A few days ago I dove into the lawsuit filed by Skyhook against Google, and came to the conclusion that Skyhook’s case – while an entirely plausible sequence of events considering Google is a big company and hence prone to abuse – simply wasn’t a very good one. Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt has given a rather generic-looking statement on the matter, but however generic it may be, there’s a hint in there.
In the Skyhook case, which I covered in detail, Skyhook claims Google forced Motorola and Company X into using Google Location Services, despite the fact that these two phone makers had already entered into contract to use Skyhook’s XPS services. Skyhook claims that Google either wanted Skyhook’s XPS and Location Services to run side-by-side, or to not use XPS at all. Running them side-by-side would give Google access to Skyhook’s better (Skyhook’s words) location data.
Skyhook argued that this was all because Android’s Compliance Definition Document was vague and open to any interpretation Google saw fit. Upon studying this document, however, it became clear that the CDD is anything but vague, and rather straightforward and easy to understand, and as such, it seemed very unlikely to me that Google could hold the CDD up to Motorola and force them to do anything. On top of that, the CDD had nothing to say about location services at all.
I concluded that a more likely candidate for Google to pressure Motorola with is the secret agreement concerning the Google applications and Market access. Since this agreement is secret, Skyhook can’t build a case around it, and as such, it is firced to focus on the publicly available CDD instead.
However, Skyhook itself provided the evidence against this secret agreement being a vague document Google can pressure OEMs with; not only did Skyhook point out that Android devices have already shipped with different location services, but Motorola and Company X also told Skyhook that their agreements with Google allowed switching location services.
Still, weak case or no, I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see Google abusing its power – it comes naturally to any large company, whether it carries a fluffy bunny unicorn motto or not. Now Google CEO Eric Schmidt implicitly confirmed that the secret agreement – and not the CDD as Skyhook claims – is the leverage with which Google blocked Skyhook from Motorola’s devices.
“Android is an open platform and device makers are free to modify the Android source code to customize or disable any range of features for Android devices,” Schmidt said, “However, if someone wishes to market a device as being Android compatible or to include Google applications on the device, we require the device to conform with some basic compatibility requirements to help ensure a consistent experience for users and a consistent platform for developers.”
My bold, and bingo. The CDD is far too clear and specific to be used as a pressure tool, and as such, the secret Google applications agreement was a far more likely candidate – it’s secret for a reason, wouldn’t you think? Seeing how Android devices have already shipped with non-Google location services, and seeing how both Motorola and Company X did not see any problems in the secret agreement, it must mean that either the agreement is intentionally vague, or has been quickly amended by Google when they learned about Skyhook’s success.
Ironically, this is what Schmidt said earlier during the interview, when asked about why Google isn’t forcing OEMs to give their users the option of transforming their device into stock Android, updated by Google. “The fact of the matter is that if we were to put those type of restrictions on an open source product, we’d be violating the principle of open source,” Schmidt replied.
Android is open source. The Google applications (and thus, access to the Market), are not. Google can apparently use the agreement covering these applications to pressure OEMs, despite the starry-eyed answer by Schmidt regarding Android’s open source-ness. Sure, you could ship your Android device without Google applications and Market access, but who’s going to buy that?
Google gets the open source fuzzies, but also the control it needs to force its own services onto OEMs. It’s damn brilliant.
We always knew Google use the Market (and their other apps) as their bargaining chip. They must; everything else Google have written is open source.
This still doesn’t say whether or not they actually *did* tell anyone they couldn’t use Skyhook.
What Open Source applications has Google written? Google earth is definitely not open source. Google Apps are definitely not Open Source. Android is an OS, not an app.
All the other apps that come with Android: the browser, clock, music app, gallery, etc.
So it looks like we’re slowly heading to a world with three dominant smartphone OSes: Apple, Linux, and Windows.
I feel for the employees at RIM, Symbian, and all the other et ceteras.
I would say Linux (Android), Apple and Symbian if you think globally, or Linux, Apple and RIM if you think Western Hemisphere. Windows Mobile 7 is just coming out the door, and doesn’t seem to have much momentum at all. I just don’t see it displacing the entrenched competition.
