Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Exec Hints At Future Open Platform

Posted by timothy on from the all-very-vague dept.

rsmiller510 writes "At the recent Web 2.0 Summit, Dave Girouard, who is president of Google's enterprise division, stated that his company's long-term goal is to open up the Google development stack to outside developers. If this is true, then it could have some serious long-term implications for developers who could use Google services in new and interesting ways."

5 of 73 comments (clear)

  1. Well... by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Informative

    I read the entire article. Can I have my five minutes back please?

    Summary of article:

    Google Exec: We're going to open.... The box!
    People: Open what?
    Google Exec: The box! With... the wires, and blinky lights, and stuff in it!
    People: What's in the box?
    Google Exec: New and interesting things!
    People: O RLY?
    Google Exec: YA RLY!
    People: ...
    Google Exec: Oh look, pretty shiny...

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Well... by i.of.the.storm · · Score: 4, Funny

      I read your comment. Can I have my 30 seconds back please?

      Summary of comment:

      girlintraining: Generic rant about genericness of article
      me: lol

      On a more serious note, I hate it when they do that. Google is awesome with the things that they do but they can be so hopelessly vague. And while I like that Android/the G1 are more open than most cellphone platforms, it's really not much different from other smartphone platforms like Windows Mobile, with the exception that you can't run native programs on Android (yet). I'm not entirely sure whether their Dalvik VM is optimized enough for this to not matter, and I am most proficient in Java, but it would be nicer to have more options for development on Android.

      --
      All your base are belong to Wii.
  2. If by open... by retech · · Score: 5, Funny

    he means they'll track all my personal information and use it to their advantage... then count me in!

    1. Re:If by open... by TheSpoom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't worry, you were counted in a long time ago whether you knew it or not.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
  3. Open may not mean what we would like by Morgaine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's a danger with the word "open", as it carries such good connotations for us here. However, just because we like "open" doesn't mean that whatever is coming from Google is going to match our expectations, let alone our desires.

    You have to remember that Google is a very different beast to RedHat for example. Google's business M.O. is like that of no other corporation, so it's hard to draw comparisons, but nobody would ever suggest that they are "an open source company" (not even close), despite the many open source projects that they host, promote, support, and of course use. At best, they are a "somewhat open source friendly" company, and undoubtedly they also know that being open is becoming increasingly important, so they're responding to that.

    Note that Google's main products are all closed, and most of them possess a few annoying "features" that would have been fixed by now if they were an open source company --- I'm sure that we can all point to some "feature/bugs" that irritate us personally. :-) In fact they're not even very good at responding to popular feature requests (almost apathetic), so true wide-scale openness is really a long way off for Google.

    Given the above, I think that some caution is required when interpreting highly non-specific words spoken by Google execs. While we would like them to become massively more open, their openness may not come in a form that the FOSS community would find particularly attractive. In particular, any thought that Google is going to cede huge amounts of control over to open source developers is almost certainly sheer fantasy.

    --
    "The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra