When the Motorola Droid launched this month everyone was amazed that a company so down on its luck was able to put together a well-designed phone running a powerful, “brand new” OS. The whole package – hardware, software, and marketing – seemed flawless. In fact, phones running Android 1.5 now look hopelessly outdated and with 2.0’s gesture, CDMA, and search support you’d wonder why handset manufacturers like HTC, LG, Kyocera, and Samsung are using 1.5 at all.
The reasons have more to do with Google than any decision on the carriers’ part. In fact, according to a source close to the handset business, Google’s Android team directly assisted Motorola and Verizon in building the Droid’s software from the ground up and is currently assisting another, unknown, handset maker in Korea to create a finely-tuned hardware and software combination. Most important, however, is that this is sort of assistance most manufacturers do not receive and, in the end, they are dinged for running an “older” version of Android.
These two bits of information – that Google assists certain companies in making specialized hardware and software and that Google is now helping another manufacturer to the detriment of others – sounds like sour grapes. However, the original vision for Android (as it was understood by lay users like myself) was an open, free OS available to multiple manufacturers and carriers. This preferential treatment is an anathema to that thought. This is akin to Linus Torvalds building a special version of Linux just for a commercial partner and refusing to release it until that partner has milked its value.
While it is clear that some manufacturers like HTC are keeping a stiff upper lip and running their special special UIs over 1.5, reviewers consistently ding manufacturers for running 1.5 while the Droid is given a pass.
And 2.0 matters. We asked Ross Rubin from the NPD Group about his thoughts on 2.0 and got back a half a book:
Android 2.0 brings refinement and more integration to the operating system, Examples include support for Microsoft Exchange and Facebook, which are the digital contact centers of many people’s professional and social lives. It also brings a revamped and much faster browser, albeit one that Google isn’t yet deriving from Chrome. The other big application improvement is Google Navigation, which it has introduced as a free service on top of Maps. Many carriers, including Verizon, charge for such functionality in other devices. Google is aggressively driving a major update while Microsoft is between major revisions of Windows Mobile.
We asked him why he thought Motorola got 2.0 early. He wrote:
As to why it debuted on a Motorola device, there could be several reasons. Verizon’s subscriber strength and more direct competition with AT&T and the iPhone may have led it to push for Android 2.0 to be more competitive. Or it could be simple product development timetables. Moving forward, HTC will want to put its Sense user experience on top of Android 2.0, which requires development time. Google wants a healthy Android ecosystem and a competitive Motorola contributes to that.
While this desire is absolutely understandable on Google’s part, there is a method to this madness. Google releases major updates on one handset and one handset alone. These updates are then pushed out to other android partners. Case in point:
- 1.0 went to the HTC G1
- 1.5 went to the HTC Hero
- 2.0 went to Motorola
In short, they offer exclusivity to a certain partner in exchange to unfettered access to the design process which, in Motorola’s case, was gravely needed.
Why is there no outcry? Handset manufacturers are deathly afraid of Google. They worry that they will be cut out of the upgrade process and lose access to Google’s Android team.
What needs to be done? In the interest of fairness, all updates should roll out to the general ecosystem before heading to any one carrier. Sadly, this hippie attitude is no good for Google’s business and by creating flagship devices featuring their latest and greatest they ensure forward momentum for the platform. Fairness, it seems, stops at the grade school sandbox.
Again, you can take this as a complaint or a call to action. Android is an excellent platform but Google’s tendency towards “flagship” phones is detrimental to the general ecosystem, especially once the OS falls in along with RIM and Apple as a preeminent smartphone platform.
Sorry, but Google should have enough resources to assist more than one handset manufacturer at the same time, don’t they?
the handset manufacturer should have enough resources to learn a free OS, shouldn’t they?
No. Especially not on unreleased development.
I thought 2.0 was now available to all handsets?
Holding out for a few weeks is not the same as holding out forever?
This is a very uninformed article. Google did not pick or single out any other manufacturer to release the new OS.
The 2.0 development kit and documents were released to everyone (HTC included). In the end, it was the decision from the manufacture to implement and then release 2.0.
