Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 17th May 2013 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Google Ars nails it: "The answer is that Google did announce what amounts to a fairly substantial Android update yesterday. They simply did it without adding to the update fragmentation problems that continue to plague the platform. By focusing on these changes and not the apparently-waiting-in-the-wings update to the core software, Google is showing us one of the ways in which it's trying to fix the update problem."
Thread beginning with comment 561972
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Hiding the problem...
by rklrkl on Sat 18th May 2013 08:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Hiding the problem..."
Member since:

> ... once you want to actually make money from it you're in hot water as any person or company can take your code, modify it, and benefit from it without giving a damn thing back to you.

I suspect Red Hat would disagree with you on this one. There's several free clones (why I don't know - you only need one surely?) of RHEL such as CentOS, Scientific Linux, Oracle Linux etc. and yet Red Hat makes a very healthy profit.

> And don't go on about the GPL, there are plenty of ways around that one too if you're motivated, and cash is one hell of a motivator.

Nice to you see you don't care about any legal aspects and it should be noted that GPL is actually enforced legally (and extremely successfully - I don't know of any case where it lost, but I couldn't be wrong there).

> and so far Google themselves haven't made much from Android.

Except for the advertising revenue and, er, 30% of all Android app sales. That's probably quite a big pile there.

I think if you quoted Canonical as struggling for money, you might have had a better case - Ubunutu's download page now comes with a donation beg and the Amazon lens tie-up just smells of sellout/desperation.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Hiding the problem...
by darknexus on Sat 18th May 2013 09:59 in reply to "RE[2]: Hiding the problem..."
darknexus Member since:

Why is it that everyone quotes the same tired examples? Red Hat's business model is completely different from Google's. Red Hat's money comes not only from the sale of their os (which is the lesser income by far) but from support contracts. This is common in the enterprise world, where you purchase support contracts so that, should something go wrong with your systems, you can call up someone and demand they figure it out and fix it. This is where Red Hat makes its money and yes, they do it well. However, whether they use open source or closed source wouldn't matter much to them in the end. They target the corporate world, and what the corporate world wants most is someone to bitch at when something doesn't work. In that world, Windows server contractors and Linux are on an equal footing. Suggesting that Red Hat and Google are anything alike smacks of desperation and the inability to form a complete argument.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Hiding the problem...
by rklrkl on Sat 18th May 2013 11:05 in reply to "RE[3]: Hiding the problem..."
rklrkl Member since:

I did quote the part of your claim that anyone can take Open Source code, modify it and benefit without giving back. My reply is entirely appropriate - this is *exactly* what happens with RHEL, particularly with Oracle Linux, who actually charge for their clone. In no way did I imply that the actual business model of Red Hat was identical to Google's, but this is what you seem to zone in on, completely incorrectly.

Android and RHEL are quite similar in that they're both open source and can be cloned/modified/added to by third parties without any restrictions/cost (although you can't use Google Apps unless you get them approved, but they're not core to running Android, plus you have to remove RHEL branding/name from clones of course).

The main difference is that Android makes money for Google via advertising/30% apps cut (and some cut for media like movies/music/books too I presume) whereas RHEL makes money by being sold initially and supported via paid contracts. *Both* make money for their owners, so to quibble over the business model differences seems petty to me.

Getting back on topic, the recent "Nexus" version promised of the Galaxy S4 does sound intriguing - a vanilla Android of the top-end Samsung phone sold in the Google Play store that will get Nexus-speed updates to the next Android release. I wish Google would do this will all the popular makes of phone - or at least offer to help the manufacturers switch a phone between Nexus and Carrier-bloatware mode easily.

Edited 2013-05-18 11:06 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2