Slashdot Mirror
Skyhook Wireless Sues Google Over Anti-Competitive Practices
dwightk writes "According to a lawsuit brought by Skyhook Wireless, Google allegedly forced Motorola, among other Android handset makers, to use Google's own location services instead of alternatives like Skyhook's. Quoting the lawsuit: 'In complete disregard of its common-law and statutory obligations, and in direct opposition to its public messaging encouraging open innovation, Google wielded its control over the Android operating system ... to force device manufacturers to use its technology rather than that of Skyhook, to terminate contractual obligations with Skyhook, and to otherwise force device manufacturers to sacrifice superior end user experience with Skyhook by threatening directly or indirectly to deny timely and equal access to evolving versions of the Android operating system and other Google mobile applications.'"
John Gruber points out another interesting excerpt from the complaint regarding Google's procedure for determining Android compliance, which includes what Skyhook calls an "amorphous outline of additional, non-standardized requirements" that "effectively gives Google the ability to arbitrarily deem any software, feature or function 'non-compatible.'"
Each day you do something that moves you further and further away from your motto. Is it because you're just getting so big that it's becoming impossible to stay completely honest and still compete, or are you just getting power hungry?
Methinks it's a little from column A and a little from column B.
Living With a Nerd
Skyhook had links to Allen & Company (http://www.skyhookwireless.com/whoweare/management.php).
Allen & Company had George Tenet of CIA fame as a managing director.
The NSA likes Google, the CIA is/was close to Skyhook.
This seems more like an interagency turf war over next gen real time phone tracking than the free market.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Anybody remembers Microsoft? And their "competitive" practices? Is GOOGLE the new Evil?
They haven't been found guilty yet. Totally agree with the sentiment of your post mind you, I
just think it's worth taking a wait and see approach on this one...
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
What makes you believe MS is not evil?
The actions of MS are what make MS evil: not the actions of others.
1) This requirement only applies to Android that is bundled with Google's proprietary apps/services. If you take Android without Google's integration and market... you can use what you want.
2) There are many alternative markets out there.
3) You can use alternate location services in apps from the market...
4) Google tried to work with Skyhook requesting examples of their location data.... Skyhook refused... so since Google couldn't guarantee it would work with their services... etc
Why don't we just wrap it up and say most companies are evil. The bigger they are the more unethical stuff we'll point out. Sure Microsoft has done unethical stuff, but it's ran by people. People are greedy and will do anything to get richer. Google is ran by people, thus they're greedy.
So whats the solution? Android has to either support everything in one standard or have multiple standards to encompass everyone's tech? Basically this would create a bloated (and more expensive) OS or more Android fragmentation (your device does geo-location this way with these results while mine does it another way with other results).
I guess it's a thin line between between closed and controlled vs open and free. As more and more of these headaches (lawsuits, fragmentation) crop up for Google/Android we find more and more reasons why Steve Jobs has a point in everything he says is a benefit in his iOS closed model.
Turf war or no, Google seems to be marching intently away from it's motto, as has been stated. How long can anyone there (Sergey?) continue to stay who might still cling to this motto? It's very tempting, though it would mean moving all of my mail, abandoning feedburner, and no longer using analytics, to leave Google. OTOH, I can't bring myself to use Bing...the other dark meat. :|
Altavista: "We have an engine that can search the web"
...and so on and so on. I really, really have never seen why Google gets such a free ride here. They've done StreetView which is innovative and couldn't have been done without vast resources...that's pretty much the end of anything unique they've ever managed. Their behaviour with Skyhook here is just yet another example of me too'ism.
Google: "Me too!"
Hotmail: "We give you free email accounts!"
Google: "Me too!"
Streetmap/Multimap: "We have free online mapping services to plan your routes with"
Google: "Me too!"
Skype: "We give you VOIP anywhere!"
Google: "Me too!"
Apple: "We have a new touch-based smartphone"
Google: "Me too!"
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
"effectively gives Google the ability to arbitrarily deem any software, feature or function 'non-compatible.'".
How is this different from what other companies do in their 'App Approval' process? It seems to me that this lawsuit may cross into other areas if Google is found guilty.
Scope Creep applies in more areas than software development!
I'm pulling for Skyhook. They're not asking to be king. They're asking to compete. Something Google apparently didn't want to do. Sounds familiar. This is a Netscape vs. IE war.
can find a conspiracy theory in everything... I swear...
One of these things is not like the other.
One of these things just doesn't belong.
One of these stories is about a monopoly,
and Google Android in the mobile space sure as shite ain't.
I'm not sure if Google is really the bad guy here. Skyhook's concept is cool and all, but there may be other reasons Skyhook wasn't considered for providing location data in Android. If they'd made a decent offer and provided a service that's up to par, why should Google go to all the trouble of setting up their own location tech? Wouldn't it have been much cheaper and easier to just use Skyhook?
But, but, but....five years ago everyone here was telling me that Google was somehow different and would mod down those who disagreed. I'm just glad I hung around long enough to see you guys get your education.
and everyone does it, intel requires you to use a certain combo of intel chips in your laptop before you can slap a 'centrino' (or whatever 'ino is the flavor of the day) on it, AMD does the same, MS undoubtedly has some requirements before you can put a big shiney 'designed for windows XX' sticker on anything..