Sorry, but in this case it seems you didn’t even read the article. The 2.0 “development kit and documents” were only released yesterday, while motorola worked together with google on creating the droid.
Still it makes sense; imagine you are in a team working on a new mobile OS, somewhere half way through one will most likely realize that the phones one is testing on are being modded more and more, and at a certain point it makes pure sense that you cooperate with somebody to create a totally new phone which perfectly fits your OS.
It was released to the public yesterday, we do not know about phone manufacturers.
The HTC Dragon was “running ” 2.0, when that info got out Android 2.0 wasnt even on the android blog.
I have worked with HTC on hardware design, and the 2.0 dev’ kit was released to their engineers around September 19.
Wasn’t the 1.5 update pushed out to the G1 prior to the release of the Hero? I thought the update came in late May/early June with the Hero not launched on Orange until July.
I’m not disagreeing with the general premise though, with the 2.0 release they are clearly showing some signs of leaving their early adopters out to dry. I understand the G1 may be SOL on making the jump to 2.0 for hardware reasons, but there is no justification for handicapping the Hero. It’s the only page that should be taken from RIMs Storm playbook, appease your existing customers with the most up-to-date OS before you move on to the latest and greatest hardware.
The sort of person that buys most of these devices will upgrade soon enough anyway, Google would be far better off making them feel well taken care of so the next time they feel the itch to upgrade it is to yet another Android phone.
It is stupid on the part of handset makers to allow Google to come in and control the user experience on their devices.
The move may lead to short term gains, but in the long-term, handset makers will completely lose the ability to differentiate their devices. Service providers and Google will be the only ones able to create differentiation.
Google has no interest in assisting as many handset makers as they can; they’re only interested in bribing them with short term revenues, while getting ready to screw them in the longer term by controlling users.
Is that not like saying PC makers are stupid to allow Microsoft to come in and control the user experience on their PCs?
Point in fact Motorola was not controlling the user experience, being that the users have generally been hating and leaving Motorola for better phones.
Actually, I don’t think the PC comparison is valid at all (even though the fate of PC manufacturers should be a lesson to handset manufacturers).
The difference lies in the ability to generate revenue from handset users beyond the initial purchase. Handset manufacturers can generate additional revenue beyond the device purchase, while traditional PC manufacturers have a hard time doing this.
Hrush- Try working in the mobile industry for a few years and you’ll understand the power that carriers in subsidized markets (like the US) hold the power they do. In exchange for you not paying full retail $$ for your phone, they technically own and control everything about that device.
In addition, the carriers are deathly afraid to be commoditized bit pipes. By inflicting their requirements onto the devices they permit to be operated on their network, they feel that they can at least delay that outcome.
Stupid, perhaps from a competitive standpoint. As a consumer, however, it makes total sense and is probably ‘best’ for me as a consumer. Why?
One question: who is better equipped from a knowledge base and resource perspective to design a better interface: Google or one of the many of dozens of handset manufacturers? To me, the answer to that question is quick and easy. It’s very atypical for companies that are good at hardware to also be good at aesthetic product design AND software. Apple gets two out of these three “right” consistently (software and aesthetics — they don’t really innovate around the hardware in their phones) as does Sony (hardware and aesthetics — they had to partner with Ericsson to get even average at OS/UI). If I were a handset hardware manufacturer it would be pretty plain to me (pretty quickly) that companies in this space don’t do software/interface that well (why do you think Apple has been so successful so fast?). I’d focus on low cost (cutting edge) hardware and aesthetics and partner with Google around OS/UI . . . which is exactly what Motorola appears to be doing and to a lesser degree, HTC.
Asked yet another way: do you honestly think that HTC or Motorola stand ANY chance whatsoever of competing with Apple in the mobile space on their own? They certainly can match Apple on the aesthetics front and maybe even out-perform on the hardware front, but there’s no way in hell that Nokia, HTC, or Motorola stand a chance of fighting Apple on the software, UI/UE, web service integration or applications front. Zero.