Then again, those words were said by many about Android just a couple of years ago. Of course, Android is still kind of new and fresh; We’ve had Windows Mobile for nearly 10 years (13 if you count the original WinCE) and it’s never really taken off.
he wasn’t referring to current market share, he’s referring to where we’ll be in a few years. it’s not that hard to see that Nokia and RIM are constantly losing market share in what phones are going to be (right now they’re “smart phones”).
I was speaking of the future too, but keep in mind the future is rooted in the present.
I don’t see Nokia being hurt too badly in the global space, as they are the dominant player outside North America and for good reason; Symbian in my personal opinion barely qualifies as a “smartphone OS” but it is solid and versatile, and people just seem to love it. As for RIM, they have a strong foothold in the corporate and government worlds here in the US, though I’ve seen my own organization slowly making the switch to Android now that Nextel has embraced Android powered devices.
From what I’ve seen of WM7, it’s just too little, too late. They’ve had over 10 years to “fix” WinMo and have failed at every opportunity. I may eat these words in a few years, but I’m going to go ahead and say that they will likely not even come close to competing with Google, Apple, Nokia and RIM for the foreseeable future.
Microsoft should concentrate more on their desktop OS and video game divisions; they really shine in those areas now. Windows 7 in particular is a great OS and deserves the greater part of their initiative.
What exactly is needed to qualify as a “smartphone OS” in your opinion?
Symbian just feels like a dumbphone OS to me, compared to Android and BlackBerry. It’s a great OS and I’m not knocking it, it’s just a personal opinion. Granted, I haven’t used Symbian^3 yet; my experience is limited to S60 which is by far the most popular version of Symbian.
I happen to feel the same way about iOS for different reasons; it is chintzy and dumbed down, but it has apps so the world calls it a “smartphone OS”. I personally don’t think it qualifies either but it’s not my call.
Ah, the old “feels like”. When everything else fails, fail more.
That’s why I say it’s my opinion and that I accept the fact the rest of the world sees it otherwise. I’ve noticed a trend from you; you pick one person in every article discussion to troll, and twice in the past few weeks it’s been me.
Perhaps you need a new hobby.
Well, perhaps you need to think through things a bit before forming opinions. If you can’t rationally defend your opinions, they are about as valuable to a discussion as an insult. Especially when it comes to technology; it’s not as if we’re discussing interpretative dance here.
I’m just asking you what features you expect from a smartphone. Your feelings don’t interest anyone.
That’s the beauty of opinions, they don’t count! Try to wrap your head around that instead of attacking someone because they don’t feel EXACTLY how you want them to.
You know what, I’m done feeding the troll. I’m not going to continue this inane argument with someone whose favorite hobby appears to be picking internet fights over an off-topic intangible. Your comment history speaks for itself. Good day sir.
No, that’s not a “beauty” of anything. No one is interested in hearing about your opinions if you can’t explain what you’re talking about. Call it trolling if you must, I’m only trying to get you to explain what you mean. What you’re doing is only chatter, you’re not discussing anything. If you think that’s great, then I suppose it’s just as great that I call you an irrationalist cunt. It’s just an opinion, after all.
true it is an opinion and you’re entitled to it.
I’m just curious as to what informs your opinion that Symbian is a dumbphone os? What are you criteria for a smartphone os?
Thank you.
I recognize that Symbian is considered a smartphone OS, but my experience with it is that it’s not that easy to use as a smartphone. There’s not a lot of consistency in the UI (sometimes you single-tap, sometimes double with no rhyme or reason) and not a large selection of apps for it either. I have seen some improvement on both fronts with the newer touchscreen devices, i.e. the Nuron. Still, the overall feel of the interface is akin to a dumbphone with ambition, rather than a bare-bones smartphone.
Again, that is my own opinion formed from my admittedly limited experience with the OS over the years. I’ve owned three Symbian devices and only marginally liked one: The Nuron. I’d love to get my hands on a Symbian^3 device; from what I’ve read and seen (via video demos) I would likely enjoy it immensely. It seems to be a “Maemo-lite” or perhaps what Maemo would have looked like if it were to dumb down to the level of the Android OS (i.e. go in a consumer-driven direction). I certainly love Nokia’s hardware and always have. The most rock-solid phones I’ve ever owned were the basic Nokia bar phones of the early 2000s.