Since the base of android is supposed to be open source, everyone should be free to take that, build a phone OS on it, use skyhook, but google has every right to stop you from using the android name on that device
sure, it goes against the idea that android is supposedly completely free/open, but google has a right to protect their platform, and the experience on that platform
People, what a bunch of bastards
Not as long as Microsoft and Apple still exists. Google will just be 3rd place.
BTW openness isn't always the greatest thing. Commodore operated an open OS with no restrictions whatsoever, including the ability to run your own personal OS, and look where they are today (bankrupt). Apple also verged on bankruptcy until Steve Jobs came-along and stopped their open "mac clone" program and sealed everything behind lock-and-key.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I don't think we really know the whole truth of this. I wouldn't be surprised, but I'm not willing to be bothered by it until I have more confidence in the information. Legal filings often seem to overstate their case as much as they can.
>>>why should Google go to all the trouble of setting up their own location tech?
For the same reason Google created their Maps application, even though Mapquest had already existed for a decade. i.e. A chance to make money. Anyway looking-out certain apps sounds less like an IE v. Netscape situation, and more like an Apple "lock out competitors" deal.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
TFA reads like Skyhook wrote it. I'm going to have to Google for a less biased FA. Oh look, here's one. Facts minus editorializing.
Oh, and this is a very interesting wrinkle on it:
Free Martian Whores!
Whereas Apple, who dropped Skyhook too, had also replaced the functionality with their own implementation isn't doing the same thing?
All we have here is a company getting pissy their limited business model has been replaced on two very popular platforms. Tough titties. If they want, they can release their own applications that use their implementation, and then compete in the market. Too easy though, they know their toast is done. They're looking for a payout from the big boys before shutting up shop.
But how exactly do they make money from their WiFi geolocation service? Maps, okay, put in ads or paid POI... but WiFi geolocation isn't exactly something you can monetize unless you sell it...?
I don't see the evil side yet. Google shouldn't be forced to make their Maps application compatible with every location service out there. Why don't Skyhook work with other mapping software manufacturers, or roll their own?
If they are actively stopping Skyhook's software from working on the device then that is evil, but Google shouldn't be forced to integrate Skyhook with Maps any more than MS should be required to make IE compatible with Firefox plugins, or provide an OpenGL mode for all their games. They're free to do it if they want, but they don't have to.
which is totally what she said
Mapquest was horrible compared to what Google brought with Google Map. I practically never used a map website before since it was not that much helpful.
What did Google do yesterday? What did they do the day before? Perhaps you could share a calendar showing the other 5 things they've done in the last 7 days?
/. view certainly seemed to be put up or shut up.
Isn't it just so very fashionable to proclaim the burgeoning evil of Google these days.
A competitor has accused Google of something. Perhaps, we should wait and see if it is true? When Microsoft said Linux was using its patents without permission did we just accept it as fact? The
Google offers a mobile platform that you can use without paying them. Even if they did require that it came with their map program is that really 'evil'? Sure, we'd like everything 100% free and optional but that doesn't make 99% free and optional 'evil'.
Is it an act of evil if I give £1,000 to a foreign aid charity and ask that the money not be used to promote 'organic' farming? I'm sure they'd appreciate complete freedom, but I doubt they'd think I was on a slippery slope to pure evil.
fun fact: Google had been in talks to license skyhook's tech/database before deciding to do it themselves.
fun fact: Knowing where you are helps google make money.
fun fact: Companies go to the trouble of doing shit if it makes them money.
bonus fun fact: Apple used skyhook until iPhone OS (as it was then called) version 3, at which point they started doing it in house.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
How does knowing where you are through Skyhook make Google less money than knowing where you are through their own in-house system?
I hardly think that rolling their own system was cheaper than just licensing Skyhook would've been...
Haven't you heard the talk about geolocation specific ads?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Skyhook isn't totally open and doesn't give everything away. Perhaps Google could roll their own for less money than Skyhook wanted.
Not everything has to directly generate revenue. The more you use the internet, the more money Google makes. Google does lots of things that seem to be only about making the online experience better thus having you spend more time online and seeing more of their ads.
Of course... but why would using Skyhook for geolocation stop Google from putting location-sensitive ads in apps?
WTF are you talking about? You can run on your own personal OS on any commodity PC today. And that includes Apple's machines. Just hack any one of the dozens of open source operating systems, ranging from the *BSDs to Linux to one of the BeOS clones to a Windows NT clone.
Additionally, Commodore's implosion had little to do with operating systems or openness and everything to do with horrible mismanagement and poor leadership.
My blog
TFA reads like Skyhook wrote it. I'm going to have to Google for a less biased FA.
We're trusting google to provide an unbiased view of itself?
You can't take the sky from me...
This is posted in the "Know your rights" section.
A couple of quick items:
- Android is released under the Apache license. So skyhook and any handset manufacturer, if they don't like the direction google is taking the platform, can do whatever they want to the software. This is the definition of open source.