Personally, I think partnering with Google is a pretty good strategy. One that stands a pretty good chance of wresting market share back from Apple in the mobile device space.
Google will put their resources where the OS will get the most exposure. I am sick and tired of mobile manufacturers and mobility providers selling a products and then walking away but Google is the bad guy here ?!?
Smart phones are the future; why should Google be the only one to comit resources.
Try getting support for your Windows mobile device once they’ve sold it to you. Cannot figure out how to tether? gee.. ask the community because the manufacturer nor the mobility provider can answer the question.
Google is not the bad guy here… They wrote something and give it away free. Write something useful !!!
So what? Android is early stage for a phone OS, and Google is entitled to apply resources where they think necessary. Some would argue seeding new versions with specific handsets that meet feature/quantity thresholds is a no-brainer, particularly if the new versions leverage hardware in innovative ways. None of this is odd for anyone launching open source. And Eclair is coming to the Hero/Eris in a few weeks.
if you need “assitance” to design your phone it would be one more of the pack, Moto Droid is unique now 3 o 6 month from now HTC will have something similiar… the only winner is google
I think that they are doing this to help Android get traction then after the OS gets viral equal treatment will ensue.
it’s their product and it’s their “marketing” strategy regarding it and in the end of the day it’s open source which is never evil.
You’re spot on. The source for driod2.0 will be available to everyone, but that doesn’t mean that Google can/should devote its own expensive engineers to help every device company that comes along. They’re just acutely aware that they cannot themselves build the devices for fear of being perceived as a threat to the mobile network operators.
It worked for apple…
My speculation: The HTC with its Sense UI grows up too fast and it was time to help another Android player to keep the market competitive. Only when many HW manufacturers compete will Android beat the other smartphone OSs.
I don’t think the Android team at Google is large enough to handle all handset companies at the same time.
2.0 introduced a lot of new components, and getting it running on a single device makes the most sense when tracking down bugs and other issues. Once the OS has stabilized other handsets can be brought in.
The other extreme is what has happened at Microsoft with the glacial pace at which Windows mobile has evolved. MS changed as little as possible between releases to ensure that it would still work on all the old platforms. With WM7 they’re doing a Google and dictating a much higher performing platform which allows their programmers more freedom.
If I were a handset manufacturer I’d be making my devices as attractive to customers as possible – as this will draw Google’s eye when a new big revision is made.
From V1 to V1.6, the hardware was based around the same basic 528MHZ A11 chipset. With 2.0 Android now supports the Cortex-A8 platform (including the upcoming Snapdragon CPU). Motorola has the first CDMA Cortex-A8 on the market (due to Google’s help). It was probably easier for Google to work with Motorola, who were prepared to go with the stock 2.0 OS, than HTC who would want their sense UI on top to maintain the HTC look and feel.
Even given the Droid’s advantage I’m currently waiting for HTC’s first 2.0 device (Passion/Dragon) before making my decision.
I can absolutely guarantee you that the Google droid team is not nearly large enough to directly support more than a small number (2-3) handset manufacturers simultaneously. Not even close.
Yes, I do have first hand knowledge of both the Moto and Google droid teams.
Google is doing the equivalent of ‘launch aid’ in European aerospace: the young Airbus was given a lot of help (cash from EU governments) to get projects off the ground, so it could become large enough to compete with a dominant rival, Boeing.
Google wants to get Android off the ground despite its entrenched rivals, and the best way to kickstart it is closely managing individual handsets in conjunction with specific manufacturer/carrier combos.
You sir, have an excellent point made :)
saw on the news yesterday that dell is releasing a new phone in asia i think with andorid 2 on it. kinda cool.
It’s probably part of the Open Handset Alliance thingyon how much you want to commit.
HTC were quick so got help with G1 (not Hero) and Motorola followed by betting everything on one egg.
Meanwhile the rest are on the edge of the fence (like SE & Samsung) or simply don’t want to play (Nokia).
John there are some big flaws in your logic..
