Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 27th Aug 2012 11:32 UTC
Google One company's response to the jury verdict in Apple vs. Samsung was still missing: Google's. The company has now responded to The Verge, and there's almost a certain bitterness in their language. Not, as you would expect, directed at Apple; no, the bitterness is directed at Samsung. The message Google is sending to other Android OEMs? Stick to stock Android, and you'll have no problems.
Thread beginning with comment 532580
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
That's not the way.
by dsmogor on Mon 27th Aug 2012 13:02 UTC
dsmogor
Member since:
2005-09-01

If Google forces every HW manufactures to literally stick to their design they will be no better than MS.
The lawsuit was meant to spur UI innovation (hear hear?) not add producing another array boring indistinguishable slabs.

Reply Score: 5

RE: That's not the way.
by tidux on Mon 27th Aug 2012 13:05 in reply to "That's not the way."
tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

Hardware manufacturers suck at software interface design, with the possible exception of Apple. None of the custom OEM ROMs provide a single damn thing over stock Android, except for that one Chinese phone that comes with MIUI preinstalled.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: That's not the way.
by dsmogor on Mon 27th Aug 2012 13:21 in reply to "RE: That's not the way."
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

I don't agree. Both Samsung and HTC have added some goodies that made early Androids less lacking in the feature front, not to mention the fact that a lot of their ideas were later put on stock Android (using sick US law logic they should sue Google now).
Sony corner icon approach on the other hand actually makes a lot of sense on their mini devices.
A number of changes are simply required to support additional hardware.
E.g Galaxy Note has narrow touch mode to make it bearable for one handed use. I also hail Samsung decision to leave HW buttons at the bottom as Google decision to put back action at top left corner is brain-dead given the trend to expand screen size.


Not that they always hit the spot frequently shipping downright buggy code, but as time passes they are getting better. GS3 is for one an impressive device even on stock skin.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: That's not the way.
by Tony Swash on Mon 27th Aug 2012 17:55 in reply to "RE: That's not the way."
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Getting the Android OEM community to use a generic version of Android may be quite difficult. They are obviously looking for ways to differentiate their products and the limitations of the smart phone form factor and build components do not make easy to make something distinctive.

That's why customisation of Android is so popular, both the OEMs and the carriers love to load up their handsets with apps and customisations, the problems is that neither the OEMs or the carriers have shown much ability in terms of software development so their efforts tend to be poor and tend to degrade user experience and satisfaction. Their lack of software development ability will be made worse now that they will be all trying not to appear to copy Apple and will thus be more inclined to try ill considered experiments.

The problem for the Android OEM community as a whole is that it is financially so precarious and the only OEM that has made a business success of Android has now been found guilty of copying Apple, a strategy which appears to have paid of as it has allowed Samsung to create a high brand profile and to make high profits, now however they face the difficult task of retaining that brand profile whilst coming out with designs that cannot be confused with Apple's.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: That's not the way.
by UltraZelda64 on Tue 28th Aug 2012 04:53 in reply to "RE: That's not the way."
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Hardware manufacturers suck at software interface design, with the possible exception of Apple.

Apple sucks at being even a semi-decent corporation, so I would say that anything potentially positive about them is null and void. They don't get my respect or acknowledgement of possible "good" they've done or "innovations" they've made. It's a corrupt corporation and clearly Mr. Dead Jobs must have chosen a successor that will keep the company going down the same path he set it on (ie. scumbagginess, not that that's a word) before he croaked.

Edited 2012-08-28 04:58 UTC

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[2]: That's not the way.
by Neolander on Tue 28th Aug 2012 08:30 in reply to "RE: That's not the way."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Hardware manufacturers suck at software interface design, with the possible exception of Apple.

If anything, Apple nowadays are more of a software company which happens to build some hardware, like Microsoft, than a hardware company trying to get into software, like PC OEMs.

As far as I can tell, the last time they introduced a significant innovation in the realm of hardware design, rather than "stealing" or buying it, was with the iPod click wheel and the iMac G4 in the early 2000s. Nowadays, it seems to me that all they do in this realm is picking standard components on the market, sometimes buying a shiny extra from a smaller company that does actual hardware R&D, and then putting a pretty shell around the bunch.

On the few occasions where they still design something, like with their SoCs or the aforementioned casing, they do so in a very conservative way, with little bold moves (think Eee pad transformer, Galaxy Note, Xperia X10 Mini and Sola for examples of "risky" hardware design). And even then, they still manage to make beginner mistakes sometimes, like with the iPhone 4's unprotected glass panes and failing antennas.

No, really, if I were to find a good example of companies that are skilled at both hardware and software design, I would rather take a look at some of IBM's business offering (think AS/400, nowadays ironically called "i Series" if I'm not misunderstood). Sure, these are not designed to appeal to the general public, but for what they do, they provide an interesting example of a blend of clever software and hardware design, with lots of integration between both.

Edited 2012-08-28 08:31 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: That's not the way.
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Mon 27th Aug 2012 17:51 in reply to "That's not the way."
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

No, Google does not have as such strict requirements when it comes to hardware. If you want to create a wrist watch phone with 200x 200 px display, go ahead. If you want a 7inch phone, with a 640x 480 display, be their guests. Or a tablet with a keyboard on the back of the display. Or maybe no always connected display at all.

MS would prohibits all of those, Google would prohibit none and let the market place decide which are terrible.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: That's not the way.
by dsmogor on Tue 28th Aug 2012 11:55 in reply to "RE: That's not the way."
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

W/o any software customization those extreme form factors would be useless. Only opennes of Android makes going to market with such variability at least justifiable. With stock Android a lot of designs would be useless.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: That's not the way.
by Hussein on Mon 27th Aug 2012 21:53 in reply to "That's not the way."
Hussein Member since:
2008-11-22

Innovation can only happen when an OEM slaps an iOS-like skin on Android? I'm glad Google is sticking it to Samsung.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: That's not the way.
by the_trapper on Tue 28th Aug 2012 11:34 in reply to "That's not the way."
the_trapper Member since:
2005-07-07

The lawsuit was meant to spur UI innovation (hear hear?) not add producing another array boring indistinguishable slabs.


How was Apple's lawsuit meant to "spur UI innovation"? I'm 99% sure it was meant to extinguish it. Unless you think Apple are the only one's capable of UI innovation.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: That's not the way.
by dsmogor on Tue 28th Aug 2012 11:56 in reply to "RE: That's not the way."
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

That was irony, but reading mainstream press, this view seems to be dominating.

Reply Parent Score: 2