CE-Oh no he didn't! Part XLV: Symbian's Lee Williams rips into Android, implies Google is evil (video)
By Vladislav Savov 
posted Oct 26th 2009 7:06AM
posted Oct 26th 2009 7:06AM
"I don't view Apple as evil, they're just greedy... Google, come on! When you have to say in your motto that we're not evil, right away the first question in my mind is, 'why do you have to tell me that?'"All this must be tempered by the knowledge that Android is set to overtake large swathes of the mobile OS space, and some retaliatory trash talking is probably to be expected from the incumbent smartphone leader. Om does ask another sage question, in querying why Williams thinks companies are making such large investments into Android, and you'll find the answer to that and much more in the video past the break.
[Via MobileTechWorld; Thanks, fido]
Read - Lee Williams interview with GigaOM
Read - New York Times: 'Big Cellphone Makers Shifting to Android System'
Read - PCWorld: 'Android, Symbian Will Own Smartphones in 2012'
I think that motto was intended to be a personal credo for the company, as in "Don't be evil." The only time I ever heard about the motto was in an article about Google that someone else wrote. I've never seen a Google ad that said "We're not evil!" I could be wrong, and would love to see a link or screen shot, if such a thing exists. I have no idea of the integrity or intentions of Google, but it seems like this guy is just twisting words around.
Just imagine, an ad like that would be hilarious :D
"We're Google, buy our stuff... We're not evil!"
No, it doesn't exist. The motto is eactly as you were thinking. This guy just thinks google is evil because Google is cutting into his pie. For free. And android by itself doesn't make Google money either. Its only the developers who go one step further and make a google branded phone with google apps that give Google money. Completely different business model than Symbian (and Nokia's and everyone else).
Would Mr. Williams like some cheese with his whine?
Exactly. Tell me how many advertisements you've seen from Google claiming that they're not evil. It's an internal reminder to their employees, nothing more.
It doesn't exist???
http://investor.google.com/conduct.html
@David - That's not an advertisement, that's their code of conduct. I think more companies should have rules against evil in their CoC.
They also tell their employees not to be racist, but nobody's claiming that's their "motto". Sheesh...
Not sure what Google wants to do with Android, but it looks like a half-baked product rushed to market too early. The Market has bugs, you can't even rearrange bookmarks in the browser!
I think Google is a bit evil, but Android isn't in any way. The people take a role in developing the mobile OS, just like Symbian, Maemo and WinMo XDA. Google even approves (well to a certain extent); and let's be real: the only reason people are jumping on Android's back is because they want to contest a certain mobile phone and it's OS....
Android and Symbian should be the LAST mobile OS' going at it
How is Google evil? Because they developed a great business model where they can deliver products to customers for free... that they like and actually use?
It's astounding to me how these days if a company "makes money" in any way shape or form it's somehow evil.
You should all be ashamed for working for a living and providing for yourselves and your families! Pure evil!
That's not what I meant to come off as. I, I should have been specific =/....
@Sisyphus
I don't know whether Google are evil or not, but their "Don't be evil" motto, contrary to what Lee Williams thinks, comes exactly from the fact that most successful/large businesses are in fact evil, and Google's desire to distinguish themselves from the rest.
So their motto is nothing but a confirmation that in fact 'these days if a company "makes money" in any way shape or form it's somehow evil'.
The only "evil" people misconstrue is the fact that Google collects data from people. People don't want their shit out there, but come on, Google collects data for informational purposes, so get over it. As sarcastic as Sisyphus was, ye has a point thar!
"most successful/large businesses are in fact evil"
Oh, excuse my ignorance. I didn't know that was an uncontroversial fact.
@Sisyphus
Do a bit of research then. Just out of curiosity, why do you think Google feels the need to say that it's not evil?
Sisyphus,
I'll make it very simple for you... yes, just making a living for yourself can be evil... and it in fact is. We are all evil, for letting 1/2 of the world suffer in poverty / hunger / disease / without shelter / without clean water / and so on. Without help.
What if you were born there instead of here? Forget it... I can see by the tone of your posts that you just don't actually care about society at large... you've for too long believed the bull crap about self-interest.
I am hopeful Google has a secret plan to collect all of this money away from the other companies, so they can give it away to the world they so often seem to want to help.
Some companies are some what hypocritical. For example, how he made the point how Android claims to have an open system when it truly isn't. He spoke on a deeper level than what most people understand what an open system is but it's still true.
Android is free and open source ? .. I don't understand what you mean by it not being open.
Android is free and open source about as much as Ubuntu and that's good enough for me. Anarchy is not productive in real life or with programming. Every major project should have a gateway of admission at least.