These days even the dumbphones are gaining smartphone-like features. The lines are beginning to blur. Thanks to Android I doubt there will be a large market for true dumbphones in the near future.
Seems like you have an issue with the touch interface of symbian, like many people. Looking at the comments about it, I have the feeling that Nokia published it in a hurry in order to monetize the touchscreen trend and didn’t take the time to polish it enough. But keep in mind that there’s much more to the symbian ecosystem than the few touchscreen phones made by Nokia. For those who prefer buttons, symbian can be a very nice OS. At least it is on my E63, and on my girlfriend’s N86 it’s even better since all the issues I had about my old version seems to have been fixed (makes me want to buy an USB wire so that I could upgrade my phone and get rid of those bugs, but well… I wouldn’t need that wire otherwise so it’s overpriced compared to its usefulness).
There we encounter the problem of defining what a smartphone is. IMO, if you *can* develop applications using a native library and not some Java ME crap, that is technically a smartphone. However, it’s true that I may be biased on that matter since I think that the whole app frenzy is a bit stupid as long as the phone does what you want out of the box or (for less common tasks) with easily downloadable apps like the Skype app or Opera Mobile. In my case, it does.
I notice that you’re talking about feeling. So this is about opinion. In my own opinion, this point is an advantage of symbian : the interface is consistent with what most people are used to. Grid menu with proper folder hierarchy, good notifications, and most important the thing includes most of the things you’ll need out of the box.
Again, how do you separate dumbphones and smartphones ? After spending some time studying the matter, it seems to me that having a native SDK available is more or less the sole things which differentiates clearly “smartphones” and “dumbphones”. So for those who don’t buy the mobile application frenzy… well… is a smartphone really worth the increase in price ? Or the decrease in battery life if you go touchscreen ?
Meh. I would like people to stop saying Android is a linux platform: the kernel is, for all means and purpose, forked, so it is not part of the linux ecosystem anymore (no contribution from google to linux, or the opposite – that’s even worse than a distro fork), neither is the userspace enclosed in the dalvik VM : no reuse of existing software and libraries, no improvement in software management.
MeeGo is a linux OS; Android is not even a fork, it’s a spin-off.
Well at least I didn’t call it GNU/Linux.
I call it Linux because, while it’s a fork, it’s still got a LOT of linux code in it, as well as the open source spirit. To put it another way, Mac OS X is a fork of FreeBSD with a Mach kernel but it’s still considered UNIX.
I understand your ire, but until Google strips out so much code from the kernel that it becomes their own creation, I’ll consider it in the family of Linux-based operating systems.
Besides, it gets the Linux name into the public awareness and that’s a good thing.
This is a common Nokia fanboy talking point, but it’s one I don’t get. How is Android “not Linux”, and how does any of the reasons you state make it not Linux, and why does it even matter? I mean, there are valid points Nokia fanboys have, but this isn’t among them.
To a regular phone user, who cares if it’s forked, or if there’s a VM. That’s all in the background, stuff they don’t care about.
And so what if Android is “forked”. Isn’t that what Linux is for? A framework that you can use and customize to your specific needs? They’re abiding by the GPL, by the letter and the spirit of open source, and how is it any different than Meego or Maemo (which one are they using again?). They’ll all based on Linux, modifying it as they need. That’s what Linux is for. The Nokia fanboy argument isn’t even semantic, it’s contrived pedantic.
Windows Phone 7 is an entirely different beast to previous releases so the comparison aren’t even comparing Apples with Apples. You note about momentum – how do you define that? Microsoft’s focus is on quality third party applications and not merely quantity. I can tell you that the AppStore may boast raw numbers but the share amount of worthless crap out number the amount of good software that is available.
Windows Phone 7 is providing an entirely new foundation for future development that fits their larger enterprise direction. Rather than the disjointed clusterfuck that existed before – you’re going to have Silverlight applications that can scale from the desktop down to the handheld. The ability to develop one application and deploy it throughout your company without needing to tweak it for each platform it sits on. It is a much needed step in the right direction when compared to the old way of doing things.
