FT declares Android dead before it even ships

Right, Dan, stop screwing around – go back To Fakesteve. NOW! What part of NOW don’t you understand? FAKESTEVE – have you heard of him?

Hey Dan, Chrome does solve real world problems. Like running Javascript fifty times faster than IE7. That means faster, more capable web-based “cloud computing” apps. Also running each tab as a separate process means greater reliability. Browser crashes are unacceptable when using web apps in place of desktop ones.

I’m an iPhone user, but that doesn’t mean the last word has been written about Android, even if written by as august a publication as the Financial Times.

You have perfected the snarky tone that has been with the Internet since before the beginning, though.

Wasn’t this apparent to everyone from the beginning?

Android I agree does look underwhelming from here, but I disagree about Chrome, a revolutionary browser, and open source, so your dig about Google wanting to own everything misses the target too.

You are much much funnier in your Fake Steve persona. Fake Steve gives your poison arrows a lightness of touch, without which you sometimes sound just a touch embittered and whiny.

I still don’t know anybody that does this “cloud computing” business, unless somebody redefined “webmail” as “cloud computing”. Seems like another solution in search of a problem. Given that most people with computers that I know use laptops, it seems silly to think you wouldn’t always have your data with you.

Dan,

Nice to have you back from the dead-zone.

Sooo true…

Kidding me right Olen? Cloud Computing is exactly where we are heading. You remind me of an old prof I know who said the internet would never get by the text only phase so would not let anyone in his department get good video cards in their computers. Your statement ranks right along with his. Matter of fact is you name Dr. Remert? I keep all my files on a remote server for my business and open/edit/save them all to the remote server. I have been through 5 new computers and have not had to go through the transfer process of files to any of them because of this.

Uh, James did you _read_ the original Chrome EULA? Goggle literally stated that they wanted to own everything. While they’ve since changed it, you can’t deny the fact that it was there.

1.)Listen, Apple may have sold a shitload of 3G iPhones but the 3G service sucks, the phone portion is terrible if you have AT&T (I haven’t heard about the quality of the phone service in other countries), and MobileMe is worse than Vista SP1. I smell problem. Now Palm, unbelievably, has come up with an excellent smartphone (Treo Pro) that is not tied to any one phone service (no subsidy, hence the $600 price tag), allowing you to shop for phone service that suits your needs or budget or both, is cool and it works.
2.)Firefox has been working pretty badly lately; Chrome does the job, without the extensions. OTOH, SeaMonkey has worked flawlessly for me since 1.0. I hate to say this but I may abandon Firefox, unless they resolve this memory hog issue.

@Dan, how does releasing open source software and encouraging people to dismantle it and steal every idea they like about it facilitate google to own the world? If you’re referring to the Chrome Eula as hinted by Matthew take a look at there statement that actually makes a lot of sense: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/making-terms-of-service-clearer.html
…look, I like ripping on google as much as anybody… but you’ve got to do your homework

@Olen, are you serious? You even acknowledge that a lot of people use laptops (and therefore likely multiple computers), but still don’t realise the benefit of cloud computing? Let’s add another computer (e.g. for work)… does that ring a bell?

… a solution in search of a problem that doesn’t exist.

I don’t know — this guy makes a pretty compelling case.

I agree with HW. This whole Google is going to rule the world by releasing open source software thing doesn’t make any sense.

Don’t like what they’re doing with Chrome? Take out the bits you don’t like and release your own browser. You can even make it closed-source if you like, the BSD license allows that.

Same with the EULA. The reason they changed it and made the changes retroactive was because there was nothing stopping you from getting the source, removing the EULA and compiling it yourself. There, “evil” license terms solved. All perfectly legit.

It’s open source – it’s not a platform that Google can control.

Dan, you lack vision my friend. No killer app? No consumer focus? I almost think you’re kidding. Android will change the industry in a way that it will never be the same. I agree iPhone is pretty badass (as are most of Apple’s designs), but it’s just 1 device. Android opens up doors for the mobile device industry unlike anything else has before this. With Google’s guidance, it will be an industry-paradigm-changing move as they typically do. Once consumers start to see what kind of (typically free) stuff their Android-powered devices will have, they will hardly look at proprietorially kept systems like iPhone. The developer community will build up a large collection of quality, unexpectedly useful, free apps, that Apple’s store will not be able to compete with, outside of the hardcore Mac fan base. Note that I’m not knocking iPhone. I just think what Android is doing is much, much bigger than one device.