- Conversely, open source doesn't mean skyhook can force a developer to do something. Lots of business who want to make money by inclusion in a project get upset when open source projects say no. See Reiser or any other open source bug tracker.
- On top of the apache licensed Android, Google provides a set of pretty popular apps (Google Apps). Most but not all manufacturers use those apps. My guess is that if you pick up these apps, then that is where google is saying you have to use their location based service. So far these apps are good enough people generally use them, but eventually Microsoft or some other big player will pay enough $$ to a manufacturer that google maps / google search etc will go away on some handsets.
- Google also offers the Android Market, another natural place of control. Many OS Distro's use marketplaces, update channels etc to monetize their platform. This also obviously creates lock-in.
- Almost every open source project doesn't let you take their brand with your changes. So if you want to make lots of changes you probably can't call your OS "Android" vs Sense or MotoBlur. This also is common to Mozilla, Redhat etc etc. Mozilla was really picky about this (see Iceweasel).
- Skyhook is suing Google for violating it's patents on doing location. This includes ""Server for Updating Location Beacon Database". Reading these patents will make you wish software patents were toned down a bit I think.
- Skyhook is itself not an open source contribution to the handset, but apparently a pretty costly proprietary app on top of the handset with big royalties and patents with no patent pledges. In other words, if someone tries to do location service and to give it away for free, prepare to be sued by Skyhook.
- Apple dropped Skyhook from the iphone 4 I believe? Be interesting to know why given they had been a customer and skyhook claims to have the best tech.
- Open source being "nice". Big business in open source seem to still plan on using the layers above to fight for $.
So some shades of grey in this :) Be interesting to see how the case evolves.
What if Google bowed to enabling Skyhook? Wouldn't Skyhook then start a law suit over Google's potential for piggy-backing Skyhook's data with Google's? The way I see it, Skyhook would complain either way.
Google is interested, of course, in using their services because they know they can rely on their services and their own motivations. For Google to set up an agreement with Skyhook or to have service providers or handset makers do that only serves Skyhook's interests and would likely cost everyone else more.
I would like to see evidence to support Skyhook's claims of Google "forcing" android phone makers to use Google's services.
where's -1 the too long but ultimately brutality pointless
This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
Force: 4: power to influence, affect, or control; efficacious power. 6: persuasive power; power to convince
dictionary.com
OK.
I'm probably wrong about Apple too. What made them nearly imploded in the 1995-97 timeframe, when they had billion-dollar losses? Or Atari Computers implode about the same time?
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Way to take what he said WAAAAAAAY out of context.
He didn't say MS isn't evil, he said something like "my how the tides have turned" where more and more news on the internet keeps showing the evil side of google. This is considered irony as google was supposed to be the 'do no evil'/anti-M$-evil company and more and more they are showing their true colors.
Or over there at Google, people are realizing that pushing a platform that's completely open and yet fully supported and still works perfectly when you swap out major components, like location services, is actually really hard.
There's a reason that Apple is a solutions provider rather than a hardware, OS, or software shop.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Not yet, but getting there. Giving past examples, remember Apple was the white knight of /. from circa 2000 - 2005, and then there was the Linux flavor of the year until that flavor gets too 'popular' or too 'successful' at which point the /. moves to support another flavor etc., I give it at least another year, maybe two before Google is considered the new "evil". I'm not sure who will replace them as the new "white knights". Maybe the folks with Meego?
I mean seriously I remember when RH got started and the rah, rah cheerleading people here gave RH. "See someone can make a commercial linux and be sucessful!". They they actually became successful and then SuSE became the next big thing(tm). Then SuSE started to be successful, got bought out by Novell and then the community went, "look at Debian, it is the ONE TRUE LINUX (tm)". It started to be successful and then came Ubuntu. Now Ubuntu's successful and you are starting to hear the complaints of "Well it's controlled by one man's vision" and "They don't give enough back."
I've seen it enough now that I've come to the conclusion that there is a large group of people here who just hate success.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
If this is true, then it is deeply disturbing and a symptom of a serious problem in the control that companies can have over other companies in the current legislative environment.
Back in the old days, companies such as Microsoft couldn't simply deem that competing applications were "non-compatible"--they had to actually go to the effort of making sure that Windows would hobble them. (Remember "Windows isn't done until Lotus won't run"?)
Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
Well, there was definitely quite a bit of poor leadership and mismanagement at Apple prior to the return of Steve Jobs. John Sculley, Michael Spindler and Gil Amelio each did their part to run Apple into the ground. (Actually, the history is a bit unfair to Gil Amelio, who was the man who made the call to buy NeXT and NeXTSTEP, upon which OS X is based.)
As for Atari, I don't know the whole story, but what I do know is that they were never able to outsell their closest competitor, Commodore.
My blog
And would like to subscribe, etc...
Best Slashdot Co
If by success you mean killing the competition, yes, i do hate the success. In fact, i really believe that while MS has a pure evil desire to break the Google monopoly (ant-trust laws anybody?), i do believe that it should be done. Now GOOGLE is really too big, a way too big.... Do you remember what happened with "Too big to fail" banks, AIG, Freddy and co?
bonus fun fact: Apple used skyhook until iPhone OS (as it was then called) version 3, at which point they started doing it in house.
