Which part of the 'true openness' of Android killed Samsung's deal with Skyhook? Was it the part when Android boss Andy Rubin said Samsung couldn't ship if they used Skyhook?
edit: confused "stop ship" of Motorola with Samsung. Same idea for both deals though. Don't get me wrong Android much more open then iOS but it's farm from the promised land google fanboys claim it is.
"Apple-grade hardware, and keeping it affordable.."
In case you didn't notice, Apple's iPad has been somewhat competitive on price and phones too. Apple and HTC are both more profitable unitwise then Samsung, I don't know where you get off saying "no one else can compete at this level"
Your Software Advantage is "cemented sales among several thousand android devs/enthusiasts." Is that seriously their software advantage? I think Apple, Microsoft and other companies that actually sell software by the billions might take issue with Samsung having an advantage here.
Your Hardware Advantage is that they make their own chips. Which are apparently so awesome they're running NVIDIA chips in their flagship tablet.
Their screens are excellent but there is plenty of competition. Google "best smartphone display" and a bunch of iphone 4 links pop up.
Which part of the 'true openness' of Android killed Samsung's deal with Skyhook?
No - that was great PR on behalf of Skyhook, but don't fall for it. Google had no problem with Samsung (or Motorola) shipping Skyhook. The problem was that Skyhook demanded exclusive access to the WiFi access point data (ie, if they shipped Skyhook they couldn't let Google get the same data).
Among those other issues was the provision limiting data collection to Skyhook. Motorola asked Skyhook to waive that restriction, so as to enable Motorola to comply with its obligations to Google with respect to GMS. Skyhook refused to do so, proposing instead that Motorola disable the data collection functions of GMS on its devices, which Skyhook contended would not affect performance of other functions of GMS. Motorola responded that it could not proceed in that manner without violating its obligations to Google and its carriers, and that it was
therefore absolved of its obligations under the Skyhook contract. [1]
To quote Wikipedia:
In December 2010 a judge denied Skyhook's motion for preliminary injunction, saying that Google had not closed off the possibility of accepting a revised version of Skyhook's XPS service, and that Motorola had terminated their contract with Skyhook because Skyhook wanted to disable Google's location data collection functions on Motorola's devices, which would have violated Motorola's obligations to Google and its carriers. [2]
no one will take you seriously if you make claims like this
Why?
Google has a huge problem with missing out on the location data (ie, Skyhook having an exclusive deal).
But Google very plainly doesn't have a problem with other people getting that data as well. There are numerous apps in the Android Market that do similar things, and many manufactures ship apps that dial home with location data (eg, anything that includes ads).
Because of the numerous direct quotes from internal Google emails talking about what a disaster it would be and how they quickly sabotaged the skyhook deals with their compatibility club. It's impossible even on a cursory read of what happened to takeaway that Google didn't have a problem with handset makers shipping Skyhook.
They talk about what a disaster it would be for Google to miss out on the data, not that it would be bad for Skyhook to get the data.
If you have "numerous direct quotes" then please provide them. In their absence I'd direct you to the footnotes I provided earlier.
(Also, I'd note that the quote compatibility club was from an email referring to shipping LogMeIn, not Skyhook, although Skyhook included in their case documents)
You are misunderstanding the situation. Google cared deeply about their service being missing from the phones. The exclusivity clause in Skyhook's contract was what was stopping that.
Skyhook didn't ship because their contract with Motorola (and I assume Samsung) required exclusivity. Google cared deeply about that, and Motorola notified Skyhook that their contract was invalid because of that exclusivity clause.
Skyhook didn't ship because they no longer had a contract. If they had found a way to get a new contract then they could have shipped it. Unfortunately for Skyhook, Google managed to prove that their service gave just as good results as Skyhook, and Skyhook couldn't show any additional value so manufactures were no longer interested.
(It's worth noting that apparently the manufactures were paying for Skyhook, but didn't have to pay for Google's service.)
... They were upset because Skyhook wanted exclusivity.
Google wanted in on the data, was willing to share with Skyhook.
Skyhook wanted exclusive access to the data, which Google wasn't willing to sacrifice so they muscled them out.
How can we make this more obvious to you? (Oh wait, a glance at your comment history explains why you don't seem to get what anyone here is saying. You have an obvious bias and it's apparently affecting your ability to comprehend or something).
Motorola can ship whatever they want. Do you really not understand how MIT/GPL work? Just because Android's open doesn't mean that Google has to sell/give their GoogleApps to anyone that wants or demands them. Google's mobile applications are completely isolated from the openness of Android. Sure, this works nicely for Google, seeing as very few vendors have had the balls to ship Android devices without Google's Market, but that's just a missed opportunity by potential competitors if you ask me.
"a glance at your comment history ... an obvious bias and it's apparently affecting your ability to comprehend or something)."
I could say the same for yours. Let's be clear since I'm being accused of being some sort of one dimensional Android hater:
I like Google. I like Android. I like the openness of Android. I also and sometimes especially like several of the non-Open parts of Android (Maps and Gmail are the gold standard in mobile, Marketplace needs work but they iterate fast, Music and Movies look great and have probably sold me on an Android tablet if/when I get one). I have no problem with Google's location services, as far as I know they are the best in the world. I have no problem with them muscling out Skyhook, that's how business works. I have no problem with Google using compatibility as a club, and as in the case of timely updates they need a bigger club (they know this and are iterating quickly as usual).
