Google Exec Hints At Future Open Platform 73
rsmiller510 writes "At the recent Web 2.0 Summit, Dave Girouard, who is president of Google's enterprise division, stated that his company's long-term goal is to open up the Google development stack to outside developers. If this is true, then it could have some serious long-term implications for developers who could use Google services in new and interesting ways."
Well... (Score:5, Informative)
I read the entire article. Can I have my five minutes back please?
Summary of article:
Google Exec: We're going to open.... The box! ...
People: Open what?
Google Exec: The box! With... the wires, and blinky lights, and stuff in it!
People: What's in the box?
Google Exec: New and interesting things!
People: O RLY?
Google Exec: YA RLY!
People:
Google Exec: Oh look, pretty shiny...
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Indeed.
My first reaction was: Does this mean that developers can run their code on Google's servers--the servers are opening up? Or does this mean that developers can run Google's code on their own servers--Google's code is opening up?
No, it means "widgets". Yawn.
Re: (Score:2)
Even more than yawn...
The statement: "If Microsoft, one of the more closed companies on the planet can do it..."
Obviously the author knows nothing about business.
Software companies are some of the most OPEN businesses on the planet. Few other companies give out the type of information that a software company does. And Microsoft, while not embracing open source, is actually fairly open for a software company.
Go to an insurance company, or a bank, or a gambling operation, or a hotel...or just about anything
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The planet does not consist of just software.
I see you took the red pill.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Basically, Google haven't made an announcement of anything - they are not committing themselves to anything, and they never fucking said they were when they made this "hint". This is basically a non-story about a blogger with too much time on his hands who has overanalysed Google's output and managed to get himself on /.. That's just my take, others may see this as significant, but to me : nothing to see here, move along.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Funny)
I read your comment. Can I have my 30 seconds back please?
Summary of comment:
girlintraining: Generic rant about genericness of article
me: lol
On a more serious note, I hate it when they do that. Google is awesome with the things that they do but they can be so hopelessly vague. And while I like that Android/the G1 are more open than most cellphone platforms, it's really not much different from other smartphone platforms like Windows Mobile, with the exception that you can't run native programs on Android (yet). I'm not entirely sure whether their Dalvik VM is optimized enough for this to not matter, and I am most proficient in Java, but it would be nicer to have more options for development on Android.
Re: (Score:2)
How is it more open? They've closed the only jailbreak, and you cannot install your own version of the OS on the G1 (it has to be crypto-signed by the provider). It's as open as the Tivo...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the Windows Mobile community, the "hacked" versions mostly remove crap branding and add "cool" new features. Windows Mobile *can* be locked down and only allow signed software, but so far I haven't actually seen this. So it can run whatever software you please. The SDK doesn't come with silly requirements like Apples either. So in my eyes, WinMo is far more open than both the iPhone and G1.
Re: (Score:2)
Replying to myself here... I got rid of my WinMo and got myself an iPhone. Dumbest thing I've ever done.
Re: (Score:2)
Google has provided an open source mobile operating system that any manufacturer can use for any purpose they choose. In this case HTC and T-mobile are using it, and they have chosen to lock it down for security purposes.
Re: (Score:1)
Google Exec: We're going to open.... The box!
People: Open what?
Google Exec: The box! With... the wires, and blinky lights, and stuff in it!
People: What's in the box?
Nothing, you're so Stooopid! http://se.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx_UJxuQGXo [youtube.com]
Google is good for search... (Score:1, Troll)
Google does search well (most of the time, and not just general weeb search - I like scholar for example). Obviously they must do the associated ads well since they make their money there. They also do Google Maps and Google Earth well, I must admit.
They don't do much else well in my opinion. Lots of hype for beta software or software they've assimilated and made buggy beta. They destroyed Deja news. (Google groups is quite buggy and has had big problems from time to time). I own a Gmail account but never u
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the reason Google's child care costs are doubling is because they switched to a really insanely expensive childcare service(37k/year/kid!) after one of the VP's had a kid?
They should have made the VP get her kid a grad student or something, it would've been cheaper.
Or the employees could've showed some sanity and found an off-campus daycare that is on their commute...
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the reason Google's child care costs are doubling is because they switched to a really insanely expensive childcare service(37k/year/kid!) after one of the VP's had a kid?
Sounds plausible. Wouldn't surprise me, but I honestly don't know enough about their reasons. Just that it was a jackass of a thing to do and it _could_ mean the difference between staying or going if I were a Google employee. Would depend on the whole package of course, but if I had felt any loyalty that'd be enough to shatter it.
