Android chief Rubin's response to Android critics misses the point
1–10 of 32 posts
Re: Android chief Rubin's response to Android critics misses the point
#2I agree with Ars on this one. And hopefully whether you're pro-Android or pro-iPhone or pro-whatever, you can appreciate some evasive corporate-speak when you see it. E.g.:
Rubin: What amazes me is that even though the quantity and breadth of Android
products being built has grown tremendously, it’s clear that quality and consistency
continue to be top priorities.
I think there have been some legitimate gripes about Android's openness lately (like manufacturer favoritism) and I was hoping for something more direct out of Google.
Re: Android chief Rubin's response to Android critics misses the point
#3I agree with Ars on this one. And hopefully whether you're pro-Android or pro-iPhone or pro-whatever, you can appreciate some evasive corporate-speak when you see it. E.g.: Rubin: What amazes me is that even though the quantity and breadth of Android products being built has grown tremendously, it’s clear that quality and consistency continue to be top priorities. What does that even mean? Why are your priorities so…
I think he's claiming to be amazed by the manufacturers' prioritising quality and consistency. His next sentence is:
"Miraculously, we are seeing the platform take on new use cases, features and form factors as it’s being introduced in new categories and regions while still remaining consistent and compatible for third party applications."
Re: Android chief Rubin's response to Android critics misses the point
#4I guess I fail to see what the big deal is here. Everyone agrees that Google is going to release the source code when it's "done", and that this is going to be some time in the relatively near future.
Terms of open-source licenses have been adhered to.
It sounds like they probably incurred some code debt rushing this out, and they want to clean it up before people start running with it. They themselves have said it doesn't even run on phones--to appreciate why that's bad, just imagine what Gruber would have written about it.
Re: Android chief Rubin's response to Android critics misses the point
#5I agree with Ars on this one. And hopefully whether you're pro-Android or pro-iPhone or pro-whatever, you can appreciate some evasive corporate-speak when you see it. E.g.: Rubin: What amazes me is that even though the quantity and breadth of Android products being built has grown tremendously, it’s clear that quality and consistency continue to be top priorities. What does that even mean? Why are your priorities so…
> I think there have been some legitimate gripes about Android's openness lately (like manufacturer favoritism)
Android has always done that, it did it with the G1, nexus1, nexus S and now xoom. In some case it took them a month to release the source, other cases two months. In this case it will take a bit more (probably 4), so what? Big deal, Android is Apache license, this is completely fair game and as for manufacturer favoritism, here is the list of manufacturers who already have access to Honeycomb source:
* Motorola
* Samsung
* LG
* HTC
* Acer
* Toshiba
* Asus
* Dell
* Archos
Sure Motorola got it first, but the same happened with every Android release, again, big deal. Sounds like FUD to me.
Re: Android chief Rubin's response to Android critics misses the point
#6I guess I fail to see what the big deal is here. Everyone agrees that Google is going to release the source code when it's "done", and that this is going to be some time in the relatively near future. Terms of open-source licenses have been adhered to. It sounds like they probably incurred some code debt rushing this out, and they want to clean it up before people start running with it. They themselves have said it d…
I agree with what you said, but I don't think that's the part that has people most concerned. It's more about stuff like this:
According to the BusinessWeek report, Google has been using its
exclusive control over timely source code availability as leverage
to block vendors from making customizations that don't align with
Google's business interests. For example, the article says that
Google attempted to block Verizon from shipping an Android
device with Microsoft's Bing search engine.Re: Android chief Rubin's response to Android critics misses the point
#7I guess I fail to see what the big deal is here. Everyone agrees that Google is going to release the source code when it's "done", and that this is going to be some time in the relatively near future. Terms of open-source licenses have been adhered to. It sounds like they probably incurred some code debt rushing this out, and they want to clean it up before people start running with it. They themselves have said it d…
If Google is going to exploit "open source" as a marketing term and claim at Google IO that it's trying to prevent a "draconian future," it shouldn't be withholding its source code from non-privileged partners and making licensees sign non-fragmentation clauses that give Google final approval over source changes.
In other words, if you're going to position yourself as a champion for openness, expect to get called out for not following the spirit of the idea. Especially if you're obstructing people from modifying your platform to use a competitor's product, such as Bing. That's the most alarming accusation, really, and could land them in hot water.
Re: Android chief Rubin's response to Android critics misses the point
#8I guess I fail to see what the big deal is here. Everyone agrees that Google is going to release the source code when it's "done", and that this is going to be some time in the relatively near future. Terms of open-source licenses have been adhered to. It sounds like they probably incurred some code debt rushing this out, and they want to clean it up before people start running with it. They themselves have said it d…
I agree with what you said, but I don't think that's the part that has people most concerned. It's more about stuff like this: According to the BusinessWeek report, Google has been using its exclusive control over timely source code availability as leverage to block vendors from making customizations that don't align with Google's business interests. For example, the article says that Google attempted to block Verizo…
Hmm. They did? Is there a proof to that? Because at Dive into Mobile conference last year Rubin said something totally different on that topic - to the effect of we don't care if some VZW phones are shipped with Bing and the market will sort it out - people will flock to the best experience.
Re: Android chief Rubin's response to Android critics misses the point
#9I guess I fail to see what the big deal is here. Everyone agrees that Google is going to release the source code when it's "done", and that this is going to be some time in the relatively near future. Terms of open-source licenses have been adhered to. It sounds like they probably incurred some code debt rushing this out, and they want to clean it up before people start running with it. They themselves have said it d…
I agree with what you said, but I don't think that's the part that has people most concerned. It's more about stuff like this: According to the BusinessWeek report, Google has been using its exclusive control over timely source code availability as leverage to block vendors from making customizations that don't align with Google's business interests. For example, the article says that Google attempted to block Verizo…
I can see how that might trouble some people, but the Compatibility Definition Document has always existed, hasn't it? You can't just release anything at all and slap the Android trademark on it and use the store, right? You have always had to operated within Google's restrictions if you wanted to do that.
So... why are people surprised?
Re: Android chief Rubin's response to Android critics misses the point
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with what you said, but I don't think that's the part that has people most concerned. It's more about stuff like this: According to the BusinessWeek report, Google has been using its exclusive control over timely source code availability as leverage to block vendors from making customizations that don't align with Google's business interests. For example, the article says that Google attempted to block Verizo…
Hmm. They did? Is there a proof to that? Because at Dive into Mobile conference last year Rubin said something totally different on that topic - to the effect of we don't care if some VZW phones are shipped with Bing and the market will sort it out - people will flock to the best experience.
That was before Facebook and Amazon became threats to Google's hegemony.