Another day, another fear-mongering ‘Android is closed!’-article at Ars Technica. After Peter Bright’s article last week (sharply torn to shreds by Dianne Hackborn), we now have an article with the scary title “New Android OEM licensing terms leak; ‘open’ comes with a lot of restrictions“.
The title itself is already highly misleading, since one, the licensing terms aren’t new (they’re from early 2011 – that’s three years old), and two, they’re not licensing terms for Android, but for the suite of Google applications that run atop Android.
This article makes the classic mistake about the nature of Android. It conflates the Android Open Source Project with the suite of optional proprietary Google applications, the GMS. These old, most likely outdated licensing terms cover the Google applications, and not the open source Android platform, which anyone can download, alter, build and ship. Everyone can build a smartphone business based on the Android Open Source Project, which is a complete smartphone operating system.
Ars Technica is really trying to drive home the point that AOSP without Google applications is useless, a “barebones husk”, but reality proves them wrong. Many, many Android devices sold in China are AOSP(-based) without Google’s suite of applications. Closer to home (at least, for Americans), we have Amazon, who has been quite successful with their own AOSP-based platform. And closer to home for us OSNews readers – the entire custom ROM scene is based on AOSP, and CyanogenMod alone boasts impressive usage statistics. Every custom ROM (except for those based on stock OEM ROMs) is AOSP, with a certain level of modification by ROM developers, after which the user itself must install the Google suite of proprietary applications.
Despite Ars’ – dare I say it – ‘FUD’, Android’s openness is evidenced by probably dozens, if not hundreds of millions of users every single day. It’s mind-boggling how people can claim Android is not open just because of the fact that Google’s optional suite of applications is proprietary and needs to be licensed. It’s like claiming the Piazza della Repubblica is closed because there’s a 1 meter-wide fence somewhere.
Even the terms prohibiting the licensees from forking Android are nothing new. They have been part of the Open Handset Alliance from day one – which was founded in 2007. In other words, OEMs like Samsung, HTC, and others knew exactly what they were getting into when they joined the OHA, so trying to come to their imaginary defense now seems a bit hollow, at best.
The claims that Android isn’t open are just as asinine and insipid as the claims that iOS only sells because of marketing or the Apple brand. There are certainly a lot of issues with Android, and Google has a very fine line to walk along, but that does not mean Android is not open.
This, however, does not mean there aren’t possibly worrying trends in AOSP’s recent history. Dianne Hackborn’s thorough debunking of the earlier Ars Technica article, for instance, states this:
So, GMS is Google’s proprietary code implemented on top of Android for interacting with Google’s services. There is nothing nefarious about it being proprietary — it is interacting with Google’s proprietary back-end services, so of course it is proprietary.
This appears benign, but the problem was that as more and more AOSP parts were duplicated in GMS, their AOSP counterparts withered. This was a worrying trend that Google seems to have bucked – many GMS applications are now based on their AOSP counterparts (Hangouts vs. Messages being the exception). The company could take the wind out of a lot of these articles by making sure this stays that way.
Even then, the open source community and third-party Android developers have done a lot of great things here too, with things like open source camera applications and music players based on AOSP code, but much improved. So, even if Google completely dropped the ball on many of the AOSP versions of stock Android applications, the open source community will – and already has – picked up the slack.
The second possibly worrying trend is a set of APIs called the Google Play Services, which are part of the GMS. Over the recent years, I came under the impression that it had become virtually impossible to develop an Android application without using Play Services, but when I actually took a look at what Play Services provides, and just like Dianne Hackborn stated, Play Services really do deal with just Google’s backend cloud services, like Google Maps, Google+, Google Play Games, and so on.
While it seems perfectly possible to develop applications that do not support any of the Play Services, things like location and such (sadly) have weaseled their way into many applications, whether they belong there or not. This means that even though it’s not necessary for most applications to depend on the Play Services, many popular ones do so all the same. So, even though the Play Services don’t contain much of what I would call core APIs for an operating system, they are still quite important. In fact, all of the Google applications depend on them.
I don’t have any issues with Google’s applications being part of the GMS, but when APIs that most applications depend on become part of the GMS, we’re treading in much muddier waters. I wonder if Google will be able to resist the temptation of shoving more and more APIs into Play Services in the future. It’s a tempting way to get more control over Android, and since Google is a company, I don’t trust them in any way to not do so. Time will tell.
Articles like the ones at Ars tend to focus a lot on the the licensing terms for the GMS, but this is a separate issue that has no bearing on whether or not AOSP is open. Why? Because these terms have absolutely nothing to do whatsoever in any way ever and ever with AOSP. That’s it. GMS is not AOSP. AOSP is not GMS. End of story.
The terms themselves seem to be mostly beneficial to users, developers, and OEMs (at least, for now) as they bring the OHA’s goals into practice and ensure Android is a coherent platform. Unlike what some might think, Android is actually very coherent – no other mobile platform has ever provided both developers and users alike with such a consistent operating system on so many different kinds of mobile devices. As with the Play Services, we’ll have to see how Google proceeds with this in the future. They’re a company, so we have to remain ever vigilant.
In any case, all this in no way negate the very simple fact that AOSP is a complete open source mobile operating system, used by dozens of millions – if not hundreds of millions, thanks to China – people all around the world. In addition, any visit to XDA will make it clear just how healthy the AOSP development community is, with literally hundreds of different AOSP ROMs which are updated every single day. CM alone is used by millions of people, so it’s hard to discard it as a mere geek thing. And, lest we forget, there’s Amazon.
So, let’s get this straight once and for all. People do not buy iPhone and iPads because of marketing or the Apple brand – they buy them because they’re genuinely good devices that are an optimal fit for many, many people. Similarly, the GMS being proprietary does not mean AOSP is a closed, “barebones husk”. Arguments like these are idiotic, have no basis in reality, and serve no purpose.
And just about the only things from the GMS set i would seriously miss is the Play store (and maybe Maps, but there are likely to be options).
The rest are either fluff, annoying, or not usable outside of USA in the first place (hello big media).
Exactly. In fact the Google services glue is the only reason I flash Gapps on my phone – otherwise I would go for different set of apps, and practically from the whole set I only use Play store, Hangouts and Maps, albeit only former is something I have no replacement for currently.
Thom, I think the point is that whilst AOSP is still clearly open, AOSP and Android are diverging so rapidly that it’s starting to get difficult to say they’re the same OS. If the most popular applications written for one version of a platform will not work on another, and if the user experience is fundamentally different, are they really still the same OS? We’re not quite at that stage as yet, but with the ever-deepening integration of cloud features into Android, there’s a real chance that we’ll get there in a couple of releases.
I should stress that I’m not finding fault with Google. But I really did like Andy Rubin’s pithy definition of ‘open’, and I feel slightly sad that we’re getting to a point where if you issue those commands, you’ll end up with an OS that is no longer fully compatible with the OS Google actually ships to its commercial partners.
No, they’re really not. That’s why I think that any so-called Android device that doesn’t come with the Google suite of apps (ESPECIALLY the Play store) doesn’t really qualify. For example, the Kindle Fire is NOT an Android tablet – it’s an Amazon tablet running a bastardized Android hybrid.
And do you know what? That’s okay with me. To me, Google Play and GP services is sort of the glue that holds the whole thing together, and prevents Android from turning into the fragmented mess that is desktop Linux. I’m not really a fan of ‘open’ systems for the sake of them being open. I like a hybrid system like this, where one entity has a little control, that keeps things at least somewhat uniform between the various builds/vendors.
Edited 2014-02-14 00:40 UTC
Any device that can pass the compatibility suite is an Android based device. Kindle Fire does not pass that suite.
But technically any device that has no GMS will not have the permission to be named AndroidTM.
Nor should it, IMO. Some people may thing Google having proprietary hooks into the OS is a bad thing, but I do not. It keeps vendors from rewriting the whole damn thing so that only a fraction of the apps work, and still calling it Android. I suppose it would be possible to have the whole thing entirely open source, but forbidding certain modifications to keep things from breaking, but that’s really two sides of the same coin, in that either approach violates at least one of the ‘4 freedoms’.
Like Linus, I am more of a pragmatist when it comes to this sort of thing
Very good. At least you know to expect something different. Noone would like to find that out later.
Here is what I personally do not get…why is Thom and others waving that Google fanboi flag as hard as they can and getting upset when we have seen THIS EXACT SAME THING over and over AND OVER?
Company gets big, company becomes douchey…is this REALLY shocking to anybody here? Let me spell it out in simple terms that will hopefully make it clear as crystal, the only reason Google was nice before was they were on the bottom but they are not on the bottom anymore, are they? Now they have a duty to the stockholders to seek maximum rent and you can’t do that by giving the competition the tools to compete. think Google LIKES the Kindle? Not anymore than they liked those CCC tablets that removed their apps for some homebrew stuff.
At the end of the day when a company reaches the top they WILL become assholish and start doing any trick they can to insure that big fat money truck stays on course and they stay #1, we have seen this time and time and time again. And this isn’t a slight on Google, not like they are the first company to become assholish when they reached #1, I’m just pointing out that as threats to their dominane show up they WIL be more like late 90s MSFT than they will be the old “throw cool shit at the wal and se what sticks” company of old.
Oh and FYI, don’t know if this goes for outside the USA as well but GOG is giving away Dungeon Keeper Gold for free for 42 hours, link below, enjoy and happy VD.
<a href=”http://www.gog.com/“>GOG
Interesting you say this Thom. I’ve made similar statements in previous postings but you insisted that everybody falls victim to marketing & advertising whether they know it or not — that most people’s purchasing habits are not dictated by preference & value but rather their subconscious being spammed.
It’s not interesting at all. