Google took a step backward with Honeycomb last week. Instead of locking the source they should start treating Android as a real open source project and start enforcing the Android trademark.
If you want access to Google’s Honeycomb goodness, you’re going to have to wait a bit longer. The reason? It wants to prevent use of Honeycomb on phones and (presumably) unauthorized tablets. What’s the matter, Google, never heard of a trademark?
A couple of years ago, I came across a spectacularly wrong-headed attack on use of trademarks on open source projects. As I replied at the time, trademarks are actually the friend of open source projects and companies that spend large bucks on open source.
There’s this company, maybe you’ve heard of ‘em — by the name Red Hat. They have worked very hard to protect the Red Hat name and ensure that if you see something being sold under the name “Red Hat” (obviously, as relates to computing and not actual red hats) it’s coming from them. You might run something that’s substantially the same as Red Hat Enterprise Linux, but you can be damn sure that the provider — whether it’s a open source project like CentOS, or a parasite like Oracle — is not slapping the Red Hat name on it to confuse the market.
It’s quite the contrary, as a matter of fact. Red Hat has made clear that it has lawyers, and isn’t afraid to use them to protect its trademark. So what happens? The commercial competitors came up with their own brand name, and the community projects came up with names that clearly do not hearken to the initial project.
Guess what? Red Hat’s vigorous enforcement of its trademark has done nothing to harm the larger community — it has in fact gained benefit from Red Hat’s trademark. Red Hat spends its money on FOSS development and knows that it can still get value for that because it controls the trademark — but anybody, whether it’s not-for-profit, or it’s an enormous bloated competitor can take the code and work with it. They just can’t call it Red Hat. And that’s good.
The same thing protects Mozilla Firefox, LibreOffice/OpenOffice.org, Debian, etc. Trademark is a community friendly way to enforce rights of the project or vendor and still let the community get on with the coding up.
That’s Nice, but Android?
So where’s Google come into this? The nice folks in Mountain View have decided they’re going to hold on to Honeycomb source indefinitely because “Android 3.0, Honeycomb, was designed from the ground up for devices with larger screen sizes and improves on Android favorites such as widgets, multi-tasking, browsing, notifications and customization. While we’re excited to offer these new features to Android tablets, we have more work to do before we can deliver them to other device types including phones.”
Loosely translated: We don’t want anybody to get their hands on Android 3.0 unless we approve and we don’t want to see a bunch of crappy phones and tablets with Android 3.0 flooding the market. At least that’s what we’re supposed to take away from this — Google is protecting the Android experience by holding back the source code. Otherwise some unscrupulous or over-eager companies might ship Android 3.0 with a sub-par experience.
Now, I know that Google isn’t as litigious as Apple or Oracle. And I’m sure their legal department is pretty busy these days fending off bogus patent suits. But really Google? Here’s a thought — start operating Android as a real open source project and start enforcing the Android trademark.
I’ve slapped MeeGo around for the overzealous approach to the MeeGo trademark — but they have their hearts in the right place on this issue. Do your development in the open and use the trademark to make sure that the stuff that ships is up to snuff. If someone wants to ship your distribution but it’s not up to snuff, then let them have the code under the terms of the license but hold the name back. They don’t tarnish the project or get any of its halo to sell more devices.
Just because the code is open doesn’t mean that Google and its consortium have any obligation to allow any unauthorized company to use the Android name. If some no-name OEM wants to slap a Honeycomb distribution on a crappy tablet, then let ‘em. Just don’t let the company call it Android.
What Google Should Do
In fact, I do wish Google would be more enthusiastic about this already. There’s a lot of crappy tablets on the market that wear the Android name. The quality of the Android builds and the hardware it ships on are questionable. Let’s do something about that instead of being a poor community player.
Google could set forth very clear guidelines for Android trademark usage that not only include approval but also hardware requirements and code requirements. Maybe it has these already, but it’s just not flexing its muscle?
I’d love to see Google say “you can only use Honeycomb/Android 3.0 by name with a dual-core CPU at 1.0GHz or higher and 512MB of RAM,” (or whatever the appropriate specs should be). Then go after the manufacturers that want to produce crapware tablets.