Thee are 3 UI customizations:
-MotoBlur(1.5)
-SenseUI(1.5)
-Rachael(1.6)
all those UIs use private apis which is a big no-no as far as being upgradeable to android 2.0..There is no big Google brother giving unequal access to one OHA member as oppose to all OHA members.
Now it is true that the Android team is so small that while assisting Verizon that other OHA members did not get the same level of attention..also true that because the Eclair source contained mentions of the Droid marketing term access was restricted before the Droid launch.
All these ‘facts’ come direct from Google Engineers with android email addresses.
Last, Motorola has 3 versions..Cliq(1.5), Ophone(1./0), Droid(2.0), and there is another one at 1.6. htC also has 3, SenseUI 1.5, one at 1.6 and one coming out at 2.0.
Mr Biggs you need better sources..
and most of what I just stated has been on the developers list in bits and pieces..:)
I thought the OPhone was the Sholes(Droid) Tablet that was coming in 2010 Q1. So I assumed it had 2.0 as well
The trend that people have to notice here is that this is a newer market shift. Here you have handset manufacturers competing for compatibility and user-base on a different OS/platform. Windows Mobile is the only other OS to have this, and theirs is sufficiently decentralized such that Microsoft would not be able to do much to help individual handset manufacturers to give them an edge. iPhone OS has their one platform. Palm releases devices with a customized OS roadmap. Blackberry’s plan is similar to Palm’s, but the products aren’t in competition with each other, even when numerous… its up to the end-user as to which device they want to pick to suit their needs. Due to the Android’s rather unique format in this case, Google IS exploiting its first-off-the-block advantage while still staying (relatively) close to its open-source plan. So what choice do end-users have when handset manufacturers want to put their own flavour on this system, and Google plays Godfather at will? I stick to XDA :)
You people seem to be acting as if manufacturers could have easily switched to 2.0 at any time. That really doesn’t make much sense, considering most manufacturers are now running a special UI on top of Android. And that extra UI layer takes a LOT of time to test and debug before it can be released.
Plus, my thinking is that Android 2.0 was only just recently ready for release maybe 3-4 weeks ago. Since the Droid was a “with Google” phone, there wasn’t any extra UI to worry about.
Now, one should be worried if a manufacturer wanted to build a “with Google” phone running on Android 2.0 and didn’t have access to Google, but from what I understand, all of the new Android phones in the near future have UIs built on top of them, which means that attempting to build on top of 2.0 would have delayed its release.
Plus, Android 2.0 was only beginning to be released to open source yesterday. It’s hardly in any form to be used as a basis of another company’s UI right now.
I dont know, but I can see why this might easily work out this way. Companies providing new environments often want to work with a hardware partner to clear up any issues before it goes to full release. Saves all that bad press when everyone finds the bugs and poor versions getting rushed out onto the market creating mud that sticks. Once you have a few duds out there you can upgrade as much as you like, create the best software out there, the press and public will still assume its bad because that was the first impression. With HTC they would have had that, and input and resource from a handset maker.
With Motorola, well would it be closer to home perhaps geographically? Might make it easier to work on bug issues that way.
So what google are doing, although favouring one handset vendor at the moment, means that when it releases it works well with the hardware and they have any embarrising bugs eliminated before it goes public and winds everyone up.
It makes absolute sense.
I don’t understand the point of this article. Google worked closely with HTC+Qualcomm for the G1 and Android 1.0. Any other phone using that processor pretty much works out of the box and doesn’t need Goog’s assistance. Next up, the cortex-based processors and Mot happened to be ready to go with their TI solution first. It’s not like Google isn’t also working with Qualcomm on snapdragon and whoever will be the first manufacturer to release on that platform. These things are in motion up to a year before any phone hits the shelves..
“This is akin to Linus Torvalds building a special version of Linux just for a commercial partner and refusing to release it until that partner has milked its value.”
you just found the solution to make Linux a viable commercial desktop platform :)
@sha: LMAO – truer words were never writ.
