Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

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

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the yeah-well-that's-just-like-your-opinion-man dept.

Android 203

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."

cancel ×

203 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Of course (5, Insightful)

damicatz (711271) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058395)

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

Re:Of course (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39058473)

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

Re:Of course (1)

damicatz (711271) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058481)

HP didn't get the memo.

Re:Of course (3, Interesting)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058537)

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 (5, Funny)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058649)

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 (2)

DamageLabs (980310) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058721)

FUD - Fear Uncertainty and Doubt

Most often associated with Microsoft business practices. Not that MS would make such a remark.

Re:Of course (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39059045)

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 (5, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059137)

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 (4, Insightful)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058551)

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 (5, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058719)

"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 (4, Interesting)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058905)

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 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39059477)

Yeah, he's blowing smoke out his ass. All that oil-based lube that gets packed up his fudge hole half a dozen times a day? It caught on fire.

Let this be a lesson: always clean out your asshole after buttfucking.

Re:Of course (5, Interesting)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059221)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39058861)

I think you hit the nail on the head. From what I gather its the "UI" that people find the most useful and interesting, which begs the question, why couldn't the same UI be built for android? Or better still, allow Android to support multiple UI implementations and let vendors/users choose.

Re:Of course (1)

P-niiice (1703362) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059277)

WebOS is easy to use, but that doesn't make it something that people actually want to use. Once people get higher-end hardware with Android or IOS, WebOS seems like an underpowered memory. I'd like to see it on a device that tries to compete with the big boys so we can make a better comparison.

Googorola's first bite (1)

muon-catalyzed (2483394) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058679)

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

No fear Googorola will taste some fruit (company) soon enough.

Re:Of course (2)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058903)

You can't close source and open source project, you can only close source a branch of it ...

Once open, open forever ... and knowing Google they would continue both ...

Except it would be suicide for Google... (5, Insightful)

neokushan (932374) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058409)

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... (1)

blahbooboo (839709) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058431)

Point of clarification, google technically makes no money on android (i.e. no profits).

Re:Except it would be suicide for Google... (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058593)

It does indirectly.
More android users = more google-services users = more data income from their real business (including ads, and stuff).

Re:Except it would be suicide for Google... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39058703)

Yup, that has always been the Google game plan, and has always worked.

Others can't wrap their tiny minds around the concept and try to guess what Google will do, but using their own mindset. Hence, the theory that android would become closed source.

We can't really forsee what Google will do, but if they follow the usual pattern, they'll try to make Android completely free, but that freedom defended by them.

Problem is, that once a company establishes a monopoly, no matter how good it's for the user or how good the bussiness plan is, sooner or later things will start to stall.

The ideal solution, would be to keep these little conflicts going, keep the flames of competition alive.

Re:Except it would be suicide for Google... (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059807)

profit = revenue - expenses.

Android expenses: $400 million for Android, $2-$3 billion for IBM patents, $12 billion for Motorola. Nevermind all the employees working on Android. You might want to include $750 million for admob in there, though that's not android specific.

Re:Except it would be suicide for Google... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39058611)

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.

Except Google isn't Facebook, despite what geeks think of Facebook. People migrating away from Google to the inferior Bing (or superior Duck Duck Go), is but a search-box change away. Without a strong Android (and Google+) they don't have great lock in. GMail isn't enough, people even migrate emails (blasphemous, I know) ... but you've gotta be on the social network where your friends are.

Google needed the strong OEM partnerships to make Android a success. What they do with it going forward, well thats anyones guess. I'd wager we'll see exclusive stuff for Motorola, but not for a long long time.

Re:Except it would be suicide for Google... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39059077)

> or superior Duck Duck Go

Ha ha ha. What a crap interface. is it 1980 all over again ?

Re:Except it would be suicide for Google... (3, Insightful)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058935)

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... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39059721)

Also known as "Cut the nose to spite the face".

