Plenty of industry heavyweights were active at the Mobile World Congress (MWC) last week, but there was a very noticeable, major absence: Google. The company’s invisibility in Barcelona was a microcosm for perhaps the biggest trend coming out of the conference: co-option¡ªcompanies seemingly adopting existing brands as their own. Sure, Intel (keen to promote the Android compatibility of its new Clover Trail Plus platform) proudly showcased its Google partnership. The company had various poor souls dressed as green robots with Intel Inside badges. The company even had some at the Barcelona airport, and an alarming number of conference attendees were keen to have their photo taken with the robot. But everyone else? cheap smartphones may have been running Android, but you’d never know it. “Android” isn’t a feature. It’s barely even a footnote. The identity of these phones is Samsung, HTC, Sony, LG¡ªnot Android. Google’s invisibility from MWC mirrored Android’s invisibility from the handsets. Google hasn’t exactly helped promote the Android brand, with its (in some ways) competing “Nexus” and “Play” brands, but it’s no wonder that Google is reported to be fearful of Samsung’s dominance. It’s arguably not a problem that Google should ignore, either, as it’s impeding Google’s ability to improve the platform. For example, Google long ago switched to a new button layout (from left-to-right: back/home/multitasking), but Samsung’s devices stick with the old one (menu/home/back), which is less convenient and meshes poorly with new applications. It wouldn’t be the least bit surprising if Samsung stuck with the old layout in the Galaxy S IV. Nokia too is co-opting a brand, though this time it’s the Windows Phone brand. It does get some mention, but as we’ve noted before, “Lumia” is the brand with name recognition, not “Windows Phone.” In Microsoft’s case, the tight control of the underlying platform precludes the kind of inconsistency and inconvenience that afflicts Android, so it’s less of an immediate concern. It could prove troublesome in the long term, however, as it makes it that much harder for other companies, such as HTC, to bring Windows Phone devices to market. There¡¯s no obvious way for Google to reclaim Android. To these, we now have Ubuntu from Canonical and Firefox OS from Mozilla to add into the mix. Both open source operating systems were on display, with Mozilla boasting a number of design wins for its HTML5-driven platform. Being open source¡ªand likely more open than Android, which is substantially developed in private before a source drop is dumped on an unsuspecting world each time a new version is released¡ªputs these platforms at the same risk. Although both Mozilla and Canonical protect their trademarks in various ways, it would seem relatively straightforward for someone to take either platform, slap on their own name and branding, and call it their own (similar to the way Ubuntu already co-opts Debian). We asked Mark Shuttleworth, CEO of Canonical, and Mitchell Baker, chair of the Mozilla foundation, what they would do to prevent this. Both argued that, essentially, being co-opted was fine. It’s all in the spirit of open source. The problem is that third parties could develop the platforms in undesirable ways. For example, native applications could be grafted onto Firefox OS, undermining its HTML5 concept. Firefox OS is Mozilla’s hedge against the rise of the app and the marginalization of the Web: someone slapping native apps onto it would be a big blow. While MWC’s path back to its roots is clear and the transformation seems to be under way already, there’s no obvious way for Google to reclaim Android. A stable of strong Motorola handsets might enable the company to push things in that direction, but so far it has resisted doing even this. Motorola’s handsets are not Nexus handsets. Come 2014, it would be no great surprise to find the last vestiges of the Android name gone forever.luoqiyin666