Make with the Code Already
But don’t punish the rest of the community because you haven’t figured out trademark. If there’s another issue, then don’t blow smoke — just admit Android isn’t open, already.
I understand that Google, like the rest of the mobile market, is under enormous pressure to ship and compete. But I just don’t buy that it’s impossible to mesh that effectively with being a good community player.
Some of my friends in the larger Linux community wonder why I’m not a rabid Android fan — this is one of the primary reasons. Sure, Google has sort of meandered its way to releasing Android code when it gets around to it. But it’s really a fundamentally closed community. I get enthused about Linux not just because the code is open, but because I can be part of the larger community and have an impact. I don’t feel the same way about Android. Yeah, it’s nice that it’s (eventually) released under an open source license — but it’s Google’s ballgame.
Google and its partners produce Android releases, then eventually get around to doing a code drop while they’re already well on the way to the next Android release. The actual input from the larger community is minimal — which is a shame because Android is a very important computing platform for many people. We just don’t think about it the same way.
The problem that Google is citing is totally surmountable in a community friendly way. That Google chooses not to release code rather than exercising its trademark is unfortunate, and undermines the platform. I certainly don’t feel that I can recommend Android based on its “openness” when Google can, at a whim, delay releasing the code for Honeycomb or any other release indefinitely. Sure, Android is more open than iOS — but that’s such a low threshold for success as to be laughable.
Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier is a freelance writer and editor with more than 10 years covering IT. Formerly the openSUSE Community Manager for Novell, Brockmeier has written for Linux Magazine, Sys Admin, Linux Pro Magazine, IBM developerWorks, Linux.com, CIO.com, Linux Weekly News, ZDNet, and many other publications. You can reach Zonker at
jzb@zonker.net and follow him on
Twitter.
Comments on "Google’s Wrongheaded Approach to Android"
Thanks Sir ,I Hope Google reads this,and above all considers it seriously.And also thanks for referring to parasites as “parasites”
“There’s a lot of crappy tablets on the market that wear the Android name.” I think this is one of the biggest reasons why they are slow to release the source to Honeycomb and I don’t blame them. It is their project anyway, paid for and developed by them and I’m sure they will release it when they are ready. I think it is to the advantage of the Android name (brand) that they ensure crappy tablets and phones don’t reach the market using an unfinished (or unpolished) project (whether it be for phones, tablets or both) to give Apple something else for Steve Jobs to point out or to make a commercial about.
This is silly. The tablets are *already* on the market, bearing the Android name. Google has done nothing to stop this. (Hint: Even if the tablets ship with 100% Android, Google controls the trademark – it does not have to allow them to use the trademark.)
The confusion is a good reason for Google to enforce its trademark, keeping the source code for 3.0 back only makes things worse – not better. It means there’s a very fragmented marketplace with a lot of tablets shipping with Android for phones. You and I may know which tablets to choose, but the average user doesn’t – which means Android continues to get a bad name.
Right, running Cupcake, Doughnut, Eclair or Froyo at best, no need for crappy tablets running Honeycomb. Honeycomb is the current shinning star. It rocks on the XOOM and that is what the everyday user is seeing not just geeks like me. The commercials for the XOOM are kind of lame but what are ya gonna do? My non techy friends have actually heard of the XOOM and will relate Android to that instead of some cheap knock off with a weak resistive screen. Viewsonic’s g tablet is the nicest non Honeycomb tablet I have seen (touched) but I bet most of my non techy friends have never even heard of it but yet they know who Viewsonic is. I still agree with Google holding back till they are ready, it’s their project, they don’t want bad PR from the OSS community nor do they want the everyday consumer thinking that Android’s Tablet version is that $150 7″ tablet you can get at K-Mart.
“Android 3.0, Honeycomb, was designed from the ground up for devices with larger screen sizes and improves on Android favorites such as widgets, multi-tasking, browsing, notifications and customization. While we’re excited to offer these new features to Android tablets, we have more work to do before we can deliver them to other device types including phones.” – I think they have made it clear!!! .may be they are just delaying because the base is not yet ready for non-tablet type devices.They dont want “crapwares” to ship a buggy android and make it worse!.Just my 2 cents!!.
Did you read the piece? ;-) They can enforce trademark and ensure that the market is not flooded with those devices. There is no excuse not to ship the code.
Opening the code to the community could very well produce a more cohesive product. As it is open source and changes are employed quickly.
However, I agree with shrinidhi666, I think holding onto the code makes a key point here.
How many iOS 4 users are having issues, still? I know quite a few.
Therefore, taking that extra time to a quality end product is ideal.
Plus lessoning the means to suing or being sued as in the Apple/Android issue with 2.0. Or the malware that was reported in the Market not long ago. Bringing further negative attention to Android.
I actually support Google in this. They’re development in the os market has played a vital roll. It’s time to get serious about supporting their position. I would.
None of the things you’re talking about have *anything* to do with Google holding code back.
Apple is not suing Google – Oracle is. And they don’t need released code to do that.
Malware has nothing to do with the code being available. AFAIK, the malware in the market that was a problem a few weeks ago also was a problem for Honeycomb.
If customers are having issues with the Xoom or other Honeycomb tablets, how does holding the source drop do anything to help? Hint: If it’s not ready, it shouldn’t be released before source is available.
Google’s approach does not deserve support from the open source community.
Joe: thank you for this very interesting article. Your suggestion of the use of trademarks to solve the kind of issue google faces is very clever.
what is wrong with 50$ “crapware” tablets o.O
Come on… We all know that there will be loads of problems if Android is released on smart phones in Beta.
The way I see it, Google are going after Ipad2 because they have already got it going with the Iphone battle.
So they may have been focusing on Android in “Tablet mode”, which may have left the smartphone code somewhat behind – But they will get there eventually, so we’ll have to wait:-)
So I will give Google the benefit of doubt, and let them get on with their coding. But I also expect to see a very nice product once it goes GA for the phones.
Perhaps you should also stop and wonder whether they have already signed a deal with some vendors, which makes it impossible for them to change the deal to your suggested “Trademark” deal.
We don’t know do we?
If this is their business model, then you can’t really blame them, can you? All though it looks a bit like you are blaming them:-/
BTW, if you don’t like how they play – Fork!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development)
So, lets give them five more minutes, shall we… :-)
Have you *read the article*?
“We all know that there will be loads of problems if Android is released on smart phones in Beta.”
1) Honeycomb is not in beta – it’s simply not designed for phones.
2) Google can simply enforce its trademark rather than withholding code. Google doesn’t have to allow the Android trademark for *any* device unless it decides it approves of the device. Period.
“Perhaps you should also stop and wonder whether they have already signed a deal with some vendors, which makes it impossible for them to change the deal to your suggested “Trademark” deal.”
You seem to suggest that’s better somehow. If that’s the case, then Google is lying to the community – both in its reasoning about why it’s not releasing the code, and in its continued claims that Android is “open.”
This sounds nice. Theoretically. Practically there’s no way to enforce your trademark against chinese companies who will flood the market with crap products in a few weeks and after 1-2mo they will disappear and reappear with a new name/design, dragging your nice trademark in the mud in the process. I don’t like either what Google is doing atm, but I understand them.
Not in China, perhaps – but it’d be easy as hell for Google to get an injunction anywhere in the U.S. if it decided to go after the crapware tablets.
Joe: Did you consider that maybe Google doesn’t want consumers to get confused by different names floating around for the same OS?
What would happen if Motorola starting shipping with ‘Robotz’ OS instead of Android. But all Verizon phones got re-branded as ‘Candy Shop’ OS. The diversity of names we see among Linux distros would cause confusion for average consumers.
“Does Amazon’s app market work for my phone? It says it runs ‘Unicycle OS’ and that’s not on Amazon’s list!?”
As it stands, Android effectively refers to the platform, not any particular build of it. And that’s a good thing, because it tells people that products designed for “Android” will work on their device, regardless of which fork of the OS they happen to be using.