One should actually understand the definition of an open source before speaking on it.
According to the OSD ( Open Source Definition http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php ) Android truly is the ONLY open source. Mainly because of free distribution. Whereas the new Symbian can not be because people have to pay for the use of their OS.
It seems to me that he's kind of upset that Android is gaining ground more than the Symbian OS is. He has 3 confirmed OEM's to Android's 6 and growing. The OEM's he was naming off are already onboard for Android and hell, making phones for them.
I sensed nothing professional in this talk he gave, just a bitter man upset that their OS is not living up to the purportedly "inferior" OS. He sounds like some type of fanboy. Except he actually gets paid for it.
Android is open source
BUT the "thing" that manufacturer install in their cellphone (such the used in most HTC cellphone) is not open source.
So yes, it is a double speak.
@Magallanes
Right. Part of the OSD is that the OS can not dictate to any carrier/manufacturer the rules and limitations they want to put upon them. Hence why T-Mobile USA was able to block tethering...but all other carriers had it.
The OS is open and able to do whatever one would want to.
Idiot.
Just mad because everyone is leaving Symbian for Google. And that the fact that Symbian sucks and is just about as behind the times as WinMo. Don't hate the player, hate your own product hater.
Google might be evil. Apple might be greedy.
But without a doubt Symbian sucks so much it blows. It is the anchor that is killing Nokia's smart phone business.
My E71 was the best built phone I ever had. Too bad it had such a crappy OS (from a usability standpoint - feature wise it is great).
+++++++++++++++++++
Why is Nokia so goddam annoying ? .. take the Nokia E71/72/73 .. combine it with Android and bam you have an unbeatable phone.
Why would Nokia EVER use Android? You're crazy, have you even used the E72 (There's no such thing as E73 anyway)? That phone is fine just the way it is.
The reason the E-series is so good (build quality and aesthetics aside) is precisely because of Symbian. No other O/S has anywhere near the level of smartphone functionality that S60 does, and certainly nowhere near the stability or speed.
The e71 is a brilliant phone. The e72, with a slightly better processor is ridiculously fast. One of the brilliant things about Symbian is that it has a tiny and extremely efficient kernel.
However, there are 2 issues with it.
1) Some people want more eye-candy. This is slowly being addressed in Nokia's multimedia smartphones and what you see in the N900 (Maemo) is broadly representative of the kind of aesthetic style of the UI you'll see in the upcoming release of the first Symbian Foundation build.
2) Applications are difficult to write. Some of the ways of coding are rather antiquated and overly complex. However, by the end of next year it will have been completely overhauled and Qt will be the main API framework - something it will have in common with Maemo 6 (Maemo 5 has it as a secondary optional API). So applications will be much easier to write, and one application will work on both Maemo and Symbian Foundation with no recompiling.
Personally, I think the future is very bright for Symbian. I just wish the move to Qt would come sooner!!
Here is a comment by an unregistered user on allaboutsymbian.com for the same video, i thought I'd share it:
Having worked at Doubleclick (googles ad serving engine) I understand better then most the dis-intermediation that google feeds off of. Google views it's users as grist for its mill. Free in google speak equates to a customer who has a lifetime value of between $1,600,000 to $8,000,000 - that is what you are worth to Google. In no way will Google allow anyone to poach that golden egg.
Just as the "last mile" was always the challenge in the communication world. The disconnected user was Googles Achillies heel - in the late 90's they realized that the mobile web would harm the golden egg- thus their benevolence bestowed on the peasants,,, Android, all in the name of gathering and profiling the user in increasingly intrusive ways.
But the apps are FREE! They help me with my life, now they are with me ALL the time, how can this be bad? Is your Android phone giving you $100,000 worth of value per year? It is to Google.
Google have even changed Andriods strategy based on the dumbing down of the smartphone - the iPhone. The single tasking feature phone introduced by Apple was a game changer. BUT NOT IN A POSITIVE FASHION. One of the least sophisticated mobile countries in the world -the United States of America- who's vast population is so technically backwards and incapable of managing a modern smartphone was ripe for a consumer device that was sufficiently simple to use. Using the super model axiom Apple developed a product that was beautiful, yet not intellectually challenging - and just like a super model it can't walk and chew gum at the same time.
All of Apples devices have only one purpose - defeat the evil Microsoft emprire and sell more Mac's. Hence the absolute need to introduce iTunes into your ilife to use the iPhone. Much is written about the iPhone wonderful eco-system. The pundits forget that true smart phones don't need an eco system, they survive and thrive stand alone, connected to the rest of the world via wifi, G3, G4, GX... they provide the user with a converged experience without an umbilical cord.
