Why the idea of openness is still important to Google and Android
A lot has been made of Google’s decision to delay the publication of Android 3.0 source code for the foreseeable future. One of the best write-ups is on Ars Technica, where Ryan Paul suggests Google is being hypocritical and contrary to the idea of open in the sense of software:
Android has become an insular platform developed almost entirely behind closed doors in an environment that is hostile to external contributors and is mired in a culture of secrecy that serves a small handful of prominent commercial hardware vendors and mobile carriers.
I’ve been moaning about this for a while now, not because I have a hugely vested interest in open-source, but because I believe that if you’re using an aspect of your product as a major marketing plus, it’s something you should stick to.
On Twitter, two points were made to me recently, seemingly countering my argument. First, Damien McFerran stated:
Google stopped playing on the ‘open’ thing ages ago, most Android phones don’t even advertise that they’re Android.
And then Nigel Whitfield said:
Is openness really a marketing gimmick? I really think, outside geeks, no one gives a damn.
I agree with both comments, but these points are also related and link back to the original argument about Google’s increasingly spotty track record on openness. Google may have—to some extent—stopped playing the openness card, but its advocates haven’t. And, yes, geeks are the only people who really care about ‘open’, but they still have a lot of clout when it comes to purchasing decisions. More often than not, a non-techie will ask a techie friend what to buy when considering a new smartphone or tablet. Geeks will sometimes push Android over other systems on the basis of its openness, no matter how disingenuous Google is being about that, and, often, purchasing decisions will be made on that basis, despite it being of little or no direct benefit to the purchaser.
This is why it’s still important for Google to play the open card—it gives the company an underground sales force of sorts, to counter the mag-friendly shiny shiny of its current major rival in the field, Apple. (The other major card Google holds is, of course, price: Android sales have sped past iOS, on the basis of lower cost of ownership—although that does mean a number manufacturers dependant on Android are forcing themselves into the same low-profit cul-de-sac that most Windows PC manufacturers are currently slumming it in.)
You’re right in that Google may hope that the geekier of its fans will recommend Android to those who ask them for advice, and perhaps openness will be one of the reasons the geeks like it – though I doubt it will be a reason they tell their friends.
But I think this starts to point towards why Google may want to keep some of the source code close to its chest. There is, simply, a lot of crap out there running Android.
The early adopters whom Google hopes will tell their friends about Android are probably those who’ll also buy things like a HTC device, with its own front end. Their friends will be wowed, and might even look for something like that
Then they’ll see the prices, and they’ll see a cheaper device too, that the salesman tells them also has Android on it, and they’ll buy that.
As a result, there’s a risk that lots of people will end up having crap experiences with cheap Android devices. And perhaps restricting their source code is about the only way that Google can think of to avoid that.
I have friends who are ardent Android advocates, to the extent of buying little plush Androids (very cute, but certainly not the most vital product the human race has ever manufactured).
It’s been interesting to watch the gradual realisation that Android may not be the way to topple Apple’s domination
@Merman: It’s also odd to see Android advocates trying to justify every one of Google’s moves (including screwing over net neutrality in the US) and yet still claim Apple is some kind of evil Big Brother. In my view, they’re all big corporations, and Google’s only concern is making more money—it doesn’t and it never really did give a crap about ‘open’.