As they're releasing other platform based OS phones anyways, you can mean only drop Android, and that makes great sense. "We're threatened by competition from Google's handsets, that's why we'll dump the platform with user and developer base on par with Apple's and leave those fans and devs to Google, just as it wanted".

Re:Except it would be suicide for Google... (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059255)

Why would it be suicide? They would share the source with their partners in the OHA and them alone. You don't actually think Android is open source for the benefit of the purchasers of the phone do you? If so, you're incredibly naive.

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.

Except for that pesky little fact that they have no infrastructure or experience in producing phones? So, no, before acquiring Motorola they would most NOT have been able to do that if they wanted to. That's the whole reason why they are buying Motorola so they CAN do so.

Re:Except it would be suicide for Google... (1)

neokushan (932374) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059487)

At what point did I say that the OS being open was a benefit to the users? If anything, I said it was a benefit to Google. Whatever perceived benefit the user has is merely a bonus. Even if another manufacturer uses AndroidOS and doesn't go for the full Google experience, Google will still benefit. People will still write apps for their OS, people will still use Google Search and just about everything revolves around the Google ecosystem. About the only people who have ever come close to supplanting Google entirely is Amazon, but even then elements of Google filter through.

And just because Google has no experience internally of building phones, that doesn't mean it couldn't be done. You don't have to buy out a company to do what it does, merely hire a few of the best and the brightest - or even buy out a smaller company, like HTC circa 2008/2009, to do it.

Re:Except it would be suicide for Google... (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059415)

The problem is not particulary google, but their partners, the device makers that close as much as possible their devices to tie them to their services. That you could jailbreak a phone and put a clean android on it is bad for them, and closing the source to avoid that could be a common request to Google.

Could (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39058411)

As in Microsoft could become a friendly open source company, but not bloody likely.

The beginnings of Android closed source... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39058413)

were Android 3.0. Chosen "partners" got access to 3.0, and nobody else. If anyone doesn't think this was totally distasteful and a spit in the face of everything Android supposedly stood for is as much a fanboy as all the Apple drones. It will likely happen again for a future version of Android, and in a worse way. Until then, I'll enjoy my GSM Galaxy Nexus...

Re:The beginnings of Android closed source... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39058451)

Don't forget that the most popular Android tablet, the Kindle Fire, is a closed source fork of Android....

Re:The beginnings of Android closed source... (2, Insightful)

jordanjay29 (1298951) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058503)

Except the Kindle Fire isn't Android, it's just based on Android. There's a huge difference. The end-user doesn't see it, the developer might not see it (or they might, depending on what APIs Amazon feels like creating, changing or removing) but Google sees it and so does Amazon. It's like Red Hat building out CentOS with their proprietary features that cost you money, but benefit the customers who need them. Likewise, the Fire's close integration with Amazon and the Kindle platform will benefit those who want it...and everyone else will either deal with it or root it and stick their own custom ROM on it.

Re:The beginnings of Android closed source... (1)

the_xaqster (877576) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058647)

I thought CentOS was Red Hat based, not the other way round....

Re:The beginnings of Android closed source... (1)

aesiamun (862627) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059175)

CentOS is a rebuild of RedHet Enterprise Linux. Oracle Linux is a rebuild of RHEL as well.

RedHat Linux is actually a start from scratch distro according to all documentation I have ever seen.

Re:The beginnings of Android closed source... (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058525)

The Nook Color/Nook Tablet also run Android, and I believe it's closed source although I haven't checked to be sure.

Do you have a source saying the Fire is more popular (assuming you mean largest volume of sales) compared to the Nook Color or other Android tablets? Considering how much longer the Color has been on the market, I would have assumed it'd be more popular even though it hasn't been as hyped as much as the Fire.

Re:The beginnings of Android closed source... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39058565)

It's compatible with all Android apps, it just doesn't have Google's Market preinstalled. Not sure how that's a real fork.

Re:The beginnings of Android closed source... (1)

markkezner (1209776) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058733)

It's not a real fork. It's more like regular Android with a Amazon's home screen app and their other apps\services pre-installed. Same open OS, same API, just with some closed source apps facing the user.

