Playtime is over in Android Land. Over the last couple of months Google has reached out to the major carriers and device makers backing its mobile operating system with a message: There will be no more willy-nilly tweaks to the software. No more partnerships formed outside of Google's purview. From now on, companies hoping to receive early access to Google's most up-to-date software will need approval of their plans. And they will seek that approval from Andy Rubin, the head of Google's Android group.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-06-29
Member since:2007-08-07
Member since:2005-06-29
Nonsense. *Assuming* they continue releasing the source, there is NOTHING non-open about ANY of this WHATSOEVER. Stop parroting idiots like Gruber who think even H264 is open.
Is Haiku closed because you're not allowed to use their trademarks if you deviate from their code? Is Red Hat closed because they demand the same thing? If not, then why is Android suddenly closed? As long as the code is released (vital), ANYONE can make a device running Android. You just can't use Google's trademarks and services, and that's perfectly understandable. Red Hat and Haiku do the exact thing, and nobody thinks they're closed either.
Edited 2011-03-31 17:34 UTC
Member since:2011-01-28
Same deal with firefox.
Some linux distros called it "iceweasel" because mozilla hadn't approved the source code modifications.
The code for firefox is still open, but the trademark is not.
Google are within their rights to use the trademark as they see fit, however they also risk fragmentation, which might be bad for end users.
Member since:2007-08-07
Open like a book...
....as long as it favours them.
Member since:2005-07-06
H264 is currently at least as open as Honeycomb. Do with that as you will.
Haiku and Redhat develop all of their code behind closed doors, without even read access to the source code repositories? Haiku and Redhat can and will delay the release of the source code to new versions of their products as long as it benefits them and their close partners?
http://twitter.com/arubin/status/27808662429 <-- That's why
Since the code isn't released are you ready to jump on board the sanity train and admit that Android is closed or do you prefer to continue along with the failparade?
Android, the OS of "Soon"
"Soon" the UI will be better.
"Soon" it will have good tablet support.
"Soon" it will be open source.
Hopefully "Soon" people realize that Google isn't working in their best interest and stop giving them the benefit of the doubt. Either that or we'd better all learn the new definition of open source, it's open source as long as the code is released ... someday.
Member since:2005-06-29
Delaying a code release does not make it closed source. That's why I specifically mention that the code must be released at least within a reasonable time frame. In fact, if you have a Xoom, you MUST be given access to at least part of Honeycomb's code due to the GPL.
As long as the code is given to Xoom owners according to the respective licenses (did someone test this?), it is open source. The crazy thing about many open source licenses is that general availability of the code for everyone to download is actually not a requirement at all - it is a courtesy.
Of course, it's a courtesy that's pretty much a given these days, and as long as said courtesy is given within at least a few weeks, it's pretty much okay. Or do I need to remind you of the countless delays Apple made regarding Darwin?
Member since:2005-07-06
Apple doesn't claim to be open. Apple goes out of it's way (to the point of reimplementing Samba, gcc, gdb and I'm sure others) to avoid projects that would force them to be open. On the other hand: http://twitter.com/arubin/status/27808662429. So no, I don't see the need to give Google a courtesy, since BY THEIR VERY OWN DEFINITION, it's not open.
Really, anyone that has a shred of intellectual honesty or truly cares about Android being "open" should be yelling and screaming about this situation. Otherwise it's perfectly clear that it's no longer about "open" it's about "not Apple." Which, honestly, is fine. Really. You're allowed to like or dislike whatever fits your fancy, it's no skin off my teeth. But let's stop the charade and just call it the way it is.
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-07-06
I guess you've never seen the countless ways in which Apple use the word "open" in their promotion of Mac OS X' core. I guess we're all just imagining it. "
"Countless." And yet, I can easily count the number of links you posted to those ways, zero. So how open (http://twitter.com/arubin/status/27808662429) is Honeycomb? You seem unable to answer my very simple query.
Member since:2009-05-19
Aaaa.... A hater I smell.
Jumping to conclusions from the fact that Honeycomb source is withheld. They withheld most of their releases for at least a month.
I will agree to the point that Android is closed , when Google says that the source code will not be available at all or within a reasonable timeframe. For EA partners to have products on the ground.
I would feel that Honeycomb is closed if sources are not available after September 2011.
You apparently label everything "failparade" immediately. And you labelled Android closed despite the fact that you can still build an Android from source.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/rational-discussion-flowchart/
PS: As with a lot of OSS projects, there is Google's Android and there is AOSP. Learn the difference.
