Google tightening control of Android

[lunatic59]

You have to admit (ok, you don't have to do anything, but you know what I mean) - when carriers and makers dink and dork around not providing desirable updates, and locking users out of easy ways to do so, for those users, Android can get a tarnished name.

It's in Google's interests to take steps to protect the brand image.

Whether the steps they take are ultimately in everyone's interests will remain to be seen.

I don't think it would be totally unreasonable for Google to restrict the use of the Android Brand to those companies who abide by their guidelines. If they want to take the source (keeping it open as it should always stay) and modify it to the point of departure from those guidelines, then fine, just don't say "powered by Android" ... say powered by Verizon, Samsung ... or, if the FTC wishes to enforce truth in advertising ... "powered by profit".

 

[eric328]

Crash, you are right and I agree with your argument. I do not blame Google for bad faux-pa's with the overall Android experience. It is the fault of the carriers/manufacturers, that I do not disagree. I am simply stating that there could be guidelines in place that prevent a company from ONLY being held accountable retroactively (through the wallets of users) after thousands of people have a bad experience. An agreement to provide a workable product with timely updates, nothing more. Some level of control is held by Google, but the end user interest is placed ahead of carrier capitalism while maintaining openness. If the carrier fails to uphold the agreement, punitive actions could be enforced upon the carrier by Google (because it can sully the name of Android overall when users have a bad experience).

(Getting off soapbox, will shut up now)

 

[Crashdamage]

I am simply stating that there could be guidelines in place...An agreement to provide a workable product with timely updates, nothing more.

I seriously doubt an update requirement would be doable, even if it sounds desirable. I don't expect updates anyway. I buy a product - a phone for instance - for what it can do right now. If it gets enhancements in usability or functionality later via updates, that's just a nice bonus.

...the end user interest is placed ahead of carrier capitalism...

You are kidding, right? Or maybe just an idealist?

If the carrier fails to uphold the agreement, punitive actions could be enforced upon the carrier by Google (because it can sully the name of Android overall when users have a bad experience).

Again, probably not doable. Now, I have no problem with, as lunatic59 suggested, Google protecting the Android brand and reputation by:

...9restrict(ing) the use of the Android Brand to those companies who abide by their guidelines. If they want to take the source...and modify it to the point of departure from those guidelines, then fine, just don't say "powered by Android" ... say powered by Verizon, Samsung ... or, if the FTC wishes to enforce truth in advertising ... "powered by profit".

IOW, if Android is modified beyond a certain point you can't say it's Android anymore. Fine, very reasonable. But I have a BIG problem with what Google has chosen to do instead - add rules, change rules, and worst of all, play favorites to those companies most willing to cowtow to the whims of Lord Google.

And so here we are, basically back to discussing one of the serious reservations I had about coming back to Android. An OS only partially open and controlled by one company is not a good thing. As I said before, maybe MeeGo or another truly open mobile OS will still save us.

 

[lordofthereef]

The issue is almost certainly not embedded this or that and the time it takes to get it done. The issue is that all the manufacturers are working on their newest models as first, second, and third priority. If any of the "old stuff" makes it to the drawing board, great! The EVO got its update within weeks of the FROYO launch. It was also a flagship phone at the time. Take a look at gingerbread. We are likely not to get it until after the 3D launches. The reason behind it is purely to maximize profit for the EVO 3D launch.

 

[lordofthereef]

I seriously doubt an update requirement would be doable, even if it sounds desirable. I don't expect updates anyway. I buy a product - a phone for instance - for what it can do right now. If it gets enhancements in usability or functionality later via updates, that's just a nice bonus.

Let's no overlook security updates here.

 

[lordofthereef]

You're getting it. Hold manufacturers and services providers responsible for what they do. If Samsung or whoever ticks you off because they can't or won't provide reasonable updates vote with your wallet and don't do business with them. Restrictions on open systems would be only a partial solution at best and the trade-off in lost freedom and innovation not worth it. Don't kill the messenger.

This is what an informed consumer would do. Sadly, Android would be nowhere close to where/what it is today if all of their consumers were informed like this (simply because we wouldn't have the masses buying these products, since the masses aren't educated in this way). My phone sucks = android sucks for most. Plain and simple. They don't see it as an OS on some manufacturer's hardware. They see the entire thing as an entity and if their experience was bad, Android is bad.