Which raises the question of why Skyhook is not suing both Apple and Google.
When I read that, I thought our overloads have graciously decided not to nuke us, but to sue our "toy" manufacturers. Now we will die of boredom!
"Ones and zeros were everywhere. I even think I saw a two!" - Bender
Microsoft will be suing Google because Android needs a GMail account to utilize some of its features. God, I can't imagine using Hotmail again. BTW, I'm not so sure about Google's location service. Either I've secretly discovered warp drive or something is screwy. On many occasions, my location randomly bounces from the middle of the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the Pacific Ocean.
Setting his threshold to 5, Sparky eliminated most of the trolls on /.
I'm not looking for Google's view (which they haven't even made public yet). The googling turned up the FA linked in the summary, so clearly we can expect Google to provide a view biased against Google. If they're going to give a result that makes them look bad, that's pretty good evidence that they can be trusted to provide an unbiased view.
Free Martian Whores!
As a result of Google forcing Skyhook's partners to breach their contracts, Skyhook lost millions of dollars of licensing revenue and is seeking reparation.
You don't get anywhere by suing companies that decide not to use your product. The Google situation is not at all similar -- the allegation is that Google PREVENTED Motorola from using Skyhook's product.
I see a lot of dumb comments above about how Google shouldn't be forced to integrate Skyhook's location services, but this isn't about Google integrating Skyhook's location services. This is about Motorola choosing to use Skyhook on Android, and Google refusing to allow it.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
Of course bigger companies are evil based on this definition. It is hard to be anti-competitive when you have a 5% market share.
Shouldn't that be -1: Offtopic? It really isn't related to what we're talking about.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
SkyHook had a contract to supply Motorola (worth tens of millions of dollars - lifeblood to a company of that size) and when Andy Rubin (a Google VP) heard about it, he phoned up Motorola. "Conversation" ensued, involving the use of a "stop ship" order to prevent Android from shipping on that Motorola hardware. When the dust settled, Motorola was using Google's location services, not Skyhook's.
This has nothing to do with Google integrating anything, and it's totally evil. Quote from Google-IO: "If you believe in openness, if you believe in choice, if you believe in innovation from everyone, then welcome to Android" - Vic Gundotra, another Google VP. I don't think so Vic. You and Andy ought to talk...
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
A competitor has accused Google of something. Perhaps, we should wait and see if it is true? When Microsoft said Linux was using its patents without permission did we just accept it as fact? The /. view certainly seemed to be put up or shut up.
It's not inconsistent at all:
On /., big corporations need to put up or shut up, whereas other entities challenging big corporations are usually assumed to be in the right.
Also, geeks are never guilty of crimes.
Would you be satisfied if poster Yahoo'd or Binged to the same article?
Parent is either the worst spammer ever or has stopped taking their medication...
I don't think it can be helped.
If you are a literal giant on earth that's so huge that you can accidentally destroy a building by just sneezing, some people would think that was evil.
An odd metaphor yes but very applicable. 1 search engine change can make a company bankrupt near instantly.
I'm not saying Google is good nor evil, I'm just explaining how one might come up with these judgements.
What a douche.
which is totally what she said
Just because I'm greedy (I am, my short term goals are to make as much money as humanly possible so that I can enjoy a decent quality of life when I retire 30 years from now) doesn't mean that I am evil, or even unethical for that matter.
I wish I was a neutron bomb, for once I could go off...
When Microsoft said Linux was using its patents without permission did we just accept it as fact?
Slashdot as a community isn't strictly neutral on a lot of topics. In general we're pretty positive towards Linux and negative towards Microsoft so we'll give Linux the benefit of the doubt (Because we like them and don't trust Microsoft.), but if it were an allegation that Microsoft did something wrong we'd probably just assume it were true, especially given their past, etc. Not everyone would claim this, but the general consensus would probably be against Microsoft. Hell, look at some of the articles dealing with the Hans Reiser murder case. There were a lot of people who defended him or thought there was no way he could have done it, even though a more objective group would have said he's likely guilty.
/. users own and love their Android phones, and Google has given Microsoft and a few other lesser-liked tech companies a few black eyes in the past so they get to play the white knight around here. Of course sentiment is slowly turning against them as accusations such as this and their back-room net neutrality dealings with Verizon generally go against the feelings of the community.
Google is generally viewed fairly favorably around here. They're a proponent of a lot of open source projects, a lot of
I wouldn't call it evil as Google probably should have their own interests in mind, but I don't think they can go around proclaiming Android to be a wonderful open platform if there are actually restrictions like this placed on it. I'll reserve passing judgement until more facts come out, but given that a case like this can take several years to resolve I can understand why a lot of people want to form some kind of judgement now. By the time an actual verdict is declared (and assuming that there aren't appeals.) it could be years from now and almost everyone will have forgotten what the hell the case was about.
I'm just gonna assume you're talking about Andy Rubin there, not me :)
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
Supposing the "conversation" was to remind Motorola that *they* were breaching their contract with Google in relation to the non-free google services bundle, and that this contract pre-dated Motorola's contract with Skyhook? In that case, Google has done nothing wrong.
Hey, do you have any source to cite for that? Or is it personal knowledge due to being intimately involved in the situation?
It's not that I believe it couldn't be true -- that kind of stuff happens pretty often. But the specifics you mention... I just find it hard to lend them 100% credence without corroboration.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
The IBM PC clone wars. And while it's true that Microsoft was the gatekeeper to the platform, the hardware was for more open than most of what was around at the time. That's what was driving sales. It was no longer about IBM.
Apple's attempt to do something similar was flawed. It was fighting about a decade of momentum (Jobs claimed that the entire clone project was too late to be effective when he canceled it). And it generated too much competition (read: confusion) in what had become a niche space. Apple themselves were putting out so many models that they were competing with themselves while they competed with the Mac clones they had licensed.
Now, I suspect I know where you're going with this. You're implying that Apple's clone program hurt Apple and therefore, being "open" hurt Apple. However, the initial licensing program actually helped Apple as it was already in financial trouble at this point and needed fast cash. So while the program may have been doomed, it wasn't itself the root of Apple's troubles.
You're confusing two totally different personality traits.
I'm as greedy as they come. My immediate goal on any given day, to make as much money as humanly possible, so that I can retire to a decent life style in 30 years.
This doesn't mean that I am evil, or even unethical for that matter. Just greedy.
Profit is not a dirty word, you know that, right?
I wish I was a neutron bomb, for once I could go off...
Dictionary skills fail.
OP used the word 'force' as a verb; you provided a definition of its use as a noun.
If you're going to cite a dictionary, please learn to use one first.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Source: e-week
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
Seems unlikely that Skyhook would be suing, then, doesn't it ? If Motorola phoned Skyhook and told them "are hands are tied, we can't continue with this because we're contractually bound not to use people like you", then Skyhook wouldn't have a leg to stand on. In that case, why waste loadsacash going to court over it ?
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
"effectively gives Google the ability to arbitrarily deem any software, feature or function 'non-compatible.'"
are they sure it wasnt an iPhone app?
No, thanks. I'm a believer in capitalism. It's more apt to say people are selfish, especially in groups. That covers everything from companies and governments to website communities like Slashdot.
This has nothing to do with Google integrating anything
To an extent.
The rest of the evil does have to do with Google integrating things. It's evil because part of Google's approval process for devices carrying the Android name apparently requires Google's geolocation which is built in to the infrastructure of Android. That geolocation could be pulled out or disabled, but then you can't call it Android and you can't put the Market on the device. That is not open. It's similar to Tivoization, only on a device which is purported to be open.
The phone call and this particular incident have nothing to do with it. It's an instance of the problem. Microsoft is being heavy handed and keeping Android from being open due to their oversight into the "compatibility" process, and the fact that they require some of their own services to be used "for compatibility."
The thing about Apple is that they're not interested in being #1 in market share. They're interested in being #1 in quality, or at least their own view of what quality is. That's why they often do things that leaves people scratching their heads, such as controlling what runs on their phones, which would seem to give competitors an advantage. Apple is probably one of the more harmless tech companies.
Obviously s/Microsoft/Google/ in that post.
Jobs is perfectly happy playing to the 80% of the population that doesn't give a rat's ass about what goes on behind the screen - and quite frankly doesn't want to. Google is trying to woo 100% by adding that last 20% in, but that takes a lot more effort and brains to do it well.
This smells like a case of sour grapes, imho.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Whew! Thanks for going out of your way to find a more pro-Google article for us. Negativity toward Google is "biased."
No, it's accurate. This is a company whose CEO said that people who believe in privacy have something to hide. They scanned and archived neighborhood WiFi networks "accidentally." They prevented Motorola from using Skyhook. This company wants you using Google products to do everything.
It just seems like a trend to you because Slashdot has been so blindingly pro-Google the last 10 years, almost solely due to the fact Google used to made a big deal about using cheap Linux machines for their servers. When free services like Gmail came out, and open source projects like Chrome were released, it made everyone forget that Google's core businesses are still closed source. That's why all those free things exist--to get you onto the search and advertising platform.
This change in perception of Google is a long time coming.
The comment was more towards how people jump to conclusion that companies do something that they believe is unethicial. I myself don't believe any companies are evil, they're just doing what they can to survive.
Here's what happened. Motorola agreed as part of the contract with Skyhook, to intentionally disable Google Location Service. Google says you cannot access the app store without all of Android being functional, and that they can't have Skyhook as the exclusive location software, and that it has to have both. Skyhook is making it out that Google Location spys on you without consent. (My Droid tells me how it works and asks if I'm sure I want to turn it on, and promises the info is anonymous, so that's a blatant lie). They also say that Google isn't saying it has to support both, they're saying it has to be always-on, which is false. Google Location Service is off by default on my phone, so I doubt there's a requirement that it can't ever be turned off. Further, my Droid phone came with a GPS Navigator software, and Layar Augmented Reality Browser, both of which show me the Skyhook logo when I run them, and both of which run fine with Google Location Services turned off, and in that case rely exclusivly on GPS and Skyhook data.