Now I’m not against Google enforcing some naming guidelines to ensure compatibility levels or make consumers aware that “Honeycomb” devices are really “pre-Honeycomb”. But we want to keep the ‘Android’ label on every platform that is substantially compatible with Google’s Android so that App developers can target a single platform and consumer will know “that App will work with my device”.
It’s exactly that brand confusion that would be behind the power of being able to say “Android” not “Robotz” or some other fork. Vendors want to be able to label their products “Android” so Google is now in a position to leverage that brand by having vendors earn it.
Having seen the bloatware that’s put on most, if not all Android phones, having seen how phone companies rewrite the base OS to make sure that certain things can’t be done without their approval, I’m all for Google keeping the source code to themselves.
If by not handing it out to every company on the block that wants to use it as a base for their bloatware, for their walled up devices that may technically be Android devices but have lost the essence of what Android was supposed to be, if Google can do that by keeping the source code to itself, then I’m all for it.
The Android OS is a great idea, but from what I’ve seen — a limited number of devices, to be sure — letting the phone companies have the source code has made that great idea into something a lot less.
Right, because those same companies are not the ones that already have the source code. Granted, since they dont seem to be loading a lot of bloatware on those few Honeycomb devices available, they may be calling the shots on that contract. They can do the same with the “android” brand name. BTW those chinese crappola copies have also produced “ipads” but they dont dare name them that when they try selling them in the US and EU. Let them have the code and produce crappy tablets that they wont be able to sell here with the Android name if Google is enforcing its trademark.
You cant call a project open source when the open dev community doesnt have a say on the next release until it has been out for 6 months.
Some people praise MeeGo for being so open but that has not been my experience on the Intel CE4100 platform.
Joe:
Good article, but you may be to close to the industry to recognize the commercial impact of releasing Honeycomb into the wild in it’s current state. An analogy might be having Boeing release an aircraft with untested wing root connections. If a third party releases an aircraft with proprietary wings, even if the aircraft if renamed, and it continually crashes, then it is Boeing who shoulders the blame, not the wing maker or the newly named “aircraft” manufacturer.
If Honeycomb is released and used, even other another name, and the products fail, it will be Google who bears the anger and Android who’s image will be tarnished.
Honeycomb is going to be a very important platform in the Android universe. Google has admitted to taking some “shortcuts” to getting it released. Personally, I would rather let Google take the time and release a product that the user community will be able to enhance with confidence. While on my travels, I don’t want the wings falling of either my airplane OR my tablet.
I absolutly wanna see android Opensource, best at GPL no question :-)
But i understand why they are doing this and the blame should be on all teh Crappy Phonemake – and im not only talking about some strange Manufacturers – even Big Namens Screwed Up Adroid – Giving not enought Power to those Devices to flood even the low cost market with android…
Which brought a lot of bad response by the customers.. i kno noone who is unsatisfyed with the high end phones and android but i knew many who say i go for an 500$ iphone because the 100$ droid sucks (i know this is stupid but thats how people think)
So i think google doing the right thing.
Beeing open as nice as it is – it backfires heavyly too –
YOu compare with Redhat – and sorry no offense – but this is a strange undprofessional comparison.
redhat is a server specialized distribution. their marketing focus on technical experts and they can reach them.
android focus on the end customer.
And honestly – even if redhat would come out with a perfect windows replacement for windows – you cannot sell it at the moment – the end customer market fpr desktops on linux is non existant – even worse when an ordinary customer hear linux he is running away. (beacuse there are so many crappy distributions and buggys programs)
so opensource is on one side a very good thing on the other it needs some sorta control and a bit restriction – finding here the belance is the key
the optimum would be having solid standards – bug free – customer friendly – and open but wihtout producing 100million clones just confusion – just generating a a bad view on the product.
i know we thenicans can understand und differ here – but the end customer cannot and you cant talk that out of him.
the issue is not the technicans decide whats comming – the custerms are – theres where the money is – which is needed for all those development.
so even if you know something is good, usefull and the best solution at the moment – it doenst matter you have to sell it too – and less people will belive you if theyve seen you products (on an unuseable device modded to death)
so no i dont like to much restrictions but that case i think its important for the future of android to get on a quality level
BTW: google also denies applications which could give you root access. that bothers me much more – because i think someone who bought a device has to be the right to be root on his own property even if he use android…
just my 2 cents
Spot on, Joe. If it’s not up-to-snuff, Google should not allow the Android name to be applied. Simple. The must tave a performance test suite that provides a quantitative pass/fail result, though.