Member since:2005-07-06
Aaaa.... A hater I smell. "
If calling me a hater makes you feel better, feel free. I've said it before and I'll say it again, competition makes everything better. Unfortunately, the competition to the iPad is a giant clown car of failure at this point and I'd like to see that improve. I'm not seeing that happening though.
I will agree to the point that Android is closed , when Google says that the source code will not be available at all or within a reasonable timeframe. For EA partners to have products on the ground.
I would feel that Honeycomb is closed if sources are not available after September 2011.
That's very nice of you. Doesn't meet Rubin's definition of open. Doesn't meet my definition of open. Doesn't meet the OSS or FSF definition of open. But then again, Google's definition of open has never really been about the end users anyway and, hey, partners that pay them get access. So I guess that's "open."
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/rational-discussion-flowchart/
PS: As with a lot of OSS projects, there is Google's Android and there is AOSP. Learn the difference.
Hey, if you're happy getting code dumps 6 months later and calling it "open" who am I to complain?
Member since:2010-03-30
Member since:2006-04-03
Really?
open |ˈəʊp(ə)n|:
...
- offered without restriction
- with no restrictions on those allowed to participate
...
- unguarded
...
So it obviously depends on your interpretation of the meaning of open...
From the open-source definition:
The license must allow modifications and derived works...
...
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
...The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.
And therein lies the problem here. Google WANTS the Android name out there, so they want EVERYONE to use it AND call it Android, but they want to have total control over what's done with it. Sure it might squeeze into the open-source definition, but there is absolutely no way it's open, in reality it's as closed and restrictive as the App Store that it's supporters throw up about all the time, with one person determining what everyone, even major corporations, can change or add or remove.
Google have sucked so many in to believing that they can take this thing and make it their own through customisations, and now that it's shown that doesn't work - and now that they have all these "partners" who've committed significant financial resources - they're changing their tune.
But this is Google, so really, no surprise here. They've done it before, an they'll do it again...
Member since:2005-06-29
If this is about Google placing restrictions on the use of the Android name and Google's services, but they continue to deliver the Android source code, then this has absolutely zero relevance on whether or not Android is open source or not.
According to the gloating Apple fanatics, Red Hat is not an open source company, nor is the Haiku project open source, because both of them - as well as countless others - protect their good name in the exact same way.
So, what'll it be? Red Hat is not open? Haiku is not open?
Member since:2005-07-06
Oh really? Where can I download Honeycomb?
So, what'll it be? Red Hat is not open? Haiku is not open?
Please, that was a disingenuous argument the first time. Haiku and Redhat maintain open development processes and don't "delay" (where, in the case, delay means "please oh please oh please actually release something someday so that I don't look like a complete idiot for defending you) releasing their source code. So where can I download Honeycomb. Because, you know, Android is open: http://twitter.com/arubin/status/27808662429.
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-07-06
Do you own a Xoom? "
http://twitter.com/arubin/status/27808662429
How is my ownership of a Xoom relevant as to whether Android is open?
To help you out, I don't have a RHEL license, here is where I can download the source to RHEL: http://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/
Similarly, I don't (nor do I want) to use Haiku, here is where I can download the source to Haiku: http://svn.berlios.de/svnroot/repos/haiku/haiku/trunk/
Since Haiku and Redhat are YOUR standards for "open" (not to mention http://twitter.com/arubin/status/27808662429) I'm sure you can now link to the source to the "open" Android operating system Honeycomb? If not, do you think you can maybe admit that maybe Android is a tiny bit NOT OPEN?
Edited 2011-03-31 22:26 UTC
Member since:2009-05-19
Ah... Google bashing every time. Even using opensource.org definition of opensource.
Completely ignoring factors like if ODMs abide by Google's rules they get early access and Google's software(GMAil, Maps, Market...)
It's plain going from "Here's the code do whatever you want"(that failed, due to idiot ODMs and KIRFs) to "We develop and give you the foundations, but if you want the earliest versions possible, then you abide by the rules". Apparently non-fragmentation clauses were there all along but Google has started enforcing them.
So far Android has been very open. Exceptionally open to ODM in fact. You even ranted against that openness on the malware article comment section.
PS: I don't really know why are you even on this thread. You clearly don't intend on buying anything with Android. You use a Mac. And bash everything Google does. Look, the GSoC'11 is starting. Evil Google is eviling up students in universities by giving them money to develop for third parities! Oh the humanity!
Member since:2006-07-14
Member since:2009-05-19
I think ODMs have pushed Google too far by abusing their open right to remove Android openness from the end user.
There are 36% of users with access to market that are still susceptible to rage against the cage type of attack. And it hurts Google and Android, while ODMs just don't care...
