In Part 1 of this series, we looked at Google's relationship to the open source community and how it uses open source as a political tool to present themselves as "open" vs. Apple's "closed." The recent firestorm of reports that sem to indicate the Google is tightening the reigns of Android actually prompted Andy Rubin to respond to the criticism. Unsurprisingly, the response did little to silence the critics, since Rubin did not directly address the specific allegations made in the various reports, leading to a number of counter-responses, none better than the analysis from Ars Technica.
With that aside, let's look at what the more recent Businessweek report actually says. The report cites a number of anonymous sources who claim that Google is tightening the reigns of Android, hoping to enforce a level of quality and consistency from manufacturers. The key element of the story has to do with Google choosing to use the elements of Android that it controls, Gmail, Google Maps, Android Market, etc. as leverage against OEMs to comply with Google's wishes. The fact that Android is open source does absolutely nothing to change this scenario, as the proprietary elements of Android are not in any way "open" to anyone. From the beginning, there have been allegations that Google uses these proprietary elements as their only way of enforcing any kind of quality control on Android, since not having Gmail or Market access is a nearly devastating blow to any Android handset. In this sense, the Businessweek article is not alleging anything that hasn't been said before.
What is new, however, is the earlier revelation in Businessweek that Google is waiting to open-source Honeycomb until they can clean up the code and make it ready for phones. Google admits a few realities that one could have guessed from this different approach. First of all, in order to get a Honeycomb device on the market, they took shortcuts in order to tweak it to the point where it would run on the Motorola Xoom. In this rushed process, the software is rough around the edges. Early reviews of the Xoom have confirmed this, with many frustrating bugs and missing features hurting the experience of using the disappointing tablet. Second, Google isn't even sure the same software can run on phones, demonstrating that the team didn't consider an integrated phone and tablet solution while rushing out the software. There seems to be a major question as to whether or not Honeycomb will ever be available for phones, but it's looking more and more likely that the next version of Android, "Ice Cream" or "Ice Cream Sandwich" will be the version intended to bring some of the Honeycomb enhancements to phones.
These two stories from Businessweek are distinct and raise different issues. While the public has conflated them into an indication that Google is "locking down" Android, the truth of the matter is that very little has changed. What these stories do show, however, is that there are a few ways in which Google's version of their open source participation and the advantages of open source have not been true from the beginning.
Open until Closed
While Google is quick to talk about Android as open source, they're a lot slower to talk about how some very important elements are proprietary and not open source. When consumers think about a typical Android phone, they think of a few of these key elements. These are Google-branded applications like Gmail and the Android Market that are not part of the open-source license of Android. It is perfectly reasonable for Google to not allow those apps to be put on any device, since they bear the Google name. What's often overlooked, however, is that these apps are extremely important and considered table stakes for a quality Android device today. They carry a value that is belied by the fact that Google has to approve individual devices before the manufacturer can install them. It's in this approval that Google acts more like a powerful entity approving licenses than as a benevolent software distributer.
Of these apps, the two that were previously mentioned, Gmail and the Android Market, are the most valuable. Gmail is probably the most highly-regarded by journalists and those on the cutting edge because it is a native implementation of all of the much-beloved features of Gmail. Gmail, in fact, may be the single-most compelling reason to use an Android phone, as email in general is so central and Google nailed the implementation in the official Android app. Because of this appeal, it's also incredibly important for manufacturers to get approval for Gmail, since almost everyone who uses an Android phone will have a Google account and it's an expected feature.
Even more important and expected, however, is the Android Market. When Apple created the App Store for the iPhone and made it the sole place to search for and install apps, they set a standard for the industry that required centralized places to install software. While Google took a far more lenient approach in its app approval process with the Android Market, it was essentially providing a similar store. Google also made the decision to allow users to download and install apps from other sources, but the truth of the matter is that only enthusiasts would do this more than a few times. For years then, the Android Market has been the only credible place to take advantage of the hundreds of thousands of apps on the platform. For any company to not provide access to the Market on their device was tantamount to signing a commercial death warrant.
This, of course, leads to the real crux of the matter. While Google claims to be open and uses it as justification for the decisions they make, the truth of the matter is that partners still need Google's approval to make anything meaningful. This approval goes even further, however, when you consider the importance of early access to the newest versions of Android. Early access is key to manufacturers, regardless of whether or not Android is eventually open-sourced. That's the real story out of the Businessweek article, and it's right in the first paragraph:
No more partnerships formed outside of Google's purview. From now on, companies hoping to receive early access to Google's most up-to-date software will need approval of their plans. And they will seek that approval from Andy Rubin, the head of Google's Android group.