Or
Re: (Score:2)
Yah, I can understand the waiting list problem(which I believe prompted the first price increase). But for 37k/kid they could practically hire individual caregivers even in California.
Around here, that'd get at least 1 caregiver per child plus facilities/consumables costs, but prices around here are much cheaper.
I think whatever "regular" childcare certification you can get around here earns half that and probably has at least a 1 to 5 kid ratio.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Google's new york offices have been cutting back on the perks (like free soda, food, etc).
Re: (Score:2)
Is it just me or does that make me/us/.. think of a flasher, eventually dressed in a box instead of a robe but still?
Re: (Score:2)
Does 'girlintraining' mean you're a guy who's waiting for a sex change op? If so, good luck with your life post-Slashdot.
google == microsoft (Score:1)
google never opened nothing and never will.
search api? good luck finding usefull places using it with the daily limits they impose. all they do is open up spots on their apps so you could run some widgets.
microsoft came from a time when everyone was locked in IBM mainframes. they were the salviours because they let you use personal computers. now that's freedom! personal computers!
now, everyone is locked in microsoft applications. and google came to the rescue. you can run a widget inside their email and ca
If by open... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:If by open... i read some of these comments (Score:1)
And i expect to soon hear about a"The GOOOGLE Store"... ...
Re:If by open... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't worry, you were counted in a long time ago whether you knew it or not.
It's a Smart Strategy (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
As much as I would love to see google's code become open source, I have a feeling that's not what they were talking about. At the moment, their apps are what are making them a substantial amount of money, if all of a sudden gmail became open source what would that do to their business.
I have a feeling this is more Ala Apple, where they are interested in creating some semblance of openness by allowing some interaction from outside developers.
-Rob
Re: (Score:2)
So they want to utilise the good will of the open source community and turn a profit from their hard work?
That didn't take long. Well I guess it took a while, but going by their company motto it shouldn't have happened at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
hey maybe their products will drop the beta tag then...
Re: (Score:2)
Open may not mean what we would like (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a danger with the word "open", as it carries such good connotations for us here. However, just because we like "open" doesn't mean that whatever is coming from Google is going to match our expectations, let alone our desires.
You have to remember that Google is a very different beast to RedHat for example. Google's business M.O. is like that of no other corporation, so it's hard to draw comparisons, but nobody would ever suggest that they are "an open source company" (not even close), despite the many open source projects that they host, promote, support, and of course use. At best, they are a "somewhat open source friendly" company, and undoubtedly they also know that being open is becoming increasingly important, so they're responding to that.
Note that Google's main products are all closed, and most of them possess a few annoying "features" that would have been fixed by now if they were an open source company --- I'm sure that we can all point to some "feature/bugs" that irritate us personally. :-) In fact they're not even very good at responding to popular feature requests (almost apathetic), so true wide-scale openness is really a long way off for Google.
Given the above, I think that some caution is required when interpreting highly non-specific words spoken by Google execs. While we would like them to become massively more open, their openness may not come in a form that the FOSS community would find particularly attractive. In particular, any thought that Google is going to cede huge amounts of control over to open source developers is almost certainly sheer fantasy.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that we can all point to some "feature/bugs" that irritate us personally.
Ooh, Ooh, I got one! They collect all my search history [bad], so they can provide better targeted adwords [really bad] to my ad blocker!
Steps to deflecting open source Summit attack (Score:2)
2. Open response with standard Open Sourcian Defense Strategy: LTGD (Long Term Goal Deflection).
3. CONTINUE PROFIT$$$
Your SEO (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Open Android (Score:4, Informative)
Android was supposed to be an open mobile phone OS. But now it seems that it's "open" for reading, not writing or executing. That is, you can look at the source code, but you can't write any changes to your phone. The firmware locks out any OS software that doesn't match the checksum or something. That lockout gives Google control of the Android OS, which means the phones are not open, and Google can even lock out apps it doesn't like, or keep features like remote shutdown (by Google, not by you), even if you want to delete that "feature".
How about Google just opens the Android platform, by allowing the phones to run even altered Android OS versions? Then I'll start believing Google when it claims to "open" some other platform even more likely to stay closed, because it runs on their own hardware, not mine.
Open Hardware vx branding (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, it's not the OS's fault when the hardware (aka the phone) won't accept altered versions.
Note that in the mobile phone business software locks are the norm - and for a reason: branding. Without the ability to brand phones many network providers won't sell the phone for a subsidised price. Branding if course needs to be sufficiently complicated to remove. And shall consist of more the a start-up screen. Orange for example likes to remove the ability to use mp3 as ring tone - so you need to buy ring tone
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not blaming the OS - what's the point of blaming a few megabytes of 1s and 0s? I'm blaming Google.
