I am. I have been following the discussion throughout the day (when I was able to), and it seems like no one specifically knows what, perhaps, is the biggest unspoken question is about Google’s Android open-source mobile stack platform.
You know.
What’s in it for Google?
Yes, I know that there’s been a lot of handwaving around “well, it will allow Google to deliver more ads on phones — that’s their strategy, duh!”
And to that I guess I might believe that if the platform wasn’t open-source, except it is, meaning that although Google is helping spear head this coalition of the mobile-willing, and sure, Mr. Rubin gives us Google-centered examples of what Android *could* do — well, Google can’t just “throw in ads” where it wants to.
I mean, people will be developing their own software build upon this open-source standard, and it will be up to them if they need Google to help monetize their business with ads. And business being business? I suspect that no one actually wants to turn to the 1000 ton Gorilla in the room unless they absolutely need to.
I mean, if there’s another monetization strategy in mind I haven’t yet heard of it.
Or, if there’s a gotcha clause in all of this that requires partnering with Google, I also haven’t yet heard of it.
But it seems peculiar to me that Google has spent all this time and manpower (although they certainly have the wherewithal to do it) to develop something that it can’t directly and explicitly benefit. It either smacks of something deliciously devious (which would be awesome), awesomely altruistic (anyone skeptical?), or neither of the two, which would be puzzling (but possible: Dodgeball anyone?)
Other skeptics:
- Om Malik: Who wonders if this all isn’t PR smoke that’s been blown up our metaphorical behinds
- Wall Street Journal: Who queries if the Alliance will actually develop software once Android becomes available
- Fake Steve Jobs: Who ponders if all of this, coupled with OpenSocial isn’t just reactionary {cough, cough — Facebook}
