Do Not Anger the Alpha Android

I'm with Google on this, although I do think they've dug themselves into a hole here. They're making the right decision, though it will most definitely be one of the toughest to deal with.<p>The way manufacturers customize Android really reminds me of the Ubuntu design thread on HN a few days back that argued about the close/quit functionality on Macs and PCs with some really ridiculous "solutions." Open-sourcing design (at this scale) is just asking for trouble.<p>Every manufacturer/carrier keeps thinking they can come up with a better Android, with better features, and more custom fit. All I've seen is slower more bloated ROMs with extra eye-candy, built-in applications nobody wants, and even reductions in the original Android feature-set (most notably tethering). All the compromises the iPhone didn't make, Android did, and now the entire platform suffers.<p>But the real lesson here is for the carriers. The carriers need to step up to the new smartphone world, where phones are no longer a one-time sale, but a long-term investment including support and software updates (especially if you decided to customize your own version of Android).<p>The easier alternative would be of course just to let Google handle the software updates (i.e. Nexus S, Nexus One, G1, etc). But then you don't get all your fancy custom themes and subsidized applications. Boohoo. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Android clearly has a fragmentation problem. Worse than that, is the dependency on device manufacturers to release updates to already released handsets, which I'm sure many see as a waste of resources since they've already sold the device and would rather put that into the next big thing.<p>Despite all the problems with the iOS ecosystem, Android has plenty of its own, albeit very different, problems. I'm honestly jealous of the easy updates to iOS that Apple releases. A unified OS that installs on all but the oldest handsets regardless of carrier or model.<p>For Android, on the other hand, manufacturers have made it pretty clear that what comes on the phone is most likely the version of the OS you'll ever see, unless you root your phone replace the stock OS with an open source version of Android.<p>I don't see that as an easy problem to solve due to the nature of the ecosystem compared to Apple's completely integrated vertical.

A less sensationalist headline might be "Google updates the Android Compatibility Definition Document":<p><a href="http://source.android.com/compatibility/index.html" rel="nofollow">http://source.android.com/compatibility/index.html</a><p>Unfortunately that would require you to acknowledge that Android has always had limits if you wanted access to Google's services and would destroy your "Google flip-flops on openness" story.

I feel like this unrest among device manufacturers and carriers is the main reason why an alternative Android stack (With Bing Search/Maps and Amazon AppStore, and possibly some input from Facebook) might be a success.<p>Google can effectively kill off this effort by making next versions of Android close-source but that would heavily tarnish their reputation. So I feel like it's very unlikely.<p>Google can effectively keep them half-a-version behind, though by giving an access to a next Android version to a limited group of "blessed" manufacturers but they still have to release at least the GPL-covered portions of source code when those new devices become available for consumers. This is usually some low-level stuff (changes to Linux kernel and maybe some device-integration code), so Amazon &#38; co. don't have to maintain their own stack of device APIs which is a big win for them. On an application level, though, I doubt that as the platform matures being one version behind is a big issue, and Amazon, Microsoft and Facebook can provide effective substitutions for Google software and services and can bring up a compelling UI to attract consumers.

<i>Google has tried to hold up the release of Verizon (VZ) Android devices that make use of Microsoft's (MSFT) rival Bing</i><p><i>Google has been demanding that Android licensees give Google the final say on how they can tweak the Android code. Google's Rubin says that such clauses have always been part of the Android license</i><p>This is very serious. Consumers won't care (just like they don't care about Apple being closed). It's our job to care and take notice. If anything, it may open our eyes, that Google may be a corporation like all others and will aggressively use its leverage to hurt competitors and partners.

<i>Google's Rubin says that such clauses have always been part of the Android license, but people interviewed for this story say that Google has recently tightened its policies. 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.</i><p>Facebook learns what it means to be a sharecropper.

So much for 'let the market decide'.

I don't understand the critical tone nor the logic behind this piece and I can't imagine what those complaints to the DOJ might look like "We can freely access and use the source code but we want more!"<p>Also the Elop comment was hilarious, and since when does businessweek care about open source?!