As someone who's been working with Android from the beginning, I have to say: About Time.<p>This is a required step if Google wants the platform to be taken seriously. The only way to keep fragmentation out is to exert a fair amount of control over the OEMs and Carriers who wish to differentiate (or Fragment) Android for their own purposes.<p>It's going to be a fine balancing act for Rubin. If he pushes the carriers/oems too far, they'll walk. If he doesn't push them hard enough, the platform will disintegrate Java ME style.<p>Google is using the only leverage they have (early access and the google apps) to make the platform one worth developing for. I, as someone who makes his living doing it right now, am all for this move.
Good. It's always bothered me that Verizon can take an Android phone and make a bunch of money by whoring it out to Microsoft and anyone else who will pay to have their crapware permanently installed. Carriers and manufacturers have ruined just about every Android phone they've gotten their hands on. Android is really becoming a nice OS, and it deserves better.
Google makes some of the source available when they want to but restricts what people can do with it using licenses, and now they insist on giving their approval to modifications.<p>Can we finally stop saying Android is 'open' now when it's blatantly false?<p>Imagine the headline read 'Apple Tightening Control of WebKit'. How is this any different?<p>I truly want to see an Open tablet on which the community could realize the Dynabook vision. I thought the Xoom might be a good starting point but with Google capriciously exercising power over the software, it's pretty clear that Android isn't going to give us that.<p>On the bright side, Moore's law will give us tablets that will run stock Linux pretty soon, and then all we need is a BSD-licensed, community built touch layer.
For those who would like to start on page one, here's a link <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_15/b4223041200216.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_15/b42230412...</a>
Here is the most interesting snippet for me:<p><i>Facebook, for example, has been working to fashion its own variant of Android for smartphones. Executives at the social network are unhappy that Google gets to review Facebook's tweaks to Android, say two people who weren't comfortable being named talking about the business. Google has also tried to hold up the release of Verizon (VZ) Android devices that make use of Microsoft's (MSFT) rival Bing search engine, according to two people familiar with the discussions.</i><p>With Google being direct competitors with Facebook and Microsoft in the online space, they have a lot to gain by knowing their competitor's plans early/by being able to limit their influence.
Link points to page2, page 1 is here:<p><a href="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_15/b4223041200216.htm?campaign_id=technology_related" rel="nofollow">http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_15/b42230412...</a><p>tl;dr version - Google is allegedly asserting greater control over what folks who ship Android can do (presumably as part of the license for the Google apps bit). They are uneven in their enforcement.<p>Often times articles like this have some base message or meme they are channeling but this one doesn't seem to have much focus. One would guess it was this bold claim:<p>"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."<p>But its not really backed up by the story line. The story is more a "they are lying about openness, they are really evil" kind of thing that I've noticed quite a few places are picking up. There is insinuations about the justice department and anti-trust. Frankly it reads like something Microsoft would say.<p>That being said, if Microsoft really is behind articles of this tone, then I'd suggest they take a different approach and offer carriers a replacement for the Google apps package (mail, maps, search, chat etc) and create windows mobile/android that would certainly tweek Google's nose.
I am happy about this<p>Suppose google doesnt approve changes to the source code before the companies release products. Suppose the changes to that source code stop certain apps from working on certain phones, therefore putting it on the shoulders of the developers to make certain their app works on every different phone.<p>It would hurt the quality of the apps and the platform if Android lost its mostly seamless cross platform ability
This is very good news for us developers. Hopefully a fixed set of screen dimensions and expectations can be established so we know what we are writing for. Every time a big name Android app gets released, a laundry list of which devices it works on and which ones it doesn't gets made, too. I hate this. Either our software needs to run on Android or it doesn't.
<i>Google has also tried to hold up the release of Verizon (VZ) Android devices that make use of Microsoft's (MSFT) rival Bing search engine, according to two people familiar with the discussions.</i><p>Haha, oops! That is kind of funny. I can't believe Google didn't anticipate this type of thing.
This seems opposed to my original impressions of the Android vision. I thought the original carrot/stick was the Android market.<p>But I guess with the new Amazon market the old Google carrot/stick is no longer as compelling.
I'm sure all the android fanboys will consider this a 'good move' since Google is doing it. When Apple does the same thing it is considered draconian and 'closed'.