HP CEO Says Google-Motorola Deal Could Close-Source Android

swandives writes "WebOS could be an important player in the long run as an open-source mobile OS, because Android could become closed source with Google's purchase of Motorola Mobility, Hewlett-Packard CEO Meg Whitman said during a speech at the HP Global Partner conference in Las Vegas. It may take up to four years for the complete impact of webOS to be felt, Whitman said. HP has said it would release WebOS — originally developed by Palm for phones and tablets — to the open-source community. The company bought Palm in 2010 but late last year announced it will not make devices that use the software."

Comments

Of course

[damicatz]

HP has no reason to disparage a competitor for potential market gains, no reason at all. Nope.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't HP have to have an actual product to be viewed as a competitor?

Re:Of course

[poetmatt]

hahaha. This now calls into question "why?"

as in, why would HP suddenly start making microsoft-esque misstatements and spew FUD about android? Does this mean they have given up? something else? The timing of post-acquisition is curious, unless HP has been making money off patent settlements on android.

Re:Of course

[d3ac0n]

I think that it is more likely that we can chalk this up to just Meg being a little under informed about Android. ("Never attribute to malice what can easily be attributed to ignorance" and all that, dont'cha know.)

I personally LOVE what she's done with WebOS by fully open-sourcing it and putting it on a nice LONG business cycle before expecting gains, but I just think she's talking from a position of ignorance of how Google's profit structure works with Android.

Hopefully this will give her the opportunity to learn a bit more about it and perhaps find things that HP can take from Google's approach that will help bring WebOS back to the mainstream.

As far as I'm concerned, WebOS is still light years ahead of both iOS and Android in terms of UI ease-of-use. It was never really given a proper shot to succeed and deserves a much more significant spot in the market than it's gotten.

Re:Of course

[GameboyRMH]

Microsoft-esque? I don't think MS would make such a statement. "Google's OS could become closed source like the one we offfer! Wouldn't that suck?"

Re:Of course

[Lumpy]

"As far as I'm concerned, WebOS is still light years ahead of both iOS and Android in terms of UI ease-of-use"

As far as I'm concerned, OS2 Warp is still light years ahead of both Mac and Windows in terms of UI ease-of-use
As far as I'm concerned, beOS is still light years ahead of both Mac and Windows and OS2 Warp in terms of UI ease-of-use

as far as I am concerned, XFCE kicks the crap out of all the above, but what wins is what has the software that people want to use. That means that WebOS ls a distant last place because it has almost NO software to iOS and Android.

HP knew that. They know that WebOS is a lost cause because outside of sending TWO free tablets to every single person that claims they will write software for the platform, they will never get to the popularity of the iPad or the soon to be fantastic (hardware wise and OS and apps wise) Android tablets.

I write for both Android and iOS. I will NOT wrote for WebOS unless I am given a FREE tablet and FREE publishing to their store. Why waste my time with a dead before it started tablet? I'm already making money off of the top two platforms.

that's the problem, good luck attracting developers to make the apps that will make people want to use the platform. HP should have PAID microsoft to write the Office suite for WebOS and gave it away free with the tablets and marketed to the Business crowd. They would have had a chance.

Re:Of course

[d3ac0n]

Well. Glad to know your position isn't coming from one of total ignorance. /Sarc

By the way, publishing to the WebOS App catalog has always been FREE. Just submit it to HP for inclusion and as long as it isn't total crap or spyware/virus filled, they will put it in. Failing that, WebOS still has a robust user community and you can easily have an app published through the community catalog as well.

As far as FREE tablet goes, have you gotten one from Apple or Google (or any android maker) yet? No? Then you are just blowing smoke out your ass and being petulant when it isn't needed.

The thing is that developing for WebOS is so stupidly simple it's almost laughable. Just take your EXISTING Anrdoid or iOS application, run it through HP's FREE app converter to convert it, do a little bug-testing and squashing and you're pretty much ready to go.