PS: So far Google is a bit overreacting, but we'll have to see...
PPS: They will have to release source for GPLd stuff anyway...
Edited 2011-03-31 19:15 UTC
Member since:
2005-07-06
I hope Google and the OEM's get this all straightened out. I own an eLocity A7 Android tablet (Froyo 2.2). Basically, I am considered a bastard child in the Android world. I am not supposed to have Market access, so I have to download a custom ROM from the XDA developers forum. Many apps are not available for me to download from the market. I have to install them on my phone, and then sideload them manually (they have no problem installing, I'm just not supposed to have them). I feel very abandoned. eLocity basically just points you to the XDA site and wishes you well. This is the downside of the Android world. My device is wonderful - it has a Tegra II dual-core processor with 1080p HDMI out. Flash 10.2 works wonderfully with it. I just feel like I must have broken someone's unwritten rules. Silly me, I thought I was a customer. It turns out I'm just the abandoned step-child of a third-cousin twice removed.
But I'm in the family!
Member since:2009-05-19
Isn't that exactly why all haters do all the "hate" on Android? Because Google allowed their name and Andoid name to be tarnished by crap manufacturers like yours?
Google is trying to fix it? Or is it some other strategy?
Other point, is that "haters gonna hate" is proven, by them "hating" on Google for trying to fix this mess.
Member since:
2010-03-08
...it'll be from community effort or public research, not from a company. Nowadays, companies only care about innovation when it leads to short-term financial benefits. Otherwise, it's just some PR tool among others, which they feel no incentive to play with permanently.
Problem is, for this to happen, standard and open-specced hardware has to rise, whereas HW manufacturers have currently everything to win by making closed and proprietary hardware...
Member since:2008-02-05
I agree.
However, while Android may not be really open (even though it's obviously a lot more open and tweakable than Windows Phone 7), it _is_ a good, useful, versatile,... operating system. I can't imagine returning to symbian/s40/any other feature phone OS now, and Windows Phone may be as good, but it's not nearly as hackable...
Member since:2010-03-30
Nowadays, companies only care about innovation when it leads to short-term financial benefits.
As a matter of fact, I am currently reading "The innovator's solution" by Christensen and Raynor. It might not be the pinnacle for people educated in economy or management. But the first 20 pages alone have been worth the price of the book, for someone like me, without any prior experience in business, who's considering launching a software startup studio.
According to what I've grabbed from the small number of pages I've read this far, the main reason why companies chase innovation is because it's THE fuel for growth... Growth that is demanded by investors and shareholders... The same people who punish the company via its stock price for not venturing away from its stable base in a search for **more** growth... and punish the company for venturing away... and punish it (again!) for not exceeding the expected growth.
In short, a strong base of customers around the core business is not enough. Growth is not enough either. Constant growth doesn't cut it either. The only thing rewarded by the market is growth that exceed expectations, all that while statistics about sustained growth are appallingly low. After reading pages 1 to 4 (!), I thought "the stock/investment market is crazy". I'm now on page 20 or 21 and I'm beginning to think economy itself is crazy. Maybe when I'm on page 100 I'll be thinking "the world is crazy, time for suicide."
Member since:2010-03-08
So now they're looking at the *derivative* of growth, eh?
Someday, market actors will admit that what they're looking for in the end is exponential growth. And as a famous economist said once "Anyone who believes that exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world..."
Edited 2011-04-04 16:22 UTC
Member since:
2005-11-13
So, what exactly does this mean? Does it mean that vendors can no longer stack on their bloatware on top of the stock Android OS? If so, I'd say that is the best thing to happen to Android since I've been following it. When you've got two people who own different Android phones with pretty much the same specs, but one has access to the latest Android build and the other does not (unless he does some hacking and a lot of jumping jacks) because his vendor/carrier has decided to abandon the phone is horseshit.
Unfortunately, the very things that most vendors do to 'differentiate their phones' are the very same things that ruin them most of the time. If they can, just offer the bloatware as an OPTION, while still allowing customers to roll with vanilla and just upgrade to Google's official builds whenever we're ready. Perhaps some vendors will choose to not make Android phones anymore because of this; I say good riddance. I mean, how many high end phones do we really need to come out every year?
Edited 2011-03-31 17:52 UTC
Member since:
2007-08-07
oops
http://source.android.com/
Member since:
2007-08-07
Andoid is as open as H264.
I'm not going to get out my magnifying glass and compare every single detail. There's a clear pictured painted by Google here and a particular trend forming; it's clear where the future is going.
You want a good example of open, look no further than Webkit.
