Skyhook: Google forced Motorola to delay the Droid X

http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/17/skyhook-google-forced-motorola-to-drop-our-location-service-de/

by azharcs • 16 years ago

35 27 16 years ago

grkhetan• 16 years ago

I used to love Google, and will still love Google. But this action of theirs disappointed me. Google thinks that they are an "open" and esp android is very "open", i.e. it is free and open source. Manufacturers can modify the code and adapt to their hardware. Thats all well and good. But when Motorola modifies the code to add skyhook wireless for location, Google says take it off, or else.... This is really not good and does not match up with Google's ideals.

And note that skyhook wireless is a known firm for such a thing, in fact they had the first databases for wifi location search and iphones also used to use them

cma• 16 years ago

Android has always been sold as an open system + proprietary google apps. If you want access to the proprietary system (and presumably the Android trademark), you fall in line. Any company is free to make a phone without the proprietary google apps, but not selectively.

Yet for all this, Google still allows vendors to do things like lock the phone's search to Bing.

jscore• 16 years ago

Obviously it's one side of the story from Skyhook, as they're trying to spread their point of view. Would love to hear Google's viewpoint.

jonknee4• 16 years ago

I'd guess it's something like, "Our testing has shown Skyhook performs worse than our internal service in real world use and we want Android customers to have the best."

dstein• 16 years ago

Google Android is just begging to get forked, and splintered. Manufacturers like Motorola and Samsung might have to bend to Google's will, but I doubt carriers will sit tightly while Google's fangs sink deeper into their industry.

stanleydrew• 16 years ago

I'm not really sure what you mean by "their industry," but the fact that carriers feel that their industry is anything other than delivering data is an annoyance that we all have to suffer (at least in the US). So let's hope Google can prevent full-blown carrier-specific forks of Android and keep trying to reduce them to the commodity providers they should be.

jonknee4• 16 years ago

They weren't forced, it's open source. They could have shipped it without the Android trademark and Google applications. Apple also forced out Skyhook. Location based services are central to mobile computing, it's in Google's best interest to keep that built in to the Android platform and consistent.

robg2• 16 years ago

When do these actions become anti-competitive?

glhaynes• 16 years ago

What would make them so?

joezydeco• 16 years ago

What carrier is going to carry an Android phone without the proprietary "Google Experience" apps?

You don't get the app store or any of the better apps that people expect now (maps, youtube, contact/mail sync) without the Experience bundle. And Google controls that.

martythemaniak• 16 years ago

Well, on hand you have people complaining that Android is too open and allows carriers to load crapware and disable tethering. On the other hand, we have people complaining that Android is too closed because Motorola couldn't switch location providers. Which one is it?

jonknee4• 16 years ago

I think it's the other other hand where people just like to complain. This reminds me of faux political controversy that gets created by cable news (replace Fox News with Daring Fireball).

jerf• 16 years ago

Can you establish that these are the exact same people? It's only hypocrisy if you can establish that. Otherwise you've merely observed in a relatively hostile way that various people have various ideas about "freedom" and that's neither news nor terribly interesting on its own.

jonknee4• 16 years ago

John Gruber is playing both sides. It's veiled in his usual snark, but he has been hitting on Skyhook quite a bit:

http://daringfireball.net/2010/09/the_welcome_to_android

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/09/16/dont-be-evil

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/09/16/skyhook-google

And has also snarked about the "open for carriers" situation quite a bit:

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/09/02/skype-android

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/03/02/att-android

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/07/17/preinstalled

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/08/06/skype-verizon

jsz0• 16 years ago

Unfortunately it seems to be both. Google could deny carriers licenses for Google apps/market if they choose to load crapware and/or disable tethering but so far they've used that power to go after Skyhook. Maybe they have entirely legitimate reasons for this? It's very difficult to walk the line between open and closed without running into some uncomfortable situations.

wmf• 16 years ago

In both cases Google appears to be using their influence poorly.

Zak3• 16 years ago

Honestly, I'd like to see Google use this lever against carriers and manufacturers a bit more to ban any or all of the following:

* Locked bootloaders

* Disabled or substituted major features (e.g. wifi tethering)

* Apps that can't be uninstalled

* Skins that can't be disabled

* Proprietary drivers

* SIM locking

I'm aware that Google does not yet have the clout to pull off most of the above yet, but maybe someday.

mindslight3• 16 years ago

Google isn't going to rock the carriers' boat, but any significant kernel contributor could step up to the plate and fix the locked bootloader problem at any time.

Zak3• 16 years ago

Google needs to keep pressure on the carriers, or they will turn Android in to a glorified featurephone platform an inch at a time.

tomjen3• 16 years ago

Unfortunately not, since the Kernel is GPL2.0, not GPL3. GPL2.0 doesn't have anti-tivorization features.

andreyf• 16 years ago

What is this clout, and where can I get some?

Skyhook: Google forced Motorola to delay the Droid X

Related Stories