If that sounds contrary to the ideals of open source, that's because it is. The idea that a powerful company holds partnerships with other powerful companies and offers only them certain software and meaningful access is not true to the ideals of open source. The biggest hurdle for anyone outside of the blessing of Google is the threat of not having early access to the next version of Android. The difference in time could be as much as 6 months or more. Anyone out there trying to make the case that a difference in time that large in the mobile space is unimportant is being willfully ignorant of the speed at which the mobile space is moving. What's more, Andy Rubin did absolutely nothing to dispute this claim in his response. He didn't even address this most important allegation.
It's worth taking a second and noting that this approach by Google is not inherently bad. It makes complete sense for their company and helps push their services first and foremost. What's spurred this renewed emphasis on review by Google is most likely the introduction of the Amazon App Store and the Verizon-Microsoft deal to make Bing the default search engine on many of the Verizon Android phones. All of a sudden, companies are finding ways to use Android to their advantage instead of Google's. In a sense, Google is simply using the tools it has to protect its own interests.
This approach may not be inherently bad, but what is bad is Google even bothering to claim that they are in any way more "open" in a broad sense. As we discussed in Part 1, open-sourcing software doesn't make you benevolent, particularly when you don't open-source the most valuable elements of every project. Somehow, Google has managed to do to mobile OS's the same thing it's done with countless web services. It's commoditized the basic functions of a smartphone OS and given it away in order to sell more ads. This is a good business model, but the next time to you hear Andy Rubin say "open" fifty times in an interview, evaluate his posture with this in mind. When Vic Gondotra stands up at Google I/O next month and delivers another revisionist history that paints Google as liberators from the control of Apple, consider that Google is reviewing handsets and evaluating partnerships based on manufacturer's willingness to appease Google. The open source superiority tends to not look the same without all the chrome.
The Myth of the Hive Mind in Consumer Electronics
While nothing tangible has really changed in Google's approach, this renewed focus on the things it does control is likely to turn out well for them. Since Google develops Android in-house, there's no appreciable benefit to them falling over themselves to appease the open source community. While it's fair to take issue with Google's pretense of openness, it's sad to see the ideologically-based criticisms of the open source diehards. The open source purists have never had a successful home in consumer electronics, as Google is clearly demonstrating with its recent decisions.
The "other" part of this media-conflated puzzle is the Businessweek report that Google is not open-sourcing Honeycomb for a while, perhaps waiting until the next version of Android to do so. The reason is two-fold: 1) Honeycomb was not designed for phones and 2) Google and Motorola barely got Honeycomb running on the Xoom. Both reasons are major indictments of open source. Honeycomb was not designed for phones, and Google knows that if they release the code someone will put it on a phone and the experience will be terrible. In open source, you can't prevent that from happening, meaning that consumers can be fed a poor experience that wasn't intended for the software, strictly because of the hands-off nature of open source.
Just as sad is the fact that Honeycomb in its current state is almost a collection of sloppy code running on the Xoom. Rubin admitted in that Businessweek article that they took shortcuts in order to allow the Xoom to ship on time. If Android is open source, how has that in any way helped prepare it for the next evolution of mobile? Google isn't lacking for engineers, yet a significantly smaller team at Apple is able to ship completely finished software on the iPad in less time. Every review of the Xoom discusses the buggy and unfinished software. Honeycomb may be a new thing for Google, but this is a familiar tune that has been around since the introduction of Android. Open source doesn't seem to have given back to Android nearly enough to make it stable.
The consumer electronics space, and the mobile landscape in particular, is litered with examples of failed open-source platforms. The open-sourcing of Symbian proved to be a huge mistake that's already been corrected. The stillborn birth of Meego is just as disturbing, particularly since Nokia has given up as fast as they partnered with Intel. Pointing out that Linux, an open-source OS kernel, serves as the foundation of Android and other successful platforms does no good in light of the reality that all of those platforms have proprietary, tightly-controlled layers on top.
The open source community may complain that Google has not contributed to open source in full, but Google could just as easily turn that around and admit how little it's received from the community.