I thought exactly the same thing, back in April, when reading this article,:
http://andblogs.net/2009/04/android-and-open-source/
This is not to suggest that a cynic like me did not expect a few rounds of fist-pumping, Bolsheviki type rabble rousing over a FOSS O/S…as well as the occasional, distant chorus of ‘Kum Bay Yah’. But, as always, I never cease to be amazed by the number of people who are convinced they see conspiracies in every cluster-flop.
big bunch of incorrect information.
2.0 is in dev tree and available for all manufacturers including HTC.
Once you value add, moving to newer SDKs takes a little longer than the vanilla.
I’d have agreed with a few points in this article if it were not for unethical / cheap journalism.
Just trying to put manufacturers away by calling them lame?
In love with iphone?
Paid by Jobs/Gates?
Whats your problem?
If anybody is, the writer is the lame one here.
I’m bemused by this development only because Google has been getting such a relatively free ride when it comes to pursuit of self-interest. Of course, Microsoft used to be the big bully. Recently, Apple has become the focus of criticism, particularly here for not openly embracing Google Voice. Meanwhile, Google seems to be gobbling up the universe piece by piece, or at least trying very hard. I’m glad you’re calling Google on this. Keep it up!
@ intrepid,
Google has been getting a free ride? what are you talking about?
How and what did Google do to lock you (the end suers) into their service. As far as I know, most their products have very good data exporting functions.
Calling out Google? If John’s uninformed article about Andriod 2.0 is a good thing?
microsoft has a bigger company than google but google is always rated higher
I think google is controlling the internet so it is rated higher.
Considering all of the:
1. devices Android is showing up on (smartphones, tablets, eReaders, smartbooks, netbooks, photo frames, …).
2. CPU architectures it is having to support (x86, ARM11 & ARM Cortex A8, MIPS, …).
3. chipsets being used (OMAP, Snapdragon, Tegra, Atom, …).
4. screen sizes & resolutions being used, on the different devices.
5. etc.
I think Google & the OHA have done a great job moving Android forward quickly & keeping things together.
Is everyone going to be happy all of the time? I doubt it. But, in the end, all of the vendors will benefit from a powerful & flexible OS to build some great devices with.
you can also see it the other way around. Google made agreements with HTC and Motorola for exclusivity. But the other manufacturers have nothing to wine about, because a few months later they got the same os for free.
imagine that Microsoft would give windows 7 away for free after a few months. Would you be mad at microsoft for giving an advantage to the people that were willing to pay just to get the OS early?
I think you’re just a big meany pants trying to steal my new-droid bubbly good times happiness away because you LIKE being grouchy.
Is there anything to back this up? Or is it just as likely the Android team just wanted the opportunity to work with a specific phone to insure a feature-rich and bug free launch of their new OS, which would not only result in a nice, potentially cult-inspiring piece of hardware, but a great way to advertise their abilities to other mfgs?
Why can’t I live in my happy place without you throwing this “reality” stuff at me anyways? Meany pants.
Hmm… I see where this article is coming from but I’m not sure if I agree with it or not. Motorola may have been given a headstart with 2.0 but as 2.0 was just released to the community, it’s not a big one. The underlying components of Android that talk to the hardware can’t have changed that much between 1.6 and 2.0, so it shouldn’t be too hard for other phonemakers to implement once they have access to it. The real problem is that since companies like HTC build their own interface on top of Google’s, it takes them that much longer to get it out the door. The vanilla “Google Experience” is just fine, there’s no need to build this crap on top of it. HTC Sense is nothing special. It adds 4 extra screens (which is nice) and has a few exclusive widgetes, but that’s it. Snooze fest if you ask me, and a waste of time.
HTC could have had 2.0 on the same day as the Droid, but chose to fork 1.5 with their Sense UI, thus requiring porting effort.
This isn’t Google playing favorites, this is HTC having to catch up after choosing to fork the code base.
That is true. But if they would have gotten a google team assisting them to port SenseUI from 1.5 > 2.0 , they might have actually had a 2.0 phone with sense ready on the 2.0 release date
Why help a company port a software layer that they don’t intend to contribute to the open source platform? Assuming they would even want to give Google (or anyone) such access to their proprietary code.
