Comments on: Journalists, Developers Puzzled by Android SDK’s License http://www.pervasivecode.com/blog/2007/11/21/journalists-developers-puzzled-by-android-sdks-license/ Jamie Flournoy's Software Development Blog Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:19:54 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Ivan Kuznetsov » Blog Archive » Google Android vs. Nokia Series 60 - what would it take to build a better mobile phone? http://www.pervasivecode.com/blog/2007/11/21/journalists-developers-puzzled-by-android-sdks-license/comment-page-1/#comment-3851 Ivan Kuznetsov » Blog Archive » Google Android vs. Nokia Series 60 - what would it take to build a better mobile phone? Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:51:18 +0000 http://www.pervasivecode.com/blog/2007/11/21/journalists-developers-puzzled-by-android-sdks-license/#comment-3851 [...] Android is a new guy on the block, and it is not all roses. It still has to survive the harsh reality of hardware products manufactuing world and maintaining API compatibility between versions and devices in order to establish itself as a real platform. Because of the Apache license used for Android SDK “applications designed to be compatible with Google’s platform could be made incompatible with a pa...“. [...] [...] Android is a new guy on the block, and it is not all roses. It still has to survive the harsh reality of hardware products manufactuing world and maintaining API compatibility between versions and devices in order to establish itself as a real platform. Because of the Apache license used for Android SDK “applications designed to be compatible with Google’s platform could be made incompatible with a pa…“. [...]

]]> By: Ray Cromwell http://www.pervasivecode.com/blog/2007/11/21/journalists-developers-puzzled-by-android-sdks-license/comment-page-1/#comment-2773 Ray Cromwell Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:54:39 +0000 http://www.pervasivecode.com/blog/2007/11/21/journalists-developers-puzzled-by-android-sdks-license/#comment-2773 Google's stated rules for the FCC auction were exactly that: to open up the handset market entirely -- no walled gardens. My own prediction is that Google buys the 700Mhz spectrum, and simply resells permits to network vendors and handset manufacturers that agree to its terms. It's that simple. I also predict that Google won't produce any phone hardware other than a few reference design prototypes, because frankly, it's a losing market unless it's your core business. Long design cycles, thin margins, planning tied heavily to logistics related to chip component suppliers and foundry scheduling, etc etc. Basically, I would not call their strategy an Apple strategy. Apple is the ultimate walled garden. Only Apple makes the hardware, you are only allowed to run Apple software on Apple approved hardware, iTunes content is proprietary and requires Apple devices and Apple proprietary software to run, Apple phones only run on official Apple partner carriers, etc. By contrast, I expect diverse Android handset manufacturers, diverse implementations that only have to agree on supporting the top level API interopably, non-Android/non-Google handsets able to operate on the 700Mhz network, etc. I'd also suggest to seriously entertain the theory supposedly naive theory that Google 700Mhz/Android play may really be a loss leader. That the frequently idealistic 'do no evil' company (this really is the company internal culture), is really, in fact, trying to change the world and bust up the remnants of telecom monopolies, and that the real hope for making money, is in the opportunities that will open up once wireless is freed from the grip of proprietary content distribution. Google can continue to scale their ad-revenue traditional search business, they're making a killing on it, and I think the equipment manufacturer/carrier business model really doesn't suit them. I'd also take issue with the idea that the GPL 'encourages this', and 'Apache encourages that' In my experience, whether or not a project encourages a web of innovation/collective advancement boils down to leadership of the project, how its run, more than anything else. With the vast majority of GPL'ed software ending up behind services these days, the viral distribution clause has little effect anyway unless you're using the AGPL. The history of successful projects like FreeBSD/NetBSD (as you know, usable back when Linux was still a toy), and numerous Apache projects (not to mention the world's most popular webserver) show that non-viral licenses don't stop innovation or collective advancement. I've used GPL packages where frankly, the project was organized and ran so chaotically, or by an annoying cult of personality, that I was uninterested in contributing, or bothering to fork. Google’s stated rules for the FCC auction were exactly that: to open up the handset market entirely — no walled gardens. My own prediction is that Google buys the 700Mhz spectrum, and simply resells permits to network vendors and handset manufacturers that agree to its terms. It’s that simple. I also predict that Google won’t produce any phone hardware other than a few reference design prototypes, because frankly, it’s a losing market unless it’s your core business. Long design cycles, thin margins, planning tied heavily to logistics related to chip component suppliers and foundry scheduling, etc etc.

Basically, I would not call their strategy an Apple strategy. Apple is the ultimate walled garden. Only Apple makes the hardware, you are only allowed to run Apple software on Apple approved hardware, iTunes content is proprietary and requires Apple devices and Apple proprietary software to run, Apple phones only run on official Apple partner carriers, etc.

By contrast, I expect diverse Android handset manufacturers, diverse implementations that only have to agree on supporting the top level API interopably, non-Android/non-Google handsets able to operate on the 700Mhz network, etc.

I’d also suggest to seriously entertain the theory supposedly naive theory that Google 700Mhz/Android play may really be a loss leader. That the frequently idealistic ‘do no evil’ company (this really is the company internal culture), is really, in fact, trying to change the world and bust up the remnants of telecom monopolies, and that the real hope for making money, is in the opportunities that will open up once wireless is freed from the grip of proprietary content distribution. Google can continue to scale their ad-revenue traditional search business, they’re making a killing on it, and I think the equipment manufacturer/carrier business model really doesn’t suit them.

I’d also take issue with the idea that the GPL ‘encourages this’, and ‘Apache encourages that’ In my experience, whether or not a project encourages a web of innovation/collective advancement boils down to leadership of the project, how its run, more than anything else. With the vast majority of GPL’ed software ending up behind services these days, the viral distribution clause has little effect anyway unless you’re using the AGPL. The history of successful projects like FreeBSD/NetBSD (as you know, usable back when Linux was still a toy), and numerous Apache projects (not to mention the world’s most popular webserver) show that non-viral licenses don’t stop innovation or collective advancement. I’ve used GPL packages where frankly, the project was organized and ran so chaotically, or by an annoying cult of personality, that I was uninterested in contributing, or bothering to fork.

]]>