A smartphone shouldn't cost $1000 unsubsidized, when much more powerful (though bigger, but full of expensive parts like a big LCD) PCs cost $300. An unsubsidized smartphone should cost under $600.
And bringing your own smartphone to an "unlocked network subscription" should cost $450 less for a 2 year contract, which is usually about $75:mo. So it should cost about $60:mo. Whatever the specific numbers, if
Re: (Score:1)
A smartphone shouldn't cost $1000 unsubsidized"
Wow, I didn't know it was Google who made the phone or even chose Android as a platform. Even more I'm surprised that you're not aware of how the mobile market works.
And btw, if you wish, you can install the open android over the installed branded version.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is responsible for the platform, which includes the lockdowns.
A smartphone shouldn't cost $1000 unsubsidized.
You can't install a changed Android - which is the entire point of this thread.
Wow, I didn't know that you don't know anything at all, especially not how to disagree using facts, or even how to grasp the basic facts at issue.
Re: (Score:1)
Well the price still has nothing to do with Google, or for that matter your opinion (if it sells, likely the price will stay).
Sure you can hack the G1 to install another OS, not just android...
I wonder what "facts" I need to bring to you else that whats quite obvious? I mean it is hard to find facts for why "it should't cost that" o
Re: (Score:2)
If Google didn't want their platform being locked out of being open by its HW implemeters, Google could stop them. It could make at least one HW vendor deliver one that's not locked in firmware. The HW makers don't care whether they get their price from the phone owner or subsidized by the telco.
I didn't say the price has anything to do with Google. I said the $1000 estimate is way too high, and I gave some facts and logic why. You don't even understand that I'm not talking about Google there.
And your point
Re: (Score:1)
EUR 1000 not $ 1000 (Score:2)
Ahmm - I quoted EUR 1000 - prices are different here. Basically we get ripped off.
Re: (Score:2)
Getting ripped off is no basis for calculating actual costs.
Re: (Score:1)
They can do this because the cost of requisition (marketing/setup ect.) can be spread over a 2-year period where you won't split, and take your number with you. Companies like guaranteed revenue streams, and prices reflect that in all industries. For an example of what I mean look at the cost of non-contract pay as you go phones. Not one company charges a similar rate to what monthly payment plans are, and part o
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's why I just specified a 2 year contract on unlocked HW. The contract ensures the phone and network profit, without requiring the HW to be locked down forever. "Forever" is a great term for the telco, but there's no real reason to grant it, or that they should always absolutely require it. Eurasian telcos get along swell without lockin.
Eurasian telcos (Score:2)
True many telcos don't use SIM-locks here - at least for contracts. The do use SIM lock for prepaid. And they might still disable mp3 ring tones.
The later being a real pain - SIM-locks are easily hacked - and must be removed upon request (for a small fee that is.).
Martin
Re: (Score:2)
A smartphone shouldn't cost $1000 unsubsidized, when much more powerful (though bigger, but full of expensive parts like a big LCD) PCs cost $300. An unsubsidized smartphone should cost under $600.
There's more to a phone than the screen. Are you forgetting the GPS part, the 5MP camera part, the FM radio, the accelerometer, the MP3 player etc? Not to mentioned the radio transceiver that transmits and receives simultaneously on the same antenna.
There's an awful lot to a smartphone (I was using the N95 as a reference here).
Re: (Score:2)
Are you forgetting the rest of the PC other than the screen, that still costs under $500? The biggest part of a PC's price is its LCD screen, which a phone doesn't have to pay for (little LCDs are much cheaper per square cm, or per pixel). Smartphones don't need to have 5MP cameras; 2MP (1600x1200) is plenty, which cost $25 or less [google.com]. The rest of those parts you mention don't even cost $100 total. BTW, an unlocked (therefore unsubsidized) N95 costs under $400 [google.com], and it's hardly the cheapest smartphone possible.
Yes. (Score:2)
I fully agree with you. Of course I quote â while you quote $ and the price difference is more then just exchange rate. Apart from that: yes - yes, would be great.
Isn't that called App Engine? (Score:4, Interesting)
Google has been opening up their platform already; App Engine gives developers (some) access to GFS, BigTable, auto-scaling magic, etc.
As open as Android? (Score:3, Insightful)
After Android, I don't hold my breath when Google promise anything open. I'll believe them again when they open-source Google Earth or something.
Re: (Score:1)
2) Can I compile and distribute and application for the iPhone? I believed I had to go through the app store for it.
Web API != Open (Score:1)