Here's the difference: what I have a problem with is claiming that all of Android is this free and open promised land while you're muscling people out at the same time. That's just willful ignorance of what Google and Android (in its totality) are.
You can claim that "Android in it's entirety" is just the open source pieces but at that point we're just talking past each other and should agree to disagree. Is Honeycomb not Android? Would not every review point out that you don't get "the full Android" from a device lacking Google's suite of non-Open Source apps from a device shipping without "Android compatibility"? Since you continually question my reading comprehension use your superior skills and tell me what this quote from Android's wikipedia means: "device manufacturers can not use Google's Android trademark unless Google certifies that the device complies with their Compatibility Definition Document (CDD)"
So we're at this point in the conversation already. I guess we've really been in it sometime, as you continue to drag Gapps and Skyhook around like they support your point and now apparently we're involving trademarks too. Oh well, here it goes:
Mozilla owns the Firefox trademark and controls who can use it. Google does that with Android. Surely you're not suggesting that anyone should be able to use trademarked names of other products just because their source is GPL/MIT licensed...
As for everything else, it's just you talking past me or over me: I'll repeat it, Android and Google Apps are two completely different products. Your attempts to use Google Apps to discredit Android's openness is dishonest, disingenuous and just weak. Android is free and open and Google muscled them out of Skyhook by threatening to withold Google Apps. Android is free and open; still, completely regardless of that statement. Gmail is not part of Android. Calendar is not part of Android. They're irrelevant at this point in this discussion. Dude, I even granted that the Market missing would be detrimental to the sale of any Android device, but that's STILL completely ancillary to Android's openness.
Android is all MIT and GPL. RedHat does development behind closed doors. So does Canonical. Hey, guess what Novell does? Does that make their core Linux product any less "open"? Certainly not by any technical standard. Does Canonical operating a paid channel in the Ubuntu Software Center mean Ubuntu is no longer open?
Heh, as for my comments, the first two pages don't even touch Android, there's a complaint about WebGL in iOS, but Android doesn't even have WebGL at this point, so it's not like it was fan-based by any means. I like Android but think Google is screwing themselves in about 5 different ways and I think we'll look back at WebOS as damn near visionary. I won't lie and say that I like iOS, because I don't, I can't stand the user experience, but the quality of the app store and the graphics are smoother than I've seen in any pre-mid-2010 Android phone. I'm a big fan of competition, but I'm also a huge fan of OSS and I just don't understand the need for people to try to cut down Android and make it seem like Google's little prized possession (not to say that it isn't, by any means), but if that's bad... what does it mean for Apple/iOS?
The level I'm speaking of is open-source involvement, with great smartphone hardware, world-compatible, at an affordable price. It is difficult to find a phone with two of those qualities, much less all four.
My first hardware advantage was that they make Apple's chips, learn from Apple, and they save by letting Apple take much of the R&D cost. Apple is concerned about this and will likely be taking their chip production elsewhere. [1]
Let's be realistic: Apple hardware is always more expensive. I'm not talking single-unit profit, Apple is well-known for their high markups. I'm talking overall market dominance. The Galaxy S II is already outselling the iPhone 4 in the UK. [2] The preorders in Korea for the Galaxy S II are much higher than the iPhone 4 release. [3] The first Galaxy S is outselling the iPhone 4 in Japan! [4]
Software sales are not the software advantage, involving quality devs from the community is the advantage. Samsung doesn't need to spend as much on marketing and software dev because the community is already helping them. Just look at the ridiculous amount of free press that one move has given them, and the CM port isn't even to beta yet! [5]
My second hardware advantage is absolutely their AMOLED tech. They are by far the leaders in OLED, Sony is the only other major player and they are looking at combining with Toshiba's LCD division in order to keep up. [6] If you are a consumer who prefers an OLED smartphone (as I do), the Galaxy S is the only choice. Again, Samsung manufacturers their own screens, simplifying the process. Googling 'best smartphone display' does not reflect any advantage besides Apple's giant marketing machine.
If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd love to read it! But I think Samsung is the clear winner.
"the true openness of Android"
Which part of the 'true openness' of Android killed Samsung's deal with Skyhook? Was it the part when Android boss Andy Rubin said Samsung couldn't ship if they used Skyhook?
edit: confused "stop ship" of Motorola with Samsung. Same idea for both deals though. Don't get me wrong Android much more open then iOS but it's farm from the promised land google fanboys claim it is.
"Apple-grade hardware, and keeping it affordable.."
In case you didn't notice, Apple's iPad has been somewhat competitive on price and phones too. Apple and HTC are both more profitable unitwise then Samsung, I don't know where you get off saying "no one else can compete at this level"
Your Software Advantage is "cemented sales among several thousand android devs/enthusiasts." Is that seriously their software advantage? I think Apple, Microsoft and other companies that actually sell software by the billions might take issue with Samsung having an advantage here.
Your Hardware Advantage is that they make their own chips. Which are apparently so awesome they're running NVIDIA chips in their flagship tablet.
Their screens are excellent but there is plenty of competition. Google "best smartphone display" and a bunch of iphone 4 links pop up.