If they went around changing the API and the OS behavior, breaking compatibility, then we'd be in fork territory. I don't see a good reason for them to do that; it's in their best interests to be compatible with existing and future Android apps. If they wanted to make such a fork they would have.

Re:The beginnings of Android closed source... (5, Insightful)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058547)

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.

Re:The beginnings of Android closed source... (1)

jordanjay29 (1298951) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058589)

An unfortunate step on the way to 4.0. Likewise, Android 2.0 was never released until later on, and only available on the Motorola Droid (original). The Nexus One shipped with Android 2.1, which was the first OSed release of Android since 1.6.

It happens sometimes that an intermediary step is necessary to get to the next point in software evolution. Still, compared to iOS or Android, WebOS is still an infant software and hardly mature at all. WP is getting there, but it and iOS suffer from being closed source (which hasn't stopped their popularity, though). Android is the most popular open source mobile OS right now (sorry, Symbi-err, I mean Belle) and you can bet that if Google were to close it off, someone would pick it up from the last OSed version and keep going. Maybe slower and with less new features or directions, but it would stay alive.

Re:The beginnings of Android closed source... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058651)

Actually, if Google decided to close source Android (which they won't) I doubt that many manufacturers would stick with the OSS version. After all, they've proved their incompetence in coding their own individual "experiences" which make the phones slower and do nothing for usability. Give me stock Android over Sense/Touch-Wiz/MotoBlur/Etc. any day. Yes, some of the things are novel and yes, Sense is an attractive UI but whenever something breaks or malfunctions on my phone (Samsung Captivate Glide) its generally due to TouchWiz and its bugs rather than bugs native to Android, particularly the lock screen which manages to lag or fail every now and then.

Re:The beginnings of Android closed source... (4, Funny)

dna_(c)(tm)(r) (618003) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058775)

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?"

Re:The beginnings of Android closed source... (1)

jordanjay29 (1298951) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058883)

Ugh, where's the mod points when I need them. Insightful and funny, good sir!

Re:The beginnings of Android closed source... (1)

DuckDodgers (541817) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058943)

Android 4.0 is open source, full stop. Google can make Android 5.0 or 6.0 closed source, but they can't retroactively close anything that's already opened. So in that sense particular versions of Android might be closed, but Android itself will still be open. If you don't like what your manufacturer ships on your device, put your own build on it.

But in any event, competition in the open source space is great.

Close-Source Android (5, Insightful)

n122vu (1126345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058415)

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 (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39058435)

Not at all. Android 3.0 is closed source. 4.0 is open source again, but nobody knows exactly what was part of the 3.0 that Google's customers, er select-OEMs, got for their tablets.

Re:Close-Source Android (4, Informative)

dave420 (699308) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058467)

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 (4, Informative)

paintballer1087 (910920) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058493)

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/ [techspot.com]

Re:Close-Source Android (4, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058509)

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.

Re:Close-Source Android (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058579)

I thought (not an expert in apache licensing) that apache would simply let you change the license downstream, not remove it from the existing stuff?

Re:Close-Source Android (1)

bondsbw (888959) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059503)

Changing the license of existing code does not affect those who have copied/derived/distributed/etc. under those terms. So long as someone out there is mirroring the code, you are essentially correct.

Newly derived code may be changed by the copyright holder, since nobody has it and can claim to be licensed to it. The next release of Android may be closed since the changes were never released under open source. It doesn't change the fact that you can distribute the old code, or modify that code on your own to make it more like the new version or compatible with the open APIs for the new version.

(IANAL and all that. This is my understanding of open source in general; I don't know about the particulars of the Apache license.)

Re:Close-Source Android (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059673)

Not entirely sure what you're aiming at, the Android platform = the Linux kernel + Android-specific code. Google is the copyright holder of all the Android code, so they can pick any license they want. If Google had accepted third party contributions under the Apache license, then yes they'd be bound to use it under those terms. However, it doesn't contain any copyleft clause like the GPL, so they'd still not have to give any source code. If you want the oversimplified version, Apache is prettty much BSD + patent grant. Like BSD code you can use it in pretty much anywhere, but the code will still be under an Apache license.