Holding back the source means that the release will be of lower quality and later than is would be if it were out as Open Source.
Holding back the trademark means that only quality releases will be out. Likely earlier and better.
Joe, your argument is well put and the trademark approach to assuring quality certainly makes a lot of sense.
In practice, the combination of software and hardware puts a different spin on achieving quality than the Red Hat example. To assure quality, Google would need to establish quality criteria / standard, then accredit testers, i.e. companies authorised to test against the criteria, thereby avoiding a backlog if only Google itself were to do the testing. The trick would be to make testing a worthwhile business whilst avoiding it becoming a cash cow and barrier to the small guys getting their Android products to market. No doubt though it could be done.
Obviously there is always the danger of the ‘Rolex copy’, whatever the strategy.
I do have to say after reading this article, and all the posts to follow that I’m confused as to whether or not people actually read the full article, or not, or if they don’t understand your point of “open” vs “closed”, and all that jazz about source code releasing and trademarking.
People, it’s a very simple concept. If you want to claim to be “open” release your source code. If you want to control who uses’s it, trademark it. If you want more control, both trademark it and don’t release your source code BUT don’t call yourself open! You can’t have it all, and give nothing back.
That’s the point of this article. So those arguing that Google should have the right not to release their source code, it’s not a point of arguing that, just say you support Google being closed, for those arguing that Google needs to use trademark instead of holding on to their code, thats the same point as the article.
The point is that and I think it’s a good point.
The end result is as simple as what Ronsegal says, trademark is only as good as those who honor it so. Those who will not will make their own versions. You have to accept that and move on.. Your open and that’s one of the draw backs of open, however at least being open doesn’t give you a false sense of “no one will steal it” like the rest of the software world has.
Honestly this hole not releasing the source code until “their ready” but then claiming their open, in my mind is like Microsoft saying, “buy your Windows 8 now, and we’ll give to you when everyone who is going to buy the OS pays for it, then you get your copy, because we don’t want to risk any pirated versions out there.”
……… No,, it’s going to happen, suck it up.
Very interesting article and comments, thanks.
Hard matter indeed, pros and cons either way.
My bet is that the delayed release of Honeycomb is primarily motivated by a desire to let the big OEMs, that are licensing the code directly from Google (Motorola, Samsung, Acer), have an opportunity to build a market before the lower-cost knock-offs appear.
I agree with the author that trademark enforcement is the better approach. US (and probably European) markets already have systems in place to seize counterfeit goods at the border, and thus trademark enforcement should be effective at keeping unauthorized uses of the mark to a minimum.
Another commenter raised a point about fragmentation if every vendor renamed the OS. It would seem Google is concerned about this too, which may be why they are lenient on the use of the Android mark. Wikipedia says:
“…device manufacturers can not use Google’s Android trademark unless Google certifies that the device complies with their Compatibility Definition Document (CDD). Devices must also meet this definition to be eligible to license Google’s closed-source applications, including Android Market.”
So while they are not enforcing use of the Android mark, they are restricting access to the Android Market such that only properly licensed products have access.
I think the problem they have now is that Android has become a strong brand on its own, and the issue of Market access is not as obvious to end-users.
A better approach might have been doing what they did with the Chrome web browser – they released the open source version under a different name, chromium. This way there is a single name for the community to coalesce around, and a clear indication of which version is officially sanctioned by Google.
I’m saddened to see how many replies are from individuals who don’t seem to “get” the open source development model, and/or who haven’t read the article. Reminds me of the riddle: What’s the difference between someone who can’t read and someone who chooses not to?
Nothing
I’m really inspired with your writing talents as well as with the structure on your weblog. Is that this a paid topic or did you modify it yourself? Anyway stay up the excellent high quality writing, it is rare to peer a nice weblog like this one today..