∞ Google exec on Android: 'We are using compatibility as a club'

Written by

When you think of an “open” company, you don’t often associate using a club to get people to do what you want, but that’s how a Google employee sees it.

[ad#Google Adsense 300x250 in story]A Massachusetts court released email messages from Google last week as the company battles Skyhook Wireless in court. One of the emails is garnering quite a bit of attention.

In that email a manager in the Android group, Dan Morrill, said that it was obvious to phone makers that “we are using compatibility as a club to make them do things we want,” according to a story in the New York Times.

While Google does allow companies to change Android in some ways, they must be in compliance with the compatibility standard, which is determined by Google.

Android’s openness first came into question in March when Google made it clear there “will be no more willy-nilly tweaks to the software. No more partnerships formed outside of Google’s purview. From now on, companies hoping to receive early access to Google’s most up-to-date software will need approval of their plans. And they will seek that approval from Andy Rubin, the head of Google’s Android group.


  • http://twitter.com/CoreyTamas Joel In Real Life

    I actually like that there “will be no more willy-nilly tweaks to the software. No more partnerships formed outside of Google’s purview. From now on, companies hoping to receive early access to Google’s most up-to-date software will need approval of their plans.” It’ll probably help to make Android a more attractive product.

    But it’s time to stop using the word “open”.

    • Anonymous

      That is just it. The OHA was a great name choice to get the OSS group on board much like the “Federal Reserve”. Name choice is important.

  • http://www.bynkii.com/ John C. Welch

    Commence justification on how Android is still as open as linux in 3…2…

    • Ravi

      Nice strawman you have there. Is Android as open as Linux? Of course not. Even when the code is open-sourced, the majority of the development is behind closed doors and the end-user value proposition includes Google’s closed-source apps.

      However, I think the more important question is whether Android is on the open or closed side of the line. And it is abundantly clear that Android is fundamentally open. Lots of companies fork or otherwise do things with Android Google doesn’t approve of (e.g. Nook, sub-$200 Android tablets, Chinese forks, etc.). Amazon has their Appstore and their Cloud Player (again, whether or not Google likes it, though there is at least tacit approval of the Cloud Player since it is in the Android Market). End users can even swap out core system components (e.g. alternate launchers, default browsers) – all enabled by Android’s Intent messaging.

      To put it another way, the only hold Google has on their partners is that they want the software Google has developed – no more and no less. Sounds pretty open to me.

      • http://www.bynkii.com/ John C. Welch

        Strawman nothing. When android came out, all you heard from the neckbeards was how Oooopen it was, and you could do annnnnythign you wanted with it, just like Linux, because it was ooopen.

        And every chance google gets, they chip away at that. hardware manufacturers won’t let you install your own OS build? Sucks to be you. hardware manufacturers won’t let you install custom ROMs? Sucks to be you. Carriers force you to use Bing? Sucks to be you. Expected you were going to see the source to Honeycomb anytime soon? Sucks to be you, although I wouldn’t be surprised if they released it at I/O.

        Over and over, Google shows that the only people, the ONLY people for whom Android is open are the carriers and the hardware manufacturers, and lately, not even them, and still you and all the others INISTS it’s open. How badly must you want to believe in a fairy tale to close your eyes to continual facts to the contrary?

      • http://twitter.com/Brad_Strickland Brad_Strickland

        I don’t think Android is all that open but not because Google says it is closed.
        Its because the carriers are closing it.

        This is happening with cutting off features and denying updates to customers because they want to sign them up for another contract or appear to have tiered products by crippling a single product.

        Google over time will actively have to make Android more and more closed to keep quality and reliability high in the product. The carriers will bastardize anything and everything they can to charge someone a few dollars more a month. This will hurt the mindshare of the OS overtime.

  • Anonymous

    Hey, as long as you can sideload your gay cure apps, your porn and your SSH programs, Android will always be more open than iOS.

  • http://mangochut.net/ mangochutney

    I’m waiting for the first person to say this:

    “That’s all bullshit and court records can be falsified.”

    • http://grayhawkfh.livejournal.com/ Frank “Grayhawk” Huminski

      That’s all bullshit and court records can be falsified

      (Well, no one had done it yet, so I figured I’d oblige you…)

      • http://mangochut.net/ mangochutney

        How very nice of you. Thank you ;)

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7XQIVD6NYRI5QFYFTNIT2Y2WLA John T

    Looking forward to Google io video streams to get my weekly fill of hypocrisy. Curious if I’ll be able to turn whenever they say “open” into a drinking game again this year.

  • Ravi

    I wonder what all of the people complaining about how Google isn’t open would be doing if Google had allowed Google Maps to be swapped out for Skyhook? Do you think they would be applauding Google’s openness? Or do you think they’d be pointing to Skyhook as a reason Android is “fragmented”?

    • His Shadow

      Having app options isn’t fragmentation. Having multiple incompatible hardware and OS builds that make it difficult to develop for a platform is fragmentation.

  • Ravi

    It is also worth noting the specifics of the Skyhook deals. Skyhook didn’t just want to offer their location services as an alternative to Google’s, they insisted on replacing Google Maps with Skyhook. Google, however, publishes APIs for Android developers to access Google Maps (see http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/location/index.html ). Given that, removing Google Maps is an entirely legitimate compatibility issue (even if insisting on Google Maps has side benefits for Google).

    For that matter, why did Skyhook insist on Google’s services being removed in the first place? Could it be that they were deliberately trying to hinder Google’s ability to keep improving their location database (as Google suspected)? Doesn’t that sound like Skyhook was trying to be closed themselves?

  • His Shadow

    I was just wondering why they’d use compatibility as a club when they can use those free galaxy Tabs Samsung was obviously looking to dump.