Re:Close-Source Android (1)

n122vu (1126345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058765)

I see. Thanks for clarifying that.

Re:Close-Source Android (2)

jordanjay29 (1298951) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058653)

That's a misconception. They would still need to provide the source for the Linux kernel (although there are plenty of proprietary commercial products that use the Linux kernel and don't publish their source code) but anything they built on top of it could be closed source. It's like publishing the blueprints for the basement of a structure, and then building a skyscraper on top of it with only the contractor and owner aware of the true floorplans of the building, and never the building's occupants or visitors.

Logic (5, Insightful)

Spad (470073) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058419)

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?

Re:Logic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39058519)

HP's CEO is babbling wildly because his company is in the middle of what you might call a "Kodak moment". If you still have HP stock, I'd advise you to seriously consider that you might not be competent at stock-picking.

Re:Logic (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39058693)

you might not be competent at stock-picking

Neither may you be, given that you don't know that the CEO of HP is not a man...

Re:Logic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39059583)

You didn't know? Meg's a tranny. Didn't the masculine facial features and Adam's apple give it away?

Re:Logic (1)

gorzek (647352) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058535)

Whitman's full of shit. Google has no reason to close the source of Android since Android itself is not a sold product and Google seems to have no interest in turning it into one. The only reason Android has become so popular is because it's free and open source. It saves the manufacturers money.

That said, if HP opens webOS, I would be happy to see that. It's actually a good mobile operating system and it's a shame it's gotten so little attention. Even if it doesn't end up being used for phones, it would be a good choice for tablets and other mobile devices.

Re:Logic (1)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058587)

HP already has opened WebOS. Did it about a month ago.

Re:Logic (1)

jordanjay29 (1298951) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058603)

It's just fear-mongering. HP hopes it will drive people away from Android and into their waiting arms. Except...if someone were to leave Android for an OSed mobile platform, I can think of Symbian/Belle or MeeGo/Tinzen as better alternatives than WebOS.

Re:Logic (2)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059579)

The only reason I can think of is Motorola's tendency towards closed-ness (for example, locked bootloaders on nearly all devices)... But Google is buying Moto, NOT the other way around. The most likely result is the exact opposite of Whitman's claims - Moto devices may finally be reasonable propositions for people who want to ensure that there is some control of their device in their own hands, as hopefully Google will put an end to Moto's bullshit bootloader-locking practices.

What's really annoying is that Moto blames it on the carriers - however the Milestone had a locked bootloader (despite being a generic SIM-unlocked GSM device) and the Samsung Droid Charge has an unlocked bootloader (despite being on Verizon, the carrier Moto blames for pushing locked bootloaders on them.)

Hey!!! (5, Funny)

hymie! (95907) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058423)

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

Re:Hey!!! (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058821)

[Sponge Bath takes picture with Android phone and posts to endangeredspecie.com] *click*

Derived Projects (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39058429)

If Google 'close-sources' Android, there will always be other projects that will carry on open sourcing their (derived) versions.

Also... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39058437)

Linus might close course Linux at some point. He might. You don't know.

Re:Also... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39059639)

He can't even if he wanted to since Linux is licensed under the GPL and he does not own the copyright to most of the code. He only owns the copyright to some of the code and he that code is by now derived by other people's copyrighted GPL code.

and HP knows this how? (1)

Nyder (754090) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058489)

Seriously, how does HP know this? Why is this news?

HP doesn't know shit, it's saying what it wants, to keep it's stocks prices from jumping.

Are we doing End of the World Predictions also?

Re:and HP knows this how? (1)

Merk42 (1906718) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058785)

Are we doing End of the World Predictions also?

We have been for some time, it's December 21st of this year.