So I'm inclined to believe Skyhook is lying, or stupid. Skyhook tried to force Motorola to disable Google Location Service or else Skyhook would terminate their contract. Google said you can't do that or we won't let it on the app store, since without the full Android API we can't say the other location apps will work and it will harm the customers. Skyhook seems to be deliberately misstating this as Google Location Service being required to be "always on" and always spying on the user without consent (the repeatedly refer to it as tracking data without permission, and calling it a malicious and inferior product). Since my Samsung phone uses both Google Location Service and Skyhook, and since GLS is off by default AND doesn't mislead me, I'm inclined to believe that Skyhook is lying through their teeth.
Further, Skyhook said another draconian condition is that Motorola should have a box informing the user that Skyhook will be logging nearby WAP, just like the GOogle Location Service does when you turn it on. Skyhook says this is evil of them. Fucking hypocrites, lying and saying Google presents no information that GLS logs nearby wireless networks, and then having the gall to call being asked to do so themselves unreasonable.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
From the article, it looks like Skyhook is Wifi based, not GPS. Wifi is possible to fake, by changing the mac address. If you are in europe, and want US market access, just find a mac located in the US, update your wifi to the US mac, and you now appear to be in the US. The Google market place is location dependent, and there probably contracts that make sure you buy in the right location. I doubt Google had much choice in rejecting it based on pre-existing contracts. Is skyhook difficult to spoof? Jam? GPS is much more stable. As far as I know, you can JAM GPS, but with needing multiple satellite (mine says 5 sats minimum) I don't of anyone who can tamper with it and change your apparent location with a external signal.
Most likely this is about Android versus "Android by Google" being labeled on the phone. One is pretty much free to do anything with, the other is if you agree to conform to some additional requirements, you can put the Google label on your phone. If Motorola decides that they want the Google label, then yes they have some restrictions,. If they opt out of the Google label, then they can do whatever they want. Part of this is an attempt to force the carriers to not cripple the phones too much if they decide to leverage the Google brand, though obviously there are other benefits to Google.
http://blog.slaingod.com
Oh wow people are stupid. Android is open source the Chinese tablet and mobile handset makers can and do download the source and do whatever the hell they want with it including replace Google with Baidu search. What google controls is their app marketplace which if you want on your device you have to play by their rules. That's not to say you can't have your own app store as some do like Archos it's just not a Google branded Android device at that point it's an Archos branded device. BFD it's still open you just have to choose as a device maker whether you want to have a Google android device or not but you get a choice. John Gruber just entered Apple Fanboy land... at least we now know where his bullshit is coming from.
It's not a pro google article.
Man,, you just get some feeling of self importance for irrational hatred toward big companies, don't you? /. article.
The poster just pointed to better information. Information that's has better data and less bias then the one posted in the
I have no idea what power Google has to orders a CEO of a division of Motorola to stop ship anything.
Google has yet to make a response since they haven't been served.
.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I'm just gonna assume you're talking about Andy Rubin there, not me :)
Simon
Well, that's how I took it anyway.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
HMMM,
I remember getting RH a long time ago (though it was version 5, so it had been out), and some random guy at the store saying "I wish more people would use Slackware". I never remember SuSE being the big thing everyone loved. I remember Debian always being the "Use this it just works, eff RPMs".
I also remember Mandrake, but I think the shot them self in the foot with their club. I was a happy member for a while, paying them far more than I paid for Windows (it was $10.00/month). They cut me out of the power tools package (which I was alright with), but then AMD64 came out, and I had to up my subscription amount to download it.
At that point I switched back to Debian (which with the separating of SID and Unstable became currentish to use (unstable)).
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
In that case, why waste loadsacash going to court over it ?
This is the U.S. The real question is: why wouldn't you? Courts decisions and jury verdicts aren't always rational, and you might win something out of it. Also, there might be some background strategy going on here, more than just the lawsuit itself. Furthermore, there's always the everpresent, well, presence of Microsoft. Microsoft would drop ten mil in a heartbeat, if they could give Google some heartburn. Not saying that's the case here, but it has been in the past, and certainly Google's people ought to look into that possibility.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Obviously s/Microsoft/Google/ in that post.
Yah. I got that.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Which raises the question of why Skyhook is not suing both Apple and Google.
This case is clearly about anti-competitive behaviour. Skyhook alleges that two companies breached their contracts with Skyhook because Google forced them to. So it didn't matter whether Skyhook's offerings were good and worth their money or not, they were prevented from competing. That's what "anti-competitive" is about: If there is a situation where it doesn't matter how good your product is, that is an anti-competitive situation.
In the Apple case, Skyhook is trying to sell their services to Apple. So does Google. Apple has the right to find out which one is better / cheaper and decide accordingly; both Google and Skyhook should try to be better than the other, and that is what we call competition. Apple can also calculate how much it would cost to do the things themselves, and if it is cheaper, they can build their own stuff. That is also competition. Now if Google said to Apple "you can't have Google maps if you use Skyhook", that is anti-competitive. If Google said "Google location services are ten percent cheaper than Skyhook", that is competitive.