Do I think Microsoft is worried about the competition? sure but their primary focus I would say right now with Windows Phone 7 is firstly on the enterprise market with their complete ecosystem with probably more consumer focused devices being released with maybe Windows Phone 7.1.
Momentum could be defined by the answer to “dear developers, which platform do you intend to develop for in the close future?”. So far, it is true that iOS grabed the lion’s share.
http://www.appcelerator.com/mobile-developer-survey-june-2010/
http://www.macworld.com/article/150690/2010/04/mobile_app_developme…
Mobile Developer Surveys only register what is the latest fad, but given that mobile app development doesn’t take too long, that translates to new, trendy apps.
Of course, that can shift very quickly (especially with the saturation in the app stores of the leading platforms).
Considering that the finalised SDK has been out for around a month, and the complete details as so far as the actual devices that will be available at launch – I am not surprised that developers are being cautious, that is, not to get too optimistic. Right now we’re in the midst of a recession and money is tight, businesses want to know the full details instead of jumping into something of an unknown quantity – so the I’m not surprised with the responses.
The saving grace for Apple has been their international market and in many cases their phones not being locked to a particular carrier – you can purchase an iPhone completely and then use it on the XT Network if you want (instead of Vodafone). Many people who wouldn’t have otherwise bought one if it were locked to Vodafone now can. The question will be whether there is a relationship though between the locking in of the phone to a carrier in the US and how that compares to developer numbers. Are the developers on iOS doing so because it is a combination of developer tools, a large customer base and the lack of a viable alternative with a similar ecosystem? if Microsoft provides a similar ecosystem on multiple phones on multiple carriers are developers going to be more open – especially those who are using Adobe’s development tool right now and target iOS using it.
I also question surveys as well – people give the answer they think is the right one. I’ve hung around casually on mailing lists and forums and there certainly isn’t the certain market share that Apple would like to think they have. Developers are very fickle and if someone provides a better development environment it will be easy to woo developers away. XCode 4.0 is a major step so that might alone stem the tide but if Apple becomes more anal about rejecting software for trivial reasons some developers might just throw in the towel and target a platform that isn’t hell bent on being the inconsistent gatekeeper.
Google’s big mistake, in my opinion, is keeping these agreements secret. Yes, I understand how secret agreements can be in the corporate interest at times, but they are often not in the public interest. Corporations, Google included, would earn a lot more public trust if their business agreements were exposed to the light of day.
Thom Holwerda wrote…
Was it painful when Skyhook firced it?
–bornagainpenguin
This article makes it sound like it’s a bad thing.
But consider this.
There are devices shipping already which are missing essential stuff like the back button.
Google doesn’t allow any Google applications on such devices since the experience is awful.
On the other hand if you incorporate Android into a car you might not need Google Applications anyway and you will provide a specialized market for car applications.
Also if you are Yahoo and want to create an Android phone, you don’t care much about those applications either and preinstall a market like SlideMe.
Well said. That’s where Android is such a unique player in the mobile arena; the very fact that it is open allows anyone to take it and make it their own.
However, I personally feel that Google should lighten up a bit when it comes to their branded apps. Perhaps they should allow at least the search widget, maps and Gmail without restrictions.
The market is another story; I can see why they wouldn’t want just any device to have access. For example, I just switched from BlackBerry to Android yesterday via the Motorola Cliq, a version 1.5 device. I chose that phone because I like the hardware, MotoBlur is fun, and Motorola has committed to a 2.1 upgrade soon (it’s in the testing phase now). Regarding the Market, I have twice now installed an app that gave no warning about compatible OS versions, but when I try to run it, it says “This app is compatible with 2.x and above”. One app simply closes immediately, the other falls back to a native OS app and only provides codecs (it’s a video player).
To me, the above situation is just silly. This is one area where Apple’s strict control over their app store is a good thing; no worries about which version of iOS a user has installed. Now, that doesn’t mean I think Google should ban the Market from a non-blessed device; rather, I think they need to put more work into the Market itself to ensure that no incompatible apps show up on a particular device.