Hell, if the small (at the time) Rovio team could convert all of Angry Birds to WebOS from iOS in EIGHT HOURS, I think you can manage it too. Unless you are saying that you aren't smart enough or just too lazy, which, given your generally snotty attitude, might just be the case.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, from Microsoft it would be the opposite. "If even one of your employees ever used an Android phone to call in sick, your entire product range could suddenly become open source".

Re:Of course

[Sponge Bath]

This is more Alice in Wonderland than Microsoft FUD: "Our competitors successful open source platform will be come closed source and fail, while our failed closed source platform will become open source and be the savior of the industry!"

Time to give the hookah back to the caterpillar, Meg.

Re:Of course

[ducomputergeek]

The problem with that fantastic android tablet hardware is that it appears to be on a 90 production schedule. I've been writing an app designed for both iOS and Android tablets. We had one client that was more intersted in the android tablets because they could get usb ports and use existing usb cabled barcode scanners.

Well of the three android tablets we bought last fall, only one is still available. We even talked with a couple manufactures in china and they couldn't garuntee the tablets we orders three months from now would be the same as the ones we ordered today. That means if we were to go to market today with android as our lead platform we would have to sink a lot of money into inventory and hope we sold the devices because there is no garuntee that in six months we can find the same tablets. It's also a pain because we don't want to be in the hardware business. We want to sell the app and related support services for the software.

The appeal of the iPad has been, if one breaks our customer can go to walmart or other big box store today and get another one right then and there. Also, in the past several of our customers had a bad experience with another solution that used propitarty hardware. They view the ipad as off the shelf defacto standard stuff.

Re:Of course

[silanea]

Dedicated barcode scanners may still be required in places like high rack warehouses where the barcodes are too far away for a camera to reliably pick up. One such place I frequently pick up parts from uses gun-shaped laser scanners so that codes can be scanned from distances up to 10 meters away. Try doing that with your tablet/smart phone camera. Also hardware scanners, in my limited experience, locate and read the codes incredibly fast and reliably. The camera-driven apps I have so far played with on my Android phone take their time and often miss codes if they are recorded at larger angles. They sure have their uses, but in some commercial settings the drawbacks of the camera-driven solutions may well add up to a $ amount in additional work or time that justifies buying hardware scanners.

Except it would be suicide for Google...

[neokushan]

Google doesn't make money from Android OS itself, Google makes money from the sheer volume of Android devices out there. Be it app purchases, targeted ads, search or whatever, the revenue Android brings in comes from everything except the OS. It wouldn't make sense for Google to close source it.

Google is a massive company and if they wanted to make their own phones with their own closed OS, they'd have done it by now.

Re:Except it would be suicide for Google...

[ducomputergeek]

The biggest threat is if google gets into the hardware business themselves and the other handset makers see this action as a threat. If google gets serious about making their own google branded phones and tablets watch how quickly LG, Samsung, and HTC start releasing phones with other OS's such as windows mobile or adopt another platform (like a webos).

Re:Except it would be suicide for Google...

[swillden]

f google gets serious about making their own google branded phones and tablets watch how quickly LG, Samsung, and HTC start releasing phones with other OS's such as windows mobile or adopt another platform (like a webos).

You can bet Google is going to be working hard to make sure that doesn't happen, because while it wouldn't kill Android as a major player in the mobile phone OS space, it'd cost Android dearly. Google's press releases on the topic so far say they're going to be very careful not to give Motorola any kind of special access to the Android development process, or to give Motorola earlier access to new releases.

That might seem difficult to do, but the fact is that Android development is already quite insulated from the rest of Google. With few exceptions, every Google engineer has access to every line of code from every project in Google -- and Android is one of those exceptions. In fact Android is even more isolated within Google than highly sensitive stuff like the search ranking algorithm. The highly-sensitive stuff is in the main repository alongside everything else, but with controls to limit access, while Android is in a separate repository entirely.

