and pass Google's test suite. So far, so good. The kicker: Google contractually reserves the right to change both the definition and the tests until a device is certified for launch! So Google can keep a device off the market just by changing the definition / tests at the eleventh hour, and there's nothing a vendor can do. Well, they can change the device and resubmit, but they'll lose both time and money, and Google can easily change the terms again the next time. Here's how Motorola put this to Skyhook: Android devices are “approved essentially at Google’s discretion”. And Google's Dan Morrill, Google's open source and compatibility program manager, said in an email last August: "It’s not like it isn't obvious to the OEMs that we are using compatibility as a club to make them do what we want.” This is the same Dan Morrill who put out a blog post last year in the Apple - Flash bruha and said "[Openness] doesn't mean tolerating competition, it means valuing competition. [...] Steve Jobs, you fail at open." (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/09/ google_uses_android_compatability_to_make_phone_makers_do_what_it_wants) I'm sure Skyhook felt very valued last year. Now you add to this the Businessweek report that in order to get access to the private Android versions ahead of their release, vendors have to get Andy Rubin to approve their planned changes and partnerships (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_15/ b4223041200216.htm). Now of course a vendor can wait for Google to release the sources and then build an Android phone any way it pleases. But from the time you got the sources, it easily takes 6+ months to reach the market - you do your changes, apply your patches, do your tests, make changes for the carrier, submit for carrier certification and so on. With Google shipping a new release roughly every six months, a vendor is perpetually one release behind the competition this way. And these days, you don't even know if Google's going to release the source at all - look at Honeycomb. Since companies hate uncertainty in plans a lot, this alone will get most to sign up with Google for early source access. Just to be clear: I think Google can do this in general (not breaking the law, but setting up the contracts and tests and approving changes) - they spend their money on Android, so they call the shots. What I find disingenuous is the claim of Android to be open - technically, it is, but not if you have the Google apps, which the majority of Android phones have, or if your vendor got early access to the Android source. Remember last year's Google I/O? Vic Gundotra said that "if Google didn't act, it faced a draconian future where one man, one phone, one carrier were our choice" (http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Google-Android- Gundotra-Steve-Jobs,news-6875.html) Looks like for Android, the currently leading smartphone platform, at least the "one man" part has come true after all - it's Andy Rubin. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