They are not even aware on the marketshare (2)

Nikademus (631739) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058495)

"Apple's iOS dominates the mobile market, but it is also proprietary, creating a void and an opportunity for webOS to flourish as an open-source OS, Whitman said."

Last time I looked, IOS was third behind android and symbian.
Looks like they know the market and where they head.

Re:They are not even aware on the marketshare (1)

danbob999 (2490674) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058757)

Android outsold iOS worldwide by 2:1 in Q4 2011, which was a record quarter for Apple with the iPhone 4S launch.
http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1924314 [gartner.com]

iOS, however, now sells more than Symbian for the first quarter in history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_operating_system#Market_share [wikipedia.org]

Re:They are not even aware on the marketshare (1)

RocketRabbit (830691) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059727)

It's not really fair to say Android outsold iOS, when the vast majority of Android devices are given away with the plan.

What is he smoking? (1)

lcam (848192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058501)

Clearly CEO of HP has been taking the wrong medication. No wonder WebOS flopped. Now he want's to open source it so he can compete, that's not enough!. Maybe he should contribute an open hardware design that runs WebOS so people who want control can pick up a soldering iron and a few components and put together smart devices that have WebOS running on it. That would be neat.

Re:What is he smoking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39058577)

She, Meg Whitman, Former CEO of Ebay and candidate for Governor of CA

Re:What is he smoking? (5, Informative)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058609)

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:What is he smoking? (1)

lcam (848192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058709)

Yeah I picked up on that after clicking submit. No edit function on slashdot. :/ I guess corporate politics or players in the HP corporation hasn't been on my focus list. My stereotype of male CEO's in play here.

Close sourcing Android is as left field and idea as HP getting out of the PC market. Probably won't get anyone fired though.

Re:What is he smoking? (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059043)

the old CEO, Leo Apotheker, did screw up and cause WebOS to flop. That's part of why he was fired.

And before that was Mark Hurd, who fired 10% of HP and resigned after "inappropriate behavior" (investigated for sexual harassment)

Before that Patricia Dunn resigned for illegally obtaining private records in an attempt to prevent board level leaks.

Before that Carly Fiorina was forced to resign after failed products and mergers, dismal performance and snuffing the last remnants of the HP way.

HP seems to be a dumping ground for the worst CEOs, and Meg Whitman is no exception.

Re:What is he smoking? (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059249)

Also, the old CEO, Leo Apotheker, did screw up and cause WebOS to flop

While he did screw up mightily, WebOS would have flopped mightily regardless. Like the way the desktop market belongs to Windows and Mac (with some bit players like Linux), the tablet market belongs to iOS and Android (with some bit players like Microsoft). WebOS was doomed regardless.

Re:What is he smoking? (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058845)

No... she is just learning from HP history and emulating the clear-thinking leadership skills of Carley Fiorina!

Re:What is he smoking? (1)

Vairon (17314) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059681)

How would HP, a hardware company, make money by allowing other people to make their hardware for them without paying anything in return?

troll / link bait (2)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058517)

This is just trash talk from a competitor who failed in this particular market sector. Why even bother repeating it, other than as link bait?

Right... (4, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058563)

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.

Re:Right... (1)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058745)

Actually, the hardware was ALL Palm.

Basically every design we saw come out of HP after they bought Palm was a Palm design that was already "in the pipeline" and ready to release. So we never actually got to see any "HP" hardware designs, it was all leftover Palm designs until Apotheker committed professional suicide by shutting down the mobile division and threatening to shut down the PC division.

Honestly, as soon as Mark Hurd got pushed out as HP exec I knew that Palm was in trouble. Apotheker was a "Services" guy, never a "Products" guy. the CEO generally sets the company course, so I reluctantly predicted that he would not do much with Palm. Sadly, i was proven right (Although I really wanted to be wrong.)

The sad irony about is that if HP had REALLY invested in Palm and spent some real money on R&D and marketing, they could have had a winner on their hands. In the end, they still "Spent" the money by losing market value and stock price, only they lost more there than they EVER would have spent on Palm if they had pursued it. So stupid.

