- Nov 11, 2004
- 36,041
- 472
- 126
This thought was first given voice by Myriam Joire on last night's Mobile Podcast, and the simple, lethal accuracy of it has haunted me ever since. All the hubbub and unrest about whether Google is trying to lock Android down or not has failed to address whether Google should be trying to control the OS, and if so, what the (valid) reasons for that may be. Herein, I present only one, but it's arguably big enough to make all the dissidence about open source idealism and promises unkept fade into insignificance.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/09/editorial-androids-problem-isnt-fragmentation-its-contamina/
While I agree that the big difference in user experiences can and does hurt it, where are you going to say it's ok for Google to control the platform and totally lock it down? Consumers have shown that there's more than enough room in the smartphone world for a locked down OS and a wild west open OS where almost anything goes. I don't mind some smoothness of experience but I don't want to to have to lock it down even more because what's the point of having yet another locked down OS? I'm glad we as consumers have all these choices of what we want in a smartphone because essentially that's what it all boils down to, and have the ability to argue over them, but if Google does start locking down Android, I feel that we will lose some of the great competition we have gotten.
Realistically Android is doing just fine and doesn't need to change anything right now. If and maybe if Android starts slowing down in their growth then maybe they can talk about change but it's the other players in the game that need to figure out what they need to do differently because they are the ones that need to catch up.