Why Google Buying Motorola Doesn't Protect Android

Google says Android is open. And for now, the mobile operating system is open-source. But for how long? With this morning's announcement that Google will acquire Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion, Android's future may be up in the air.

Google says it acquired Motorola in order to "protect Android" from "anti-competitive patent attacks" by Microsoft, Apple, and other technology heavyweights. Just a week ago Google pulled this same whiny tone after refusing to take part in the consortium who purchased the Novell patents. To be fair, this time rather than complaining about something, Google is acting instead. But is it for the better of Android? I don't think so.

Apple's iOS platform is beating everyone. Other competitors such as Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 OS (at least I think that's the name now) and HP's webOS pose the only formidable threat to Apple. Why? They're integrated platforms. The company responsible controls the software and the hardware. Microsoft has so far been very specific and selective about what hardware can use their OS, and HP develops both hardware and software, following Apple's cue.

Android however, is all over the place. It's not an issue of fragmentation, it's an issue of abundance. At some point, there simply become too many devices to have one single OS' apps run on everything. Look at Windows for example: Windows can run on any hardware configuration (more or less), dependent on drivers of course. But this wide selection means not every application will run on every installation of Windows. Some will require more RAM, more processing power, a higher-end graphics card, you name it. This is the same thing that has happened to Android. The OS is not fragmented any more than Windows is, the hardware is.

In order to compete in the long run, Android has to change. The average consumer just wants things to work. This has always been the case, even with computers. Your grandmother could care less how the desktop computer she has works and doesn't ever want to fuss with anything. If it turns on and does what she needs, she's happy. The same applies to phones (the distinction of smartphones needs to die). As a consumer, you shouldn't have to check the specs of your phone to see if you can run a game. It either works or it doesn't. They don't understand what technical specs even mean. They're irrelevant, and just add a layer of complexity to the technology.

Google isn't as oblivious as everyone thinks. They started working on Android before Apple had announced or released the first iPhone (although some will note, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt was on the board of Apple at the time, and likely knew of the iPhone's development). They saw the changing landscape of mobile computing coming, and did their best to start work early. Perhaps, not early enough however. Today, Android is by all accounts the biggest competitor to iOS. But not for long. The issues with complexity to the end user on Android will kill it. If someone has a bad experience with Android, they'll most likely choose a different platform upon the end of their contract. They'll tell their friends who are considering Android. Word of mouth spreads fast, especially when it's bad.

But it won't be Apple that kills Android; It'll be Motorola, a subsidiary of Google. The OS itself will remain alive, as will the brand, but the future of Android (to myself at least) looks clear: Closed. Google has to consolidate Android into a hardware and software platform. They have to make it easy and simple for the consumer. They have to eliminate confusion, hardware confusion.

"But Android is open!", you say. Yes, it is for now. But that doesn't mean Google can't strategically make new releases of the OS private to Google's Motorola-produced phones for a set limit and keep the public "open OS" behind on the development cycle. Yes, it will kill Android on other hardware platforms. But Google doesn't care. There will still be enough market left for those low-end devices that they'll still get the benefit of having more mobile users (thus generating more mobile ad revenue for Google), and can use this technicality to claim Android is open.

Google already controls the App Market for Android, and they'll certainly also clamp down on this. It could become Motorola-only in the future even. The open-source Android will continue on, much like Linux on the desktop, as an OS for hobbyists, or as a light-weight OS for set top boxes, for example. Something manufacturers looking to create their own platform could get behind even, much like Nokia's (sadly) doomed MeeGo OS. Perhaps Android will even be forked (something Mozilla has already started), so the community can free it from it's dependency on Google. But it will never succeed while it's open.

How will other Android handset manufacturers respond? Like they would respond to anyone changing the software game, simply move to another platform if they're unhappy. Microsoft would gladly offer up exclusive contracts to HTC and Samsung to produce handsets made to their specifications for Windows Phone 7. Or maybe HP will finally get into the licensing game with webOS (something I would love to see happen). And what about RIM you ask? RIM's dead. There's no saving that useless company.

Google's unofficial motto may be "Don't be evil.", but it's just that; Unofficial.

Disclaimer: Matt is an employee of Apple Inc.; This blog post only indicates his personal views, and not that of his employer.