No, I wasn’t kidding. I actually don’t know anybody who stores their own files somewhere remotely. My company (multinational blah blah) does not use a third party, although we sort of have our own “cloud”, which about two years ago was called an intranet. I didn’t say my two cylinder was good enough damnit and nobody will buy one of those new-fallutin diesels, I just said I don’t see much utility in storing my files on somebody else’s network. I should also add that I’m not charged about the security implications, but hey.

wonder if katie & moshe did a li’l’ ol’ drive-by at the FT offices and did one of those, “awful nice place you got here … what a shame if anything happened to it … accidents happen, y’know … tsk, tsk … be awful sad …” routines to generate this article.

i do agree with what it says about android. but i think “chrome” as a browser seems pretty neat. especially with how it handles everything as its own process to prevent unrecoverable slow-downs and crashes, and its high security sandbox. or as my friend in the security software business would say: anything has got to be better than the grand canyon-sized security holes in any version of IE.

Android solves the problem of stagnation in the mobile market just as linux did, as well as offering a universal interface for users.
The idea is simple, phone manufactures are primarily device manufacturers. They have software teams that provide for the phones being manufactured, nothing more. Android is developed by software developers whose business focus is mobile device interface software. By moving the market focus from the device to software that runs on the device, android is investing itself in software quality agnostic to the platform on which it will be running. Just like all other operating systems have done. Clearly google is fed up with half-assed guis for cell phones. Guis that change every year, and achieve nothing more than the bare minimum of supporting the phones newly added hardware. Apple i think is so successful because the measure software on par with hardware advancements in their products. By providing a universal interface with minimal changes between devices and over time, users are able to learn the features of their phone without being disappointed in 2 years with the next phone because it doesnt do something the same way as their old phone. Android is shaking up the industry, and shrugging it off as being ludicrous is a gross understatement.

In response to the google owning the world with open source software not making sense.

Google is an ad company, they make revenue by exposing you to advertisements with the hope that you click on the ad. In this regard its very similar to tv. You can watch tv for free (for the most part) and the stations get money from commercials. Tv stations don’t make money on the communication infrasturcture or device with which you receive their broadcast. And you are, with some weird sports broadcast exception able to use that content however you like. In a sense its opened.

So how does freely distributing open source software help google?
Android gives more people access to the web, not verizon presents the internet with some shitty pay verizon for use utilities, but instead it gives you the real web. which upon last viewing is pretty much permeated by the ever ubiquitous google. Thats where they will make their money. You are free to choose what site you use to check the weather etc, but Google is banking on it mostly likely being them.

The disclaimer portion of this post is that I am not in any way defending Google. Their business plan is sound, but their practices are quite contrary to their “do no evil” mantra. In short google found a loophole in the gpl2 that allowed them to expose web services (fixed in gpl3) to users without exposing them to the underlining code that resides locally on their servers and is in no way distributed to end users. Therefor under gpl2 they are not obligated to publicly release their code in accordance with the license. If they had somehow distributed a derivative work of a gpl2 piece of software, the then would be obligated to absorb the same license agreement. Google can create free apps and open source this and thats as much as they want, but the only reason they are doing it is because
1. they are obligated to under gpl2 as most products are derivative works of some gpl’d code
and 2. whatever gets more kiddies on the internet is good for them.

Google has made billions capitalizing on the efforts of many hard working, free software developers, while providing little (a paltry 500 bucks a project during SoC) or no compensation toward for their time.

I’m reluctant to believe that Android is DOA, but I don’t think the iPhone will be a major factor either way. The iPhone is a consumer ready, end to end finished product. Android, instead, is the new Windows Mobile. It is a generic, ready to use phone platform, and hopefully one that can at least outdo MS on this. That’s the market segment it will find it’s niche in, I think, and that’s the real competition.

thank you…

thank you a lot

thanks

thanks …