Nothing

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.”

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.

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

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.

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.

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”.