Rethinking the Openness of Android

If you’re like me, you read MG Siegler’s post on Techcrunch entitled “Android Is As Open As The Clenched Fist I’d Like To Punch The Carriers With,” and were a bit ruffled by it.

In the article, Siegler breaks down the myth of Android openness, and though his reasoning is a bit suspect, this is the kind of thing new Android users needed to hear. Describing Android as “open” is about as subjective as you can get. It’s like describing it as “good.” Therefore, people have assigned all kinds of crazy expectations to what “open” means, and most of them are false.

At one point, Siegler says, “Open is proving to mean that the carriers can choose what they want to do with Android.”

Proving to mean?

Wasn’t that what it meant all along?

I point you to Steve Horowitz, Google Engineering Director, speaking at Google I/O in 2008, before Android 1.0 was launched.

There, he said the following:

“We are going to give [Android] to the industry to allow innovation
on top of the platform, and to enable the industry at large to build and deploy devices with rich and powerful features and functionality.”

I’ve embedded a video of Horowitz’s presentation, which includes a nice walkthrough of a pre-release version of Android. I encourage you to watch this and remember why Android was developed in the first place.

So who do we have to blame for this whole “open” thing? Naturally it’s the Open Handset Alliance, that famous group of 78 different mobile technology companies and service providers who fostered the development of Android.

“Android was built from the ground up with the explicit goal to be the first open, complete, and free platform created specifically for mobile devices,” the group’s website still says. Check out this early OHA promo video explaining Android…

Talk about mixed messages. On one end you’ve got the people saying “you will be able to have a phone that does whatever you want it to!” On the other, you’ve got Android co-founder Nick Sears, telling it like it is:

“Andy Rubin…myself…and Rich Miner…the three of us all believed that it was too difficult to get new products out to consumers in a timely fashion, and we thought the missing link was not having an open platform.”

The open platform is to help get new products TO CONSUMERS faster, not to help the consumers do more with those products.

And yes, there are two development branches…Android “with Google,” and the open source version of Android. Personally, I think they should have different names because even the tech journalists are confused. Google’s Android should just be called Android and everything else should have its own name, like MotoBLUR, Sense, TouchWIZ, UX, and so forth. There are 20 handset makers in the OHA…and each will have their own UI, which is actually a whole new OS built on top of the free and open Android framework.

You just need to look at TouchWiz 3.0 to see how vastly different the experience can be on an OEM-customized version of Android. Seriously…try the media player in TouchWiz. It could pass for a whole different OS.

Similarly, we have to look at the OPhone phenomenon in China. That’s a carrier UI and not a manufacturer one, and it again is a totally different OS (called OMS, even though it’s built on Android). Dell’s got a phone running it, and the same phone running Dell’s custom Android UI in the US. That’s kind of the idea behind the openness…not whether or not you’re allowed to tether the phone or sideload apps.

If carriers just re-branded the different versions of Android like China Mobile does, we wouldn’t even have to have this discussion.

A thought-provoking view of Android from Symbian

GigaOM struck gold with a video of Symbian’s Lee Williams criticizing Google for poisoning the well with its Android business model. It’s an absolute must-watch.
Here’s the meat of it, taken as a direct quote:

“First and foremost, the goal of a Google system would be to create a situation where you have information about the user and the use of…those cloud apps that are proprietary to Google. Secondarily, it would be to cookie them, so you get that unique identifier association with the data you’ve collected on the individual’s habits and routines, etc, so you can target apps toward them, so you can build more intelligent cloud-based apps for them and so forth. At the end of the day, what is the motivation for any other company in an Android ecosystem when in fact the consumers are being taken right away from them just in some of these simple concepts?”

“Android is building almost the perfect storm of fragmentation in a large marketplace, I don’t know how many different UIs are shipping and how many people claim to own them across the 18 devices in development. More than that, they continue to do the revenue share deals with the operators and leverage the benefit of these cookied consumers…how many different UIs and closed APIs you’re gonna end up with in that scenario becomes a very big question on how do you sustain and return on investments in that type of environment?”

“I don’t hate Android at all, I think it’s a great initiative. But what I think Google should do is come be a member of the Symbian Foundation and join a truly open ecosystem where anybody can come and sit on a council seat and determine the future of that system, instead of advertising that they have one and going in their own direction.”

…I stripped out the part where he calls Apple greedy and Google evil. That was a bit of a “sweeps week” comment, but Williams’ comment is nonetheless very interesting because he’s cutting Google down for building an open ecosystem that has a closed monetization scheme.

Then, talking about his relationship with handset makers like Samsung, HTC and Motorola, Williams said companies have come to him and said “…One of the issues I’ve got is that Google is taking my interface with my consumers away.”

Let’s see if I have this right…Google gives you the open source framework and shares the revenue and all it costs you is the user’s behavioral data? And in exchange, users get high-quality services for free?

What’s the problem, exactly?

I’m sure my view is oversimplifying it, and my knowledge of Symbian’s inner workings is poor. However, I do know that it’s very easy for a nonprofit organization to vilify a group that is working for profit as “greedy” or “evil,” especially when their customers are the exact same companies.

I guess that’s why he extended the invitation to join the foundation instead of a big old fuck off.