Why “Closed” Android is Better for Everyone
Google is cracking down on Android’s “openness”. This much is clear.
And really, let’s be honest: Android never was fully open. If you wanted a full-service smartphone that used Google’s applications – Gmail, Maps etc. – you had to sign a contract with Google to use the OS in particular ways.
But now that Google are not letting Android 3.0 out into the world, it’s clear something is changing. Google are exerting more control over Android, and in comments on every story about it across the web, people seem a bit upset about it.
But a more closed, more tightly closed Android will be better for everyone. Here’s why.
A More Unified Experience
One of the great things about Android is that both you and manufacturers can customize it in any number of ways. That is also Android’s biggest downside.
Right now, because people can do whatever they want with Android, they can build phones/tablets/PMPs etc. that cut themselves off from the broader platform. A great example of this was Sony Ericsson and the Xperia X10. By building their (awful) Timescape and Mediascape applications into the OS of the phone, they made it incredibly hard for themselves to upgrade to new versions of Anrdoid. So buyers of a high-end Android phone were stuck with Android 1.6 or 2.1 and the numerous performance and interface issues of older versions of the OS.
By more tightly controlling Android, Google will have more say about the spread of new version of the OS, preventing the prevalent problem now in which numerous Android users cannot use various apps because they are waiting to be upgraded to new versions.
Moreover, some degree of UI standardization – both within the OS itself and between handsets – will make adoption of Android easier and more accessible as switching handsets will become more simple and straighforward.
It’s Still Open in the Right Ways
Even if certain aspects of Android become closed, as an OS, it’s still open in the ways it should be: apps. You can still develop apps of almost any sort for Android. Whether that’s replacing the stock keyboard with Swype, using Winamp for music or having notes from Evernote directly on your home screen, Android will still be adaptable and customizable in the way it matters: to users. Whether Google are abiding by principles of open source or are distributing code back out into the programmer ecosystem is a separate issue from – and indeed, possibly even the opposite of – what is best for end users.Manufacturers Will be Forced to Differentiate in New Ways
As it stands now, manufacturers of Android sets focus their differentiation on interface. HTC has their Sense, Samsung has TouchWiz and so on.
But if Google were to reign in the (let’s face it) often very bad additions to the stock Android UI, they’d have to find other ways to differentiate. And that means that rather than rebuilding their entire interfaces, they could one of two things: a) focus on apps that take advantage of distinct hardware features like the Xperia Play; b) build content solutions for Android, as this one way it severely lags iOS. Build out an easy way for Android users to get legit, new movies and TV shows, and Android manufacturers can distinguish themselves with ecosystems rather than silly widgets.
The right thing to do is for Google to require retailers to sell phones with ONLY the OS installed and not all the crapware that requires rooting to uninstall.
The thing I hated most was my experience with Verizon.
I bought the first Droid version, and had all the nice Googleness that came with the original (nearly pure) OS. About 1 year later, all types of droids were available, and we got one for the wife. But by then, Verizon had wised up, and did some pretty snarky things to modify the OS.
First of all – Skype is now limited. Then, the default Navigator (which is one of the most useful apps – and completely free) in the newer version was actually replaced with one coded by Verizon. I needed to get somewhere fast, but what I got by default when I clicked the new Navigator button was an immediate demand for a monthly subscription fee in order to access and use it. It took a few minutes to delete that one, and download the real Navigator (all the while hoping Verizon hadn’t arbitrarily decided not to allow that app to compete with their version) . And then there’s the BING issue. No way to change the default search interface. Verizon had replaced Google with Bing – because of the far better experience that Bing gives users… uh, or maybe it was the load of cash MS paid Verizon. Voice search (the most often used Droid feature for me) was nowhere to be found, and more.
The market has changed. I don’t want a wireless service provider to limit my options. As long as I’m using the data and voice streams within reasonable limits, who cares what i do with my phone? Give me the phone service, and get all your OS crap out of my way. I want what I want, and you should be happy I’m willing to pay you for dropped calls and limited unlimited data plans.
I’d love to see stats on how many users actually buy any of the Verizon apps.
I don’t think it’s such a good idea. Closed programming is essentially the privatization of ideas In a world that is rapidly becoming more and more idea-focused, that means a new type of corporate control. Not that corporations are necessarily evil, but it seems to be the trend. Too much power too easily leads to too much corruption.
And if people want to program things for it that branch away from it, that’s fine, but they don’t have to. But I think it’s healthy to have the choice.
Did no one read this? http://android-developers.blog… Because, Honestly I completely disagree. If you have a rooted device like many people do, and you know what you’re doing then you have even more options. Why should we limit everyones options just because the majority of people out there don’t understand the more advanced features?
Because you are the minority and the “majority” as you say are the market that is paying for these phones and keeping android alive. If only tech people that rooted phones bought android handsets they wouldn’t exist. And if they don’t make Android appealing and easy to use to the vast, vast majority then they’ll leave Android. This article was written because he wants to see Android flourish and drive competition.
because the majority of people contribute to the majority of income.
it IS the right thing to do, but not what google has been trumpeting about the strength of the android platform. Indeed, openness in almost every form is touted as Android’s strength. Take that away and you take away that strength. Also: how do you know it will be “Open in all the right ways”? They could very easily lock that down too, if the apps don’t meet whatever restrictions they dream up.
One more thing: What’s the definition of open now, Rubin?