Whereas Apple, who dropped Skyhook too, had also replaced the functionality with their own implementation isn't doing the same thing?
All we have here is a company getting pissy their limited business model has been replaced on two very popular platforms. Tough titties. If they want, they can release their own applications that use their implementation, and then compete in the market. Too easy though, they know their toast is done. They're looking for a payout from the big boys before shutting up shop.
That actually sounds reasonable. Personally, I don't know anything about Skyhook's tech, but if there are some problems with it (or if the big boys didn't feel they could deliver) then this whole lawsuit is a non-starter. Fact is, arguing about such things without having all the facts at your command is kinda pointless (but does keep us all posting, so I guess it's good for Slashdot.)
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Apple as a company recognized many things about how computers should work long before any other company. They unfortunately didn't just make computers that did all those things, they acted like what they knew that made them special was all there was to know.
Considering that much of what they did know directly undercut the business model of a huge swath of computer and technical-media people, who made their living by learning endless quirks from e.g. manuals others couldn't or wouldn't read, this earned them the deep tribal enmity of every single one of those people.
Considering that what they didn't know included things like the importance of dealing directly with asynchrony rather than attempting to pave over it, or at best treating it as an unwanted child, the fact that they could still make their OS do the job in the '90s, while a testament to the hard work of their crew, was a source of bemused wonder to those who understood.
And of course displaying any attitude excites the posers.
Small wonder they were in trouble, then. Apple's only fans were those who could see the value in what Apple was doing, didn't have a vested interest in seeing it fail, and rejected the scorn of some techies either from not knowing or from faith that Apple would get around to fixing it. By the time OS 8 was out, that faith was beginning to ebb.
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
Obviously s/Microsoft/Google/ in that post.
parapraxis?
SCO
I think we need a third term between ethical and unethical, in the same way that we have a third term between moral and immoral--amoral. It would more accurately apply to most companies, IMHO.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Check out Xconomy's coverage: Skyhook, Fighting for Its Life in Suit Against Google, Cries Foul: “Call in the Referees and Review the Tape” http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2010/09/16/skyhook-fighting-for-its-life-in-suit-against-google-cries-foul-%E2%80%9Ccall-in-the-referees-and-review-the-tape%E2%80%9D/ What's really at stake is who gets control of the anonymized consumer-level data generated each time a mobile device performs a location lookup. In a world of hyper-targeted advertising, this data could be worth billions, which is more than enough reason for Google to see Skyhook as a threat.
Yeah. I see your point. That worked well for them...
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
My immediate goal on any given day, to make as much money as humanly possible
If the only criteria you have for your actions is that they maximize your wealth (well, and be achievable by a member of your species), then you almost inevitably will do something evil.
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
Isn't it rather hypocritical for you to complain about bias regarding Google considering what's in your sig?
Would you be satisfied if poster Yahoo'd or Binged to the same article?
In July 2009, Yahoo! signed a deal with Microsoft, the result of which was that Yahoo! Search would be powered by Bing.
I would expect them to give a biased view against google... my point is: trust no one, the truth is out there.
You can't take the sky from me...
Good point. It isn't exactly a Netscape/IE thing. It's a little closer to MS OEM agreements. Albeit more blatant.
The question I have...
If Motorola were to use SkyHook, would it violate the Android license? Maybe this is where the confusion is? IE: Since SkyHook isn't a totally open platform and Android's license may or may not permit integrating non-open modules...
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Well, we agree it's stupid. But that doesn't mean a company wouldn't try it. Hey, if you can get them to settle out of court, it's a pretty big win.
Apparently. I'm used to bashing Microsoft that way, not Google.
Didn't Neville Chamberlain try that one? How did that work out?
You mean I can't remove the engine from my Ford and replace it with an engine from a Chevy and still have a manufacturer tell me that it's a Ford? Damn....
Sig withheld to protect the innocent.
That'd be a pretty good analogy if Ford claimed to be selling open cars.
I'm not sure what you're talking (acynchrony?) and doubt you know either. Sounds like gobbledy-gook.
As for ease-of-use somehow being a negative for Apple's sales, I don't see it. Atari and Commodore made their computers extremely easy to use, and they had the top 4 computers ever sold (#1 C64, #2 Amiga 500, #3 Atari 800, #4 ST 512)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Ah, I see.
You neglected to include something in your post -- namely, that what you wrote is Skyhook's allegations, and not necessarily a statement of fact. Seems like pertinent info that should have been included in your post, no?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Not completely : just because it's open , doesn't mean it's not allowed to impose certain standards.
It kind of depends on the definition of open source.
If we talk about GPL than you are allowed to change it in any way you want , regardless of the quality . That's the reason GPL contains a clause that it offers no warranty , unless otherwise specified.
So it all depends on the definition of open . The fact that there are numerous 'open' license variations proves that this is not so clear.
Slipping shoelaces ?
The definition we are using was in a post by Space cowboy about 6 up from this one.