I know Android can be a techie’s dream device, and techies tend to research apps and make sure they only install what works. However, Android is now a mainstream mobile OS and has more non-techie users by far today. These are the folks who will think their device or its OS is “broken” if it refuses to run apps. I know this for a fact as my co-worker has been very frustrated with her Droid Eris over unstable and non-functioning apps and has exchanged it twice. I tried to explain to her recently that there is an update to 2.1 that might fix those issues, but she is very hesitant to update the device and is instead waiting for a device upgrade on her contract.
I think over time Google will see these issues and work to correct them. They have far too much invested in Android at this point to ignore their huge customer base.
“I have twice now installed an app that gave no warning about compatible OS versions, but when I try to run it, it says “This app is compatible with 2.x and above””
As an Android developer i have to tell you that this happened just because the developer is a beginner.
Android DOES have an option to specify the minimum os version (Among other things like hardware requirements). If your device doesn’t match those requirements it won’t show in the market.
Source: http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/manifest/uses-sdk-element…
Regarding Apple i have to disagree with you because Android allows BOTH uncontrolled and controlled app stores. VCAST and the Lenovo app store are examples of Android app stores with strict application approval.
And this choice is what makes Android great in the first place.
Thank you for the well-informed input! It’s nice to know that there is version-limiting support in the Market. Shame on those developers for not researching and using this feature. Having said that, I think the video player developer did the right thing in allowing the app to download to 1.x devices so the user could at least make use of the codecs included. That was pretty cool of them.
In the 18 hours I’ve owned this phone — six of which I’ve been asleep — I’ve already found it to be the right combination of hardware and OS for me for the foreseeable future. I was holding out for the Nokia N900 but I just can’t justify spending that much on hardware alone. It’s the same conundrum I face as a low-income Apple fan; I love OS X but I can’t afford a real Mac so I make do with commodity hardware. In the mobile space, I take advantage of on-contract discounts to get a phone I’m able to enjoy using, yet still afford those little luxuries like food and shelter. (For those without a sense of humor, that last bit was sarcastic.)
For all I know, Maemo could be a thousand times better than Android for someone like me, but I won’t know because Android so far is an excellent fit for me. By the time I can afford the N900, the N910 (or whatever they decide to call it) will be out with MeeGo. I may dip into those waters in the future but I’m satisfied with what I have right now.
From what i know the N900 won’t get an official Meego update. Guess the best choice would be to wait for the first Meego device.
Anyways i find Nokias strategy a bit confusing after the announcement to support WP7.
Since Symbian owns the low-end this means direct competition for Meego which is high-end only just like WP7.
Any thoughts how this is a good idea? As a developer you really don’t know which to support which means supporting iOS and Android only and waiting how the others work out.
….Whaaaaaat?
Don’t drink and type.
Well that’s why I said the N910 or whatever they decide to call the next hardware release in that series.
When did this happen? There was a VentureBeat article a few days back claiming such a thing but it was refuted more than once, including by Nokia themselves. I was under the impression that Nokia recently committed to Symbian and MeeGo exclusively as their smartphone OSes. The only other big Symbian user, Sony-Ericsson, are dropping Symbian for Android and not WP7 (I keep wanting to call it WinMo7…), but that should have little bearing on the lifespan of Symbian.
I think Symbian has a long and steady future with Nokia, given its entrenchment with the low-to-mid level phones which make up the bulk of their sales. It’s a mature and solid OS and they would be stupid to get rid of it now. Though I recognize that it’s a great platform, I don’t care for it on a personal level; but I’m not their target market anyway. I do hope that they can get the ball rolling on the Ovi Store, and bring it on par with the Android Market if not the iOS App Store. Competition is always good for the consumer, as it brings choice and variety.
Yeah i guess i got this one wrong. Seems it’s more like a rumor. But not too far fetched after the new CEO came from Microsoft.
Oh no, it is veeeery far fetched if you had taken the time to find out Nokia’s strategy. It is rolling since the beginning of the year. http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/24/editorial-nokia-isnt-building-an…
One billion chinese, using OPhones? (Edit: okay, my bad, it seems to have failed.) Verizon customers, once Verizon gets its marketplace?
HTC also takes a jab at google with their own maps app.
No one’s saying they’re going to be successfull, but everybody’s trying hard to get rid of Google.