Member since:
2008-08-27
Unless you are building your own devices, Android has never been truly open. Why do we have locked bootloaders on Motorola, SonyEricsson and very recently HTC devices? Why does rooting attempts (successful or failed) survive a master reset? Is it so the manufacture have evidence that you rooted your device and use that as grounds for voiding your warranty? Seriously, Google made Android open enough so manufacturers and mobile operators could do whatever the heck they wanted to the platform and then lock the end user out of it.
As an end user, non-phone builder, these news mean absolutely nothing to me. Google is not taking away a freedom they didn't give me in the first place, nor are they giving me more freedom now.
If Google really cared about their end users (which they don't - they are looking after their reputation), the only restrictions for manufacturers should've been something like this.
---------- Hypothetical requirements ----------
1. All manufacturers are required to provide the stock Android experience. Any manufacturer who wants to install Blur, Sense, Touchwiz or similar stuff, can do so as long as they give the end user a way to disable said customizations and get the stock Android experience. The same applies to wireless carriers/operators. If Verizon or some other carrier wants to use Bing as the default search and maps provider, they can do so as long as they give the end-user a way to switch to Google or other provider.
2. Manufacturers have to provide at least two major software upgrades for their devices. If the manufacturer cannot comply with this requirement, they shall leave the bootloader unlocked so the end user can obtain upgrades from the community.
---------- End of hypothetical requirements ----------
This would've kept Android mostly open for everybody. Manufacturers could still differentiate themselves with their software and carriers could enter into partnerships with other providers, while end users would still have a choice on whether to use those services or stock Android ones. But only a Google who cared about its end users would've implemented something like that. Instead, since Google only cares about its reputation, they took the easy road of going dictatorial on what modifications and partnerships they'll allow, and who they'll give early access to the Android supposedly open source code and who will have to wait until the "latest and greatest" Android is old news to get access to the code -- if they ever release it.
Member since:2011-01-28
AnythingButVista,
"If Google really cared about their end users (which they don't - they are looking after their reputation), the only restrictions for manufacturers should've been something like this."
Of course google only cares about it's reputation. They don't actually care about privacy or anyone else. Unfortunately that's the norm these days.
"---------- Hypothetical requirements ----------"
Admittedly end users probably would be better off with those requirements, however google cannot add these restrictions per the GPL.
Yes, android manufacturers are guilty of tivoization, but I'm really not sure if google deliberately set out to make it that way? I would think that google is rather indifferent, as long as the products are used to drive users to its websites instead of the competition.
Fundamentally the problem seems to stem from the fact that manufacturers want devices to have hard coded functionality and not be upgradeable by the end user. If it's upgradeable, they believe (perhaps rightfully), that consumers would keep devices longer and therefor purchase fewer.
Like manufacturers of all other things, they've built in "planned obsolescence". Look at apple's portable devices with non-serviceable batteries. As a society concerned with waste and finite resources, we can't get any stupider than that.
Member since:2005-07-07
Member since:
2008-10-28
Everybody here is taking sides and arguing whether Android is open or not, if Google has turned evil and other fine points, BUT has anyone noticed that Bloomberg's piece is a bit light on actual facts or, for that matter, names?
Let's summarize the (so called) story:
- "This is the new reality described by about a dozen executives working at key companies in the Android ecosystem."
- "Over the past few months, according to several people familiar with the matter [...]"
- "[...] but people interviewed for this story say that Google has recently tightened its policies."
- "It's these types of actions that have prompted the gripes to the Justice Dept., says a person with knowledge of the matter."
- "And yet murmurs abound that Android's master has tightened up too much."
See what I mean? There are zero facts to support the notion that companies hoping to receive early access to Google's most up-to-date software will need approval of their plans. I mean, the only one being actually quoted is Nokia's Stephen Elop -- who has absolutely nothing to do with either Google or Android! ;-)
Of course where there's smoke there's usually fire but, as I see it, the real problem is a different one and, oddly enough, it's the only fact mentioned in the article: "Android's share of the smartphone market surged from 9 percent in 2009 to an industry-leading 31 percent worldwide". I'm sure this must be pissing quite a lot of people -- especially at Apple.
RT.
Edited 2011-04-01 08:40 UTC
Member since:
2009-10-24
I think Uncle Thom and the other Android Jihadist are the ones under the effects of a Reality Distortion Field.
If the source code to Honeycomb is unavailable then it is closed source. When Google releases the source code, it will become open source.
I am not a billionaire unless I have a billion dollars in the bank (or assets valued at a billion dollars), even though one day I may.
Google's new slogan should be: "Do as I say, not as I do"
We should pay less attention to what is said, and more on what is done.
Member since:2010-10-04