The iPhone showed Google two things 1) It had lost control of this entire segment of the population to the "notion of less". Less sophistication, less usability, less freedom (ironic for the company who's iconic moment was the "1984" commercial). 2)Americans are stupid enough to actually pay for applications that should be standard kit on an advanced smartphone. (As an aside I realize that over the entire span of my use of Nokia smartphones I have only bought 3 apps - Wayfinder for my 9300, Profimail for my E71{pre Nokia Messaging} and Gravity on the N97. Every thing else has been provided by Nokia at no cost as part of my handset purchase.)
So Google has moved to less free apps, simpler UI, more intrusion into the "open source" code based in it's lessons from Apple. The loss of huge swathes of America to the iPhone and the inability to get traction has turned google into a peditor on the ODM scene. Motorola, Dell, HTC, etc... who no longer have the deep pockets of Apple, Nokia, Microsoft to develop and refine mobile OS's are selling their hardware souls to Google in an attempt to stay relavent as handset makers. All these ODM's will learn, as did IBM,Compaq, HP that people use software not hardware and by turning over the reigns of the user experience to Google they will become increasingly irrelevent.
The mobile as a concept was about freedom and the old cliche is that freedom is not free. Of all the mobile platforms Googles is the worst since they lie about the price that you pay for it's use. Apple at least is open about its blatant consumerist bias and control freak nature. Nokia has shown itself to be the most benevolent - Symbian to open source, Maemo, Betalabs all in the name of a better handset experience.
I agree with most of that assessment.
sounds like butthurt to me. Why do I care if google profits if it costs me nothing?
Tell that poster to call the WAAHHHMBULANCE and get over it.
cool story bro
The above is 100% spot on. As a software designer whose has used all the platforms mentioned above as an end user and potential developer, I have observed that Nokia devices include way more useful well thought out better integrated features than other platforms. Even basic features like adding a new calendar item are made convenient, whether it is by holding down the physical Calendar button on the E71 or holding down the calendar icon on their Xpress Music phone home screen. (Something few people probably even know. It was an accidental discovery!) These little things count and make life SO much easier and more speedy. Furthermore, the true multi-tasking offered by Symbian is priceless. All that is wrong with Symbian is that it is ugly. And that's not hard to fix if Nokia can find a world class graphic designer to spice things up. (Have not touched their more recent open source OS yet.)
All said, we're about to dive into Android and learn for ourselves just what it's all about. Pros, cons etc.
In defence of the iPhone, some of the individual apps are reliable and do what they say on the can - for very little money, so cannot complain. The iPhone is a utility device, not really suited to geeks - unless they are developing an app.
Go read up on Feudalism and how it came to be.
Sounds like an upset Nokia fanboy
I've never seen an entire post compiled of 100% verbal diarrhea before. Looks like nothing but the ramblings of an upset fanboy.
For all of you dismissing this as the ramblings of an upset fanboy do you want to explain your reasons for doing so?
Because, you know, he or she is actually right.
"Of all the mobile platforms Googles is the worst since they lie about the price that you pay for it's use."
How are they lying?
They're no more lying to people about their free services than broadcast companies lie to their customers about free network television.
Its funny how you bash Google for thinking that their customers have no brainpower, and then assume they're too stupid to figure out how Google makes money.
A couple comments on the post:
1. How is Google supposed to get 100K of value per year out of an Andriod user? Even presuming they take full advantage of advertising to you based on your private data, your value to them would be about the commission they would earn on sales made possible by thier ad serving - in other words, a few percent of the money you spend on stuff you see on thier ads.
2. My Nokia E61 was advertised as supporting VPN. After trying to get it to work, it turns out that it only supports it if you buy a multi-thousand dollar license for Nokia's proprietary VPN server which needs to be installed on your corporate network.
Android was likely conceived due to the unfortunate reality of phone operating systems and browsers being far below standards compliant. Google wants to promote its services on devices just as it has on the destkop. It seems like at every bend of the road they're making up for the incompetence of other software companies and the limitations of their software products. Now we have a new browser, based on a compliant rendering toolkit, with a JavaScript engine that isn't sluggish (even Mozilla was taking their time when making improvements in this area!), a new mobile OS with a browser that is ahead of most desktop counterparts, and even a new desktop OS is in the works. Is this evil? No, this is business.