Close-Source Android

[n122vu]

Can they even do that? In order to close-source it, wouldn't they have to remove the Linux kernel and basically rebuild the OS from scratch to keep from violating the GPL?

Re:Close-Source Android

[dave420]

Android 3.0 is not closed source. You can go check out a copy if you want. They held off releasing their changes back to the public because it simply wasn't up to scratch, due to the rushed nature of moving to 3.x. Everyone knows exactly what part of 3.x that was given to the manufacturers, as you can get your own copy yourself.

Re:Close-Source Android

[paintballer1087]

This is incorrect. Google released the source code of 3.0, however they did not create tags for the Honeycomb releases. All of the code is in the history. This was done to try and get a handle on fragmentation, and to keep people from putting a tablet only OS on a phone. ICS is basically a more polished Honeycomb, with the phone portions of the OS included.

Citation: http://www.techspot.com/news/46260-source-code-for-android-30-and-40-released.html/

Re:Close-Source Android

[Kjella]

Linux is the only piece that's GPL licensed, the rest is Apache licensed - not to mention fully written by Google so they're copyright holders and can relicense at will. So if Google wanted to they could have a tivoized phone with not a whiff of source for anything but the kernel out by the end of the day. Nothing stopping them but of course they can't take back what they've already licensed so others would just fork from the last Apache release.

Logic

[Spad]

How is there any causal relationship between Google buying Motorola Mobility and close-sourcing Android? How would it in any way benefit Google to close-source Android? Even if they did, why would anyone use webOS as a replacement? Finally, how is HP still going with people like this running it?

Hey!!!

[hymie!]

Hey!!! Everybody!!! Look at me!!! I'm relevant!!! Over here!!! Look at meeeee!!!

Re:The beginnings of Android closed source...

[zero.kalvin]

Google don't own Android, the OPEN HANDSET ALLIANCE does, that's one. Second Android 3.0 is not closed source, you can get the source code if you want, the only thing that happened is that Google delayed the release of code for good(bad) reasons.

Right...

[Darkness404]

Right, because the Google flagship phones (Nexus One, Nexus S, Galaxy Nexus) have been some of the most closed phones... Oh wait, they are some of the most open devices out there, far more open than the Droid you bought on Verizon or the Atrix you bought on AT&T...

If HP really wanted an open source mobile OS why didn't they quickly release the source to WebOS? Heck, why didn't they actually make decent phones to go with WebOS? Like the Veer? Tiny, dimensions that make it nearly unusable, no software keyboard, no microSD card slot, proprietary charger, not even a headphone jack! Along with a tiny 910mAh battery. The OS was never really the problem with the Pre, Pixi and Veer, the problem was Palm (and later HP) could never make hardware that actually worked well and couldn't convince third parties to make WebOS devices. HP neither could get WebOS to the masses like Android (and Windows Phone 7) or make a single great smartphone like Apple.

The HP Visionaries

[sl4shd0rk]

"hey lets buy a flailing company and then sit on the technology long enough for itnto become uslesss and then sell it all at cost"

I wouldnt trust the HP visionaries to predict the current weather righ now let alone the tech market.

Re:What is he smoking?

[d3ac0n]

The CEO of HP is Meg Whitman. A Woman.

Also, the old CEO, Leo Apotheker, did screw up and cause WebOS to flop. That's part of why he was fired. That and his crazy statements about getting out of the PC market borked up HP stock prices and caused the stock holders to lose BILLIONS in value in a single day. (That'll get anyone fired.)

Re:The beginnings of Android closed source...

[dna_(c)(tm)(r)]

WP is getting there, but it and iOS suffer from being closed source (which hasn't stopped their popularity, though).

Reminds me of the joke about a mouse and an elephant walking in the desert, when the mouse looks back it says "We sure throw up a lot of dust, don't we?"

Closed Source?

[Hordeking]

Maybe I'm stupid, but since Android is already open-source, wouldn't someone just fork off the last open version?