The Contract Between Google and Smartphone Makers Revealed
Published in La Stampa
(Italy) on 30 September 2014
by Valerio Mariani (link to original)
(Italy) on 30 September 2014
by Valerio Mariani (link to original)
Translated from
by Bora Mici.
Edited by Laurence Bouvard.
Benjamin Edelman, consultant and professor at Harvard Business School, has put a series of interesting details online about the Android platform distribution contract for smartphone and tablet producers. To begin with, the document has a name: Mobile Application Distribution Agreement. It confirms the Mountain View powerhouse’s strategy to push for a platform that uses Google's services to the maximum and makes personalization uniform.
The leak concerns the version of the contract dated January 2011, at the time of Android 3.0, and was made public as part of the trial between Google and Oracle. The first thing to point out is that while Android is open source, apps like Play Store, Gmail, Google Maps and Play Service must be licensed, and it's especially apps and services that the document discusses.
Google's "do's and don’t's" list to vendors like Samsung and HTC, the first to have signed the document at the time, is very clear. Smartphones are required to have a package of a dozen or so pre-installed Google apps, among them those that allow for voice search. It goes without saying that the default search engine must be the one out of Mountain View; the document also defines a second list of apps, which are not required but strongly recommended.
The apps must still be distributed for free and must not be modified in any way—for example, in order to use an advertising platform not managed by Google—nor can they be used for other apps and services, and must appear on the home screen of smartphones and tablets. In particular, Google Search and the Android marketplace client must be accessible with a single swipe.
In addition, Google requests very detailed reports on the sales of Android devices, even on a local basis, and as mentioned, specifies very clearly that not even a tiny fraction of advertising revenue from Google services will be split with the vendor. In addition, before giving the OK for the distribution of a new device, the Mountain View company must have access to at least four products for the test period.
In addition, the Mobile Application Distribution Agreement lasts for two years at most and must be renegotiated after that period of time. Finally, the concept of the open device is strange since the document reads, "Open Devices. The parties will create an open environment for the Devices by making all Android Products and Android Application Programming Interfaces available and open on the Devices and will take no action to limit or restrict the Android platform.” It's like saying it's open, but only for me.
What's new is that now Google's strategy regarding Android is public and ratified, while before we could only imagine how devilish the company actually was, rather than evil. The terms of the agreement are not surprising. Google is a public company with a mission to complete business transactions while maximizing profits, and this is why it guards its own creations as much as possible. Sure, the document adds another dimension to the company's aura of openness, which often characterizes it in public opinion, and further puts hardware makers in an inferior position, somewhat recalling the days of Microsoft and IBM .
The leak concerns the version of the contract dated January 2011, at the time of Android 3.0, and was made public as part of the trial between Google and Oracle. The first thing to point out is that while Android is open source, apps like Play Store, Gmail, Google Maps and Play Service must be licensed, and it's especially apps and services that the document discusses.
Google's "do's and don’t's" list to vendors like Samsung and HTC, the first to have signed the document at the time, is very clear. Smartphones are required to have a package of a dozen or so pre-installed Google apps, among them those that allow for voice search. It goes without saying that the default search engine must be the one out of Mountain View; the document also defines a second list of apps, which are not required but strongly recommended.
The apps must still be distributed for free and must not be modified in any way—for example, in order to use an advertising platform not managed by Google—nor can they be used for other apps and services, and must appear on the home screen of smartphones and tablets. In particular, Google Search and the Android marketplace client must be accessible with a single swipe.
In addition, Google requests very detailed reports on the sales of Android devices, even on a local basis, and as mentioned, specifies very clearly that not even a tiny fraction of advertising revenue from Google services will be split with the vendor. In addition, before giving the OK for the distribution of a new device, the Mountain View company must have access to at least four products for the test period.
In addition, the Mobile Application Distribution Agreement lasts for two years at most and must be renegotiated after that period of time. Finally, the concept of the open device is strange since the document reads, "Open Devices. The parties will create an open environment for the Devices by making all Android Products and Android Application Programming Interfaces available and open on the Devices and will take no action to limit or restrict the Android platform.” It's like saying it's open, but only for me.
What's new is that now Google's strategy regarding Android is public and ratified, while before we could only imagine how devilish the company actually was, rather than evil. The terms of the agreement are not surprising. Google is a public company with a mission to complete business transactions while maximizing profits, and this is why it guards its own creations as much as possible. Sure, the document adds another dimension to the company's aura of openness, which often characterizes it in public opinion, and further puts hardware makers in an inferior position, somewhat recalling the days of Microsoft and IBM .