If Google was playing favorites and helping motorola and verizon make a phone for verizon specifically then why would motorola also be releasing an unlocked droid for gsm networks called the milestone i have had ever google phone made and in all fairness let one manufactor get the version first that way at least people using verizon can deal with the problems that are going to happen on such a newborn firmware release.
Stop complaining if you have to have android 2.0 all ready for $600 you can order one from europe
My HTC Magic was shipped with 1.5
this is even CLOSE to true in Korea…. that is unless you are saying the most-wired and digital active country is not part of “the world”.
yikes.. I meant “isn’t” (is NOT)*
Crunchgear is becoming the FOX News of tech blogs. Outlandish opinion pieces skewering fact in favor of agenda-oriented fiction.
Nice try at rallying support for a bogus issue, John. Ross Rubin made the most salient point when he talked about development timetables effecting the 2.0 rollout, and you hardly acknowledged it.
“Truthiness” describes what you’ve written here, John. Look it up.
The gap between the Droid’s release date, and the 2.0 source code release date (yesterday) was what? A week? What kind of exclusivity is that?
The fact that Google worked directly with Motorola and Verizon on 2.0 doesn’t mean that Motorola or Verizon were promised exclusivity for a certain time window in exchange for anything. That kind of quid pro quo is a big assumption on your part.
What seems much more likely, and evident from the Android team’s work to quickly release the 2.0 source code since then, is that they worked hard to meet a launch deadline for Verizon – and perhaps even optimized the code for the Droid to get it working, and then needed to clean it up before publishing it to the world as the official generic 2.0.
This article comes across to me as sensationalist.
“currently assisting another, unknown, handset maker in Korea to create a finely-tuned hardware and software combination”
Sounds like Google may be stepping in with its own hardware after all, and doing so while Verizon and others spend millions advertising its Android OS.
Intel worked directly with Apple to get them into the fold.
I’m sure Google would work directly with any major manufacturer (Nokia comes to mind) if there was the prospect of weaning them away from Windows Mobile or Symbian.
john biggs, please understand the industry you are writing about before writing. this article clearly demonstrates that you have no idea how google/android/motorola/verizon works. heck, i’d even go as far as to say that you failed to understand product development.
The manufacturers mentioned in the article did not yet have access to the 2.0 because it was not released yet. Android 2.0 became widely available for release on November 13th, 2009. That is the reason those manufacturers listed in the article are using 1.5 and not 2.0. The Android is going to be huge for Google, the handset manufacturers, and carriers next year!
This certainly points to a big cancer in the wireless industry. It’s what has crippled the iPhone since its inception, yet it is what makes handsets affordable: exclusivity stifles innovation but gets more handsets into, well, more hands by lower prices.
There is a justifiable perception that Google struck a deal with Verizon Wireless (which is a notorious predator in the wireless industry) to limit the release of Google’s Android 2.0 operating system until a certain honeymoon period when 2.0’s best features, including free turn-by-turn navigation, would drive Droid sales exclusively. It’s like if Windows 7 was finalized as we know it now, but for the first few months it would only work on HP computers.
In essence, the same thing happened here. So the iPhone’s downfall as a slave to AT&T’s network is finding its match in Android’s slavery to Verizon Wireless.
The whole point (and the whole marketing pitch) of Google’s Android OS was its open architecture. This is a critical moment when that whole spiel could turn into a joke. It’s Google’s move to make, and they would do well to stop cutting deals with carriers. I disagree with the posture of this article’s writer that it’s so obviously in Google’s self-interest to cut these kinds of deals. Android is being driven by tech enthusiasts for the foreseeable future, and the media flack from Google’s predatory behavior with Verizon is diluting the OS brand significantly.
Oh, and by the way, the iPhone is on its way out, big time, just in case you hadn’t noticed. Literally, it has become the dinosaur technology. So Android has that going for it.
At the heart of every neighborhood in the United States lies a brilliant thought. http://bit.ly/3OS4zw