Who Stands To Benefit From Open?
Yesterday Businessweek broke the news that Google wants to regain more control over its Android operating system, causing quite a stir in gadget circles. A week before, it transpired that the release of the Android 3.0 Honeycomb source code will be delayed, possibly foreshadowing the developments this week. Notably, there’s been talk about Google planning to exert more control over Android devices from Android 3.0 onwards as early as June 2010, but Google denied these claims back then of course.
I personally find the whole commotion around this move among consumers somewhat baffling. The kind of openness that Android proliferated on didn’t benefit endusers in the slightest, but only network operators and device manufacturers. I couldn’t care less about them and incidentally find it curious that seemingly the whole Apple press suddenly feels compelled to defend the rights and freedom of network operators and Android device manufacturers that in the past they thrived on denigrating.
I believe that overall Android user experience only stands to benefit from this change if Google manages to take back the reins (though a change for the better is anything but a certainty) and thus welcome this news. As someone rightly pointed out in a very clever comment here:
Of course being or not being open source has nothing to do with whether a piece of software is any good or not, and that’s what we Android users should be most concerned with. It’s time we gave up the fantasy that Android is better than the competition because it’s open source and judged it on whether it’s a better, more reliable, easier to use system than others on the market.
Unfortunately i’m afraid the most likely outcome from this would be that every Android device manufacturer forks its own operating system from the Android 2.x branch, especially considering the huge investments companies like HTC, Samsung, Motorola or SE have already undertaken to differentiate their offerings. I have a hunch that would be the worst possible outcome for Android user experience.
Added later: Has the forking already begun?
Alex King on Android UI consistency:
How can developers be expected to identify and follow consistent UI guidelines and patterns when the very basics of the OS user interface change from manufacturer to manufacturer and device to device?
Sony Ericsson LiveView
I’m intrigued by Sony Ericsson’s new LiveView gadgets – a watch-sized add-on for your Android phone that serves as an additional display. I can imagine this being quite handy in crowded situations, like on the subway, or when you want to check for updates or new messages without retrieving your phone from the depths of your pockets (especially helpful during cold, snowy days like today’s, when you might not want to unbutton your coat to reach for your phone). Engadget has a review but isn’t fully convinced of the product with its first-generation kinks. These things remind me of the concept of personal area networks from a few years back, which never really took off aside from Bluetooth headsets. I wonder if the iPod Nano might be headed in a similar direction down the road. Shape- and size-wise it would make a lot of sense.
On Back-Buttons and Such
Regarding the argument that hardware back-buttons are a good thing in Jon’s piece i linked to earlier today: Those dedicated hardware buttons on Android and Windows Phone 7 devices are a curious thing. I completely agree with them in theory and on principle (usable and useful, widely understood concept, saves valuable screen real estate), but in practice i despise them. I don’t like using them because it feels disruptive to switch from touchscreen-interaction to hardware buttons. It’s not as much a problem with the home button, because when i press that button i’m normally done with whatever task i was doing, so it’s mostly okay to disrupt my interaction flow then. But with the back-button being such an integral part of moving inside an app on Android (and presumably Windows Phone 7 as well), i find it really disruptive. Furthermore it seems to me that the back-button invites lazy interface design and is often used inconsistently.
What i would like to see in iOS instead of a dedicated hardware back-button is a system-wide gesture for that action – similar to what Apple already does on the Mac with the three-finger-swipe. In addition, i would really love to have a distinct gesture for launching the iOS multitasking bar instead of (or in addition to) that silly double-click on home button. So, please Apple, could we get multitouch gesture support in your flagship touchscreen OS that’s at least on par with multitouch gesture support in your desktop OS? That would be swell.
Android Market Is Attracting More App Developers
The New York Times on developer interest in the Android Market and remaining challenges:
“Google is not associated with things you pay for, and Android is an extension of that,” said Mr. Hall of Larva Labs. “You don’t pay for Google apps, so it bleeds into the expectations for the third-party apps, too.”
Google’s best deal, ever
Which begs for an interesting comparison: Google acquired Android, Inc. in 2005, for a rumored $50 million or something like that. Microsoft acquired Danger, Inc., another Andy Rubin venture, in 2008 for a rumored price around $500 million. One of these ventures went on to become a dominant force in the smartphone market. The other resulted in the Microsoft Kin debacle. Just saying…
Processing for Android Tutorial
CreativeApplications.net has a thorough tutorial on getting started with Processing development for Android. I will have to take a closer look at this.
Later: Create Digital Motion has another tutorial for Processing on Android.
Entelligence: Will carriers destroy the Android vision?
It’s somewhat ironic that the Nexus One remains a flagship device for the Android platform nine months after introduction because it’s a shining example of timely updates — it takes advantage of all of Android 2.2 Froyo’s features, something that no other device on the market can claim. Perhaps it’s also time for Google to re-think the Nexus phone path and once again show the market not only what state-of-the-art hardware looks like but also a state-of-the-art software vision as well.