"If you believe in openness, if you believe in choice, if you believe in innovation from everyone, then welcome to Android"
You can innovate away your ability to be called an Android device.
I guess I thought that was mind-numbingly obvious - this whole story is about a lawsuit, not the wetness of water. Until any lawsuit comes to trial, it's nothing but supposition.
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
It's evil because part of Google's approval process for devices carrying the Android name apparently requires Google's geolocation which is built in to the infrastructure of Android. That geolocation could be pulled out or disabled, but then you can't call it Android and you can't put the Market on the device.
If Google didn't do that, then apps wouldn't be able to rely on having geolocation available and would have to have seperate code to deal with any manufacturer-specific geolocation APIs that sprang up. The net result would be massive fragmentation of the Android software platform and confusion for users.
There are enough complaints about fragmentation because of unavoidable stuff like differing screen sizes and camera resolutions. Allowing manufacturers to strip out core smartphone features like geolocation would make it even worse. (I bet if Google had done this, we'd see a Gruber blog post about how Android was so badly fragmented you couldn't even do geolocation reliably instead. Google can't win here.)
This is what APIs are for. A geolocation API which allows for manufacturers to provide for the back-end (or just use Google's back-end) solves this problem, and this is a very well-understood pattern. It's how device drivers work on every platform.
ALL speculation on your part, based on UNPROVEN claims made by SkyHook, who may not even have had a version of their service that was compatible with Android or Goolge Maps (or other location enabled services), regarding a contract that may not have been affected at all (how is it affected? This contract was in place before Android phones shipped... so, was it affected because Android ate away at the marketshare of the phones that SkyHook's stuff worked on? That's not Google's fault... that's SkyHook's for backing the wrong horse... just like Verizon's gamble on KIN).
Come back and make that claim again, when ANYTHING has been proven in court. Until then, it's all speculation, based on claims - many of which dont even make sense.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
what the fuck ?!?
Android is open-source, freely available, freely downloadable, freely compilable. Google has no control on it, as proven by the countless chinese clone-maker shipping iClones running un licenced. Or Koolu having ported android on the openmoko's freerunner.
the only thing the google licence is the closed source proprietary part : the "google experience" - the collection of google apps ported to the android system. See how Cyanogenmods is able to create ports of newer versions of the OS (because android is free/libre) but reqire the users to make a backup of their google apps, because they don't have a licence to provide them.
motorola wasn't forced to drop skyhook for the mere reason they wanted android. If they really wanted both android and skyhook badly, they could have used the open-source android and bundled their choice of aps.
the problem stems from the fact that motorola wanted the google applicstion pack too. And its licencing terms
to compare with microsoft: it would be as if microsoft either licenced a paid windows to oems, which contains IE, MS Office, Visual Studio. (and requires no other alternative). Or gave away free copies of windows only, including the source, and let the oem combine their choice of software (firefox, thunderbird, openoffice.org, eclipse, etc.)
the licence requirement are dubious, but none the less, the phhone makers are free to use a different suite of apps (as done on FreeRunner and chinese iClones)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
This is about Motorola choosing to use Skyhook on Android, and Google refusing to allow it.
explain me how google could ? Android is opensource after all. They can't stop companies from downloading and compiling it.
the only thing they licence are the google apps. And apparently they ask for either/or (to avoid a degraded user experience due to badly integrated apps ?)
motorola wasn't allowed to use both google maps and sky hook, so they went for the google app.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
not at all.
short of the fact that I work in sales (boo hiss, I know, I'm the devil around here) there is not a single thing that I do work related, that could be considered evil.
In fact, my long term success has been built around my local reputation of the guy who isn't the anti-christ, and who does right by the customer every single time.
a perfect example today, was a small change to a customers account, that is going to save him around $1300 per month. How is that evil?
I wish I was a neutron bomb, for once I could go off...
Not as long as Microsoft and Apple still exists. Google will just be 3rd place.
Microsoft cornered the phone market with the Kin.
Asynchrony. You know, asynchronous communications. As in not synchronous.
Apple was bad at that in the 90s. The state of networking for Apple products was pathetic at best. AppleTalk was a hopeless failure. This prompted a whole cottage industry dedicated to coming up with kludgy third party hardware products that made Apple machines work in TCP/IP and Windows networks. (Farallon computing had one, I forget what they called it.)
My blog
Because then Google would depend critically depend on them for their ad business, that's why, stupid fool.
What would have prevented Motorola from just removing the Google apps and doing whatever the hell they wanted with Android?
They didn't have any problems doing things like encrypting the bootloader, so this isn't really much of a leap for them.
That is merely Skyhook's assertion (retold by you with some flourish). It doesn't make much sense.
Read this posting for a much more plausible view of what's going on:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1790760&cid=33612296
Wouldn't it have been much cheaper and easier to just use Skyhook?
No. Google built its location database whilst creating StreetView so the extra cost doing so would have been quite small. It would have been foolish of them not to do so since it would leave them dependant on Skyhook otherwise.
Aha! Now that I didn't know, makes sense of course. Thanks for that little bit of info.