Here's hoping Whitman is able to bring WebOS back. I'd love me some WebOS on some fresh new hardware!

Re:Right... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059009)

But even then, it was HP's fault they released the Veer and not the Pre 3 which was vastly superior in every way. It was almost as if HP was trying their hardest to kill WebOS. They sink a lot of money into buying Palm, then they randomly decide not to release phones that were already produced (Pre 3 in the US) and then they get rid of the rest of their already produced tablets at cost. And without a real reason. Now HP comes back and says great things about WebOS after it already killed it off in more ways than one.

Re:Right... (2)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059289)

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...

Because companies can never change their minds or change direction, right? No, companies never do things like that. This isn't saying Google will do it, but it's extremely naive to think that they will forever continue to do what they do now.

The HP Visionaries (5, Insightful)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058571)

"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.

F-U-D (2)

asserted (818761) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058601)

hey Meg, can you spell F-U-D? that's right, good girl!

Shut up, Meg. (1)

Severus Snape (2376318) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058607)

HP feeling sorry for themselves because WebOS failed? Anybody who has the slightest understanding of Google's business model will realise they don't care who is running Android, they want everyone to be using it and will give it away for free to achieve that. Google doesn't make money through licensing, they are an advertising driven company and that's where Android's revenue comes from. It's there for them to build a bigger profile of the consumer so they make more money through their core business.

not likely but... (1)

slydder (549704) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058619)

... I happen to have one of those tablets from HP here in the office (due to development contracts that we had with HP) and would like to be able to make use of it again. However, I'm not willing to bank on it. I mean javascript on the desktop. ouch.

Closed by fragmentation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39058747)

The same reason why the 1%(TM) of people using Linux fight over Gnome/KDE/Unity/Flavor of the month (Mint flavor this month, Cinnamon flavor next month). Android will be fragmented to death. I don't have an android, I have a HTC phone that claims to be android compatible but will not run Jellybean/Kop Kops/Liquorice/Meringue in the future and I will have to get another phone or jailbreak (aka rooting) which is what being "open" was supposed to avoid. Meanwhile Steve Jobs is laughing all the way from his $100 billion cash grave.

Re:Closed by fragmentation (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058875)

It's dying? Has netcraft confirmed that?

Translation: burn rate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39059023)

"It may take up to four years for the complete impact of webOS to be felt, Whitman said.": Translation - we're pretty sure we can keep the whole thing from imploding from our terrible-ass business decisions for at least a couple years.

closed source? (1)

trum4n (982031) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059063)

Maybe they will fix the damn bugs if someone pays them to do it.

plain old fud. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39059119)

fud. reasons?

That's what she said... (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059133)

...since she's trying to 'sell' WebOS. To anyone. For nothing. Just to stay the least bit relevant in that market.

Aren't most implementations already closed? (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059301)

Most of the phones Android are used on already throw their own UI's over Android and lock down the bootloader anyway, right? Since we already have to jailbreak them, this will just be something else to jailbreak (and it will be jailbroken).

Re:Aren't most implementations already closed? (1)

Vairon (17314) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059789)

I've owned 2 android phones so far and both of them has had unlocked bootloaders. Of course both were made by Samsung.

'Could' is not a news item. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39059357)

Any article that states 'could' is pointless. You 'could' fill a bath with chocolate and swim in it, IBM 'could' start selling cars...etc... pointless speculation. When we gonna get some real news around here?

ho8o (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39059425)

users of NetBSD more. If you feel the same operation what they think is list of other and as BSD sinks

What about the GPL? (1)

pimpsoftcom (877143) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059741)

You guys are all forgetting that the gpl is in play and TFA is crap. The only reason google has been able to hold off on source as long as it has on some versions of android is because most open source people dont have the balls to hold them accountable and force the issue. But that does not magically mean there is no GPL or that they do not have that legal obligation. Motorola would ALSO have this obligation, they CANT close source android because its just Linux with some patches.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>