Eh, it seems good to me.

Aye I remember that.

I've had an ongoing love / hate relationship with MS for a number of years now. Sounds like the samo / samo . . . =)

If you are meaning that Microsoft's OS market dominance equals growth for Bing it isn't actually as straightforward as that because OEMs often change the default search engine page (generally to something with their logo powered by Google or Yahoo!).

I don't follow your reasoning here. How is "reduced fragmentation" in this case anything but an excuse to impose a barrier to market competition (detrimental to consumer choice)? As the quoted article indicates, Google seems to be using this notion as an excuse to promote its own interest and restrict potential competitors.

A possibility: Google intentionally misled developers and manufacturers to buy into the notion of its "open" operating system but is now tightening the noose via the "fine print" when it's too late for those companies to back out without substantial losses. Paranoid conspiracy theory? Perhaps. ;-)

What's sad is that according to Wikipedia, the Android operating system " is based on a modified version of the Linux kernel" (Linux being open-source *and* truly free). Speaking of which...

Linux and Mozilla (Firefox) demonstrate the benefits of open architecture to the consumer or user: rapid product evolution, astounding level of customization, wider selection of applications and add-ons, etc.

Side note, or rant:
Imagine if Windows were open-source (not free, just open-source): We (or our hacker friends) could customize each new version of Windows such that our Good Old Games would play natively with no issues whatsoever. Instead, we're stuck trying to find workarounds or emulators each time that Microsoft arbitrarily changes up the works without regard to backwards compatibility. Really, as bloated as Windows has become, would it be so damn difficult to include legacy support for games and a complete DirectX package by default???

Back to point:
What was I talking about again... ? :-P

AMD settled with Intel for imho chump change last year. The thing with EU and Japan too are under the process of being appealed afaik. I don't know if settling with Intel means the investigation in the US is closed.

Mostly I think this will be beneficial in this instance because the OEMs in order to differentiate themselves from each other w/ Android created UI overlays that by and large were detrimental rather than beneficial (with a few exceptions) to the Android platform. I agree that this is a bait-and-switch on Google's part towards its OEMs. Google is more worried about competition from iOS, RIM, WP7, (the other OSs) than the competition between OEMs. The OEMs are worried due to competition from each other.

Google plays favorites and practices cutthroat business tactics in a tough, competitive market. I viewed them like this for awhile so I guess you can colour me unsurprised. :) BTW I also view Apple, MS, and the OEMs like this too. These are businesses. Some of them are innovative, smart, and resourceful, but I don't believe they operate in my interest save for selling me products or services that I want to buy or use.

Blocking competitor's services are a problem when a company has a (near) monopoly then competitors and regulators can go after them and they'll loose or at the very least pay for costly court battles - as stated in the OP what Microsoft is doing in Europe to Google. The courts will decide if they have a case. In this market there is a lot of competition and strong players. Making Android more uniform across OEMs may allow it to sell better against other OSs overall since the UI and updates will be consistent.

That said, please note Google isn't saying that the end-consumer can't do whatever they want to the OS, just that the OEMs can't do whatever they want. In other words, you can still download skins and UI elements, but the OEMs can't prepackage and force those on the end consumer. That's why I said that Google is moving backwards on its openness, but isn't recanting openness. If they never release the Honeycomb code, then we can proclaim the emperor has no clothes when they claim they are "open" even to Google's definition of it.

@crazy_dave: Unless these OEMs are so mangled as to be incompatible with other versions of Android and its standard apps and add-ons, I don't see the problem. Heck, even if so, the OEM in question is just shooting itself in the foot. Incompatibility isn't a selling point. The most I could agree is that Google might be trying to protect its brand by preventing such an incompatible OEM from damaging the reputation of Android; however, the quoted article indicates that quality is not the primary motivation for Google's actions.

Also: Preferences with regard to the UI are subjective. Ultimately, if a particular UI is *that* bad, it won't sell or be used, right? We could buy a different version of Android, right? Why would I want to be forced to use whatever Google decides is best?

Anyways, I don't know too much about the particulars of mobile operating systems, so I won't say too much more. I have an Android, but I only use it for phone calls and the occasional web search on-the-go. Prob use it a lot more if I didn't have to tie every freaking service on it including the basic freaking calendar to my Gmail account. ;-)

Actually that is the point, without rooting the device you couldn't change your UI and simply download a new Android. Again Google isn't stopping a customer from customizing. It's just forcing the OEMs not to force the users to use the OEM's UI and to root the phone if they don't like the OEM's UI. What the user downloads separate from that to customize is still the user's choice.

Also this doesn't really affect me much either. I use an iPhone and a 3G at that. It works fine for checking mail, surfing the sites I care about, and carrying my music, photos, some video, and the grand total of 6 free apps I have for it. :)

@crazy_dave: So the GUI isn't seperate from the kernel as in Linux? That's no good if so. :-(

well actually some of it isn't or doesn't seem to be with the OEM stuff ... you may still have to root even off the default Android to customize some stuff ... hmmm ... some of it should just be downloadable

That said the end-user can still root and customize default Android. I dunno now I'm confused.

i didn't know this :)

grin

@crazy_dave: Well, I was considering the issue as a parallel to the variety of desktops for Linux (Gnome, KDE, Xfce, etc). Prob derails my train of thought if the comparison doesn't work. ;-)

EDIT: Thinking about it, some of what I wrote still applies even if the GUI isn't seperate from the kernel, talking more about choice between products at the time of purchase rather software changes, etc. But it's 5 minutes to clock-out for me, so I'm bowing out for now. :-)

2nd EDIT: I should also prob mention that I'm running on about 2 hrs of sleep and everything is running together in my head right now. ;-P

Honestly now I'm confused :P ... it's late, I'm tired, my mouth is running and I should probably see to that. :)

However, I think what Google is going for with this move is something in between Linux and a closed OS - trying to provide some uniformity of user experience across the versions to make sure things are consistent and products don't get fragmented delaying updates and creating compatibility issues, while being still more open and customizable than iOS or RIM or WP7 for those who want it. Of course you can still "jailbreak" iOS too. :)

I dunno, as I said, it's late. I should probably just stop talking. :) My head's pretty cloudy, I think I'll clock out too. :)