Do they make money off of us? Oh yes they do. No kidding yourselves there. But the fact that Google has raised the bar for every technology company in the industry is also undeniable. The competition from Google has been fierce and unyielding, and really has changed the IT landscape for the better. If they can figure out ways to make money by making my life easier as a programmer, web developer and end user without infringing on my privacy, then all the more power to them.
Is our information safe with Google? That is really something you are going to have to decide for yourself. Some of the ads in the right hand pane on gmail have actually led me to purchase something. That's saying something. Knowing how those ads are targeted at you, based on the message content from the conversations you expect noone else to be reading can be unsettling, but so far, to me at least, they've demonstrated reasonable responsibility with the information they have collected.
There is plenty of reason to be weary of Google. I stay away from their services when I can - I'm sure somewhere down the line people will view them, much like they viewed Microsoft in the 90s. However, Symbian simply isn't that good and it seems that they are targeting the even more "technologically backwards" populous in less developing nations.
Apple will never defeat the "evil" empire that is Microsoft - Google has a better chance of that.
"Is your Android phone giving you $100,000 worth of value per year? It is to Google." -- I agree with most of what he says, but this part is just clueless.
First: that's a ridiculous figure; there is no *way* Google is getting $100K/year in ad revenue from each Android user. With a million G1s sold in the first 6 months, that'd bring them a hundred billion dollars a year; but their total revenue is actually more like 24 billion.
Second: even if it were true, so what? If I do business with you, it's *expected* that you benefit from the deal; otherwise, you wouldn't bother. That's not even capitalism; it's basic to the whole idea of trade. My wife and I pay in the neighborhood of $1200/year for phone service. If we had Android phones, and Google were making $100,000/year off of us, that could actually be a great thing for us--it'd mean that we were valuable customers, and they'd have a strong incentive to keep us happy.
+1 for giving the reasons I bought a Palm Pre over an iPhone (I can use Pandora, chat with friends AND check my mail at the same time!)
-1 for the 'Dumb Americans' comment. There are dumb Europeans, Asians and Sasquatches who bought this thing in droves as well.
Very interesting points. For the most part I agree but I totally refuse to draw the conclusion that "selling software to companies that don't want to develop it anymore" makes Google evil. Theres plenty of avenues for handset makers to personalize android and make it their own ie Sense, Blur etc.
If it was stock Android or nothing, it might be a little evil, but even that isn't the case. Lee Williams is blowing this way out of proportion. I've already seen plenty of people looking at a non-HTC phone saying "Man, I wish this thing had Sense...guess I'll wait for the [next HTC handset]."
I'm not sure I know anyone who doesn't already know how Google operates or why their tools are free. Google's main source of revenue is advertising, and advertising works best when you can show products people are actually interested in. Gathering information about users allows Google to target effective ads to those users. Television has been doing this for ages, they just call it "demographics". They show specific ads during specific shows due to the particular audience of that show. If TV broadcasters could get the kind of specific information about their viewers that Google can get about users, TV broadcasters would have done so long ago. Technology allows Google and others deliver ads to specific individuals, so naturally information about that individual would allow such a system to be most effective. What Google is doing is nothing new. Technology is just enabling it to an extent never seen before. It is critical that everyone keeps a close watch on these practices because Google cannot be left to judge whether Google is "evil" or not.
At this time, I see no reason to worry about Google, other than the lifespan of information in their databases. Should Google suddenly change course, they would have data about you for a long time.
Free and Open Source is evil.
Closed, slow, sluggish and making the customers pay loads of $$$$$$$ is the way to go... right...
How is Symbian "Closed, slow, sluggish and making the customers pay loads of $$$$$$$", exactly? Elaborate...
and while he's at it, he can explain how Maemo is "Closed, slow, sluggish and making the customers pay loads of $$$$$$$" as well..
Obvious troll is painstakingly obvious...
I'm sorry. My bad, i totally admit it! I swear by god i didn't know Symbian is now open source. (and i'm thrilled cause i happen to own a Nokia N95 :D )
So, ok, it's not Closed, slow, sluggish and making the customers pay loads of $$$$$$$".
It's just slow, sluggish and making the customers pay loads of $$$$$$$". Although i hope that will change in the near future.
I'm already downloading the source to make my own 'flavour' :)
And, anyways, the ONLY reason Symbian is Open-Source now, is because of the likes of Android and iPhone. And for that, i'm trully thankfull to Apple and Google. No one can deny this. Symbian is going open, because else it would be completly dead in a few years. And i'm glad to see that will stick around and fight back and offer another choice, furthermore OPEN.
I'm no fanboy of Google, Apple or whatever. I just want what is best for me (as anyone rational would), and that's OPEN :D
Symbian has been open source forever.