Canonical may only ship Ubuntu with google.com as the default if we [Google] get to dictate the default wallpaper, theme and software packages used.
What Google have been doing is worse than Apple having a completely closed system. This sets the precedent that in the future the code on our computers will be open but the systems themselves will be completely closed and unable to be anything other than what the company dictates. No hobby OSes, no new paradigms, no innovation unless Google have say first.
Canonical can still ship it… just without the Google applications.
Which are btw. absolutely non-essential to the OS.
C’mon mail, map, market, search… it’s nice but there are alternatives.
Edited 2010-09-25 13:03 UTC
Why should someone like Google be able to prevent someone from shipping an OS that includes their apps?
Shouldn’t the platform allow any apps, open or closed, regardless of vendor?
What if Linux distributors were not allowed to include an open source VOIP client, if they include Skype. Or no open PDF reader if Adobe reader is used?
Sod them! Google should not have control over other apps if its apps are present too, it’s madness.
Not really. Not even close.
Even though I can’t replace the OS on my Sony Ericsson Android phone due to a proprietary bootloader, I can still change just about any feature. For instance, I have installed a replacement home screen, a different SMS app, a different softkeyboard, etc. I can also install any app that I write myself or download from the internet, even if they break with the Android Market rules. There’s plenty of room for new paradigms and Google-unsanctioned innovation on a stock Android phone. It’s about as open to innovation as OS X and Windows are.
>> I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see Google abusing its power
so because Google would not give away the control of their Market and their Google apps, it’s an abuse ??
Android OS is the OS – but only the OS… not the whole company intellectual property.
Let me rephrase this (even if Kroc did it already): having software vendors throwing a hissy fit if an opponent’s app is also on the same device is a very bad tendency, and it is getting worse and worse because of the app store model (ab)use by concurrent software vendors. App stores should be independent. After net neutrality, will we have to fight for app store neutrality?
I did not see any statement that Google refused Skyhook’s app to be in the Market. How their GPS would be hooked into the OS, I admit I have no clue… the problem might be more there, in the sense that skyhook wanted to replace a service of the OS.
Not sure about that. It’s a right of the OS manufacturer to promote some specific apps on its platform, because they integrate well or follow their strategy best.
As long as installation and use of non-promoted apps is not obfuscated (is it possible on Android to create alternative application stores or take an app transferred through USB to the device and run it ?), this looks like a small issue to me.
Would you blame Ubuntu for including F-Spot as a default, as long as one can install Gimp ?
Edited 2010-09-25 21:53 UTC
What are you smoking? Or is the tinfoil hat on too tight?
There is no “secret agreement”, there is the CDD – and as has always been known, and non secret to those following this, if you want to have the google approval as a real Android device (and use their name, logo, and copyrighted apps) then you have to comply with the CDD (like, your device must support bluetooth) – that’s it.
No secret. Never has been.
Motorola are free to put Skyhook on their devices, but they are not free to leave out key components from Google – IF they still want to use Googles name, the Android logo etc.
Now move along.
“[Microsoft] are free to put [Internet Explorer] on their [operating system], but they are not free to leave out key components from [Microsoft] – IF they still want to use [Microsoft’s] name, the [Windows] logo etc.”
There’s another way to look at this. People keep analyzing this as if it were the mobile phone market share that matters. Maybe not. Maybe it’s the location service that matters.
If it can be claimed that Google’s location services have a monopoly on mobile devices — when you look at their sum total market share across mobile platforms (Android, iPhone, etc) — then Google may have antitrust problems tying their location service to Android. I’m not claiming they have a monopoly; merely positing that the possiblity exists.
If that’s the case, then Skyhook may be able to extract a HUGE settlement with Google, and set Google up for regulation under a DOJ consent decree (like Microsoft).
Even if this isn’t the case _today_, it will happen, sooner or later. We’re going to see substantial consolidation in the mobile phone market among services like location, identity, etc. This seems like the likely path of antitrust enforcement, as well.
So what was the grammar error in “Skyhook: Google Wanted Access to Our Data”?
I reckon “Google publicly represents Android as open source and pro-innovation” should have read as follows: “Google publicly represents Android as being open source and pro-innovation”.