 

[lordofthereef]

I should also add that a lot of the geeks here love Android because it is open (not the only reason but a big part of it). Hate to break it to the geeks (and I include myself in this), but Android would be as successful or more if they tightened things up, I am willing to guarantee it.

 

[lordofthereef]

You have to admit...

Hate when you force me to do things

 

[EarlyMon]

I should also add that a lot of the geeks here love Android because it is open (not the only reason but a big part of it). Hate to break it to the geeks (and I include myself in this), but Android would be as successful or more if they tightened things up, I am willing to guarantee it.

The problem with hypotheticals is that they're always so attractive, yet always so unprovable.

Hate when you force me to do things

Fetch me ... a shrubbery!

When I look at the large independent dev community, able to exploit features by accessing source code from the AOSP repository and also the manufacturers publishing their verisions of Android, it surely seems to me that a large portion of user community is benefiting from the openness of Android (as are users when that occurs) - a great deal more so than TiVo users did - so, I'd say the burdens of F/OSS have been met, up until now.

While lacking an official updates, a number of Gingerbread-capable phones are already sporting it thanks to the dev community allowing users to free themselves from the tyranny of vendor lock-in.

Our best or worst readings on the latest moves by Google could be correct, in my opinion it's too soon to say - but it seems to makes sense to me be pessimistic in today's climate.

 

[lunatic59]

T
Fetch me ... a shrubbery!

Ni!

 

[lordofthereef]

The problem with hypotheticals is that they're always so attractive, yet always so unprovable.

I could probably get pretty close to proving it by producing a survey sent out to all Android owners. I would only need one question answered. "Did you choose Android because it is open source". I know that the people I know isn't a good sampling to represent the world (duh), but none of them even know what open source is (well one guy did). Want to know why they picked Android? parapharasing here "it does everything I want and the clock [sense] looked nice".

 

[EarlyMon]

I could probably get pretty close to proving it by producing a survey sent out to all Android owners. I would only need one question answered. "Did you choose Android because it is open source". I know that the people I know isn't a good sampling to represent the world (duh), but none of them even know what open source is (well one guy did). Want to know why they picked Android? parapharasing here "it does everything I want and the clock [sense] looked nice".

We're cross-threaded.

I took your original meaning in a general sense - could we know if Android would be popular if not open? No, by default it would've been a different OS and approach, so we'd find nothing prove-able.

 

[Drhyde]

I'm less interested in Google tightening the clamps on manufacturers than the manufacturers locking down their phones (encrypted bootloaders). Sure, Google's action could very well be against the spirit of openness, but not even allowing the consumer the option to root their phone damn sure cuts into open source. That and the carriers bloatware, restrictions, and outright goofiness are hurting Android too. It seems to me the problem really isn't Google, but the manufacturers and carriers.

Google is just trying to get everyone on the same page, but those two keep trying to somehow maximize profit off a free OS. Very strange indeed.

 

[zuben el genub]

I could probably get pretty close to proving it by producing a survey sent out to all Android owners. I would only need one question answered. "Did you choose Android because it is open source". I know that the people I know isn't a good sampling to represent the world (duh), but none of them even know what open source is (well one guy did). Want to know why they picked Android? parapharasing here "it does everything I want and the clock [sense] looked nice".

I'd rephrase that "open Source." You are right that most would say "I liked the clock", but there are some users who might read through the Apps and decide that Android might work for them. I do know what open source is - but I wanted a phone that would do what I wanted - not what the carrier or mfg. thinks I want. I tried Symbian, and won't use a PC/Mac makers phone, so that leaves out Apple and Windows. Nokia was OK but OVI was something else. Looking at the blurbs for Motorola, I didn't want Blur, and I'd had Motorola phones in the past and was pissed that they wanted $50 for the software that should come with the phone.

I also read thru forums like these. I wound up with a rooted and unlocked SGS4G. I bought that for the processor speed and the screen. Most of my stuff is reference, and in PDA form, and on the SD Card already. I don't think an upgrade to the next form of Android would benefit me. I rooted just to get rid of the damn bloatware which also increased the battery life.
I also have a Galaxy 3, already unlocked, that I might try to upgrade to 2.2.

I also have a friend who has Macular Degeneration. She's with Sprint and bought the EVO as the screen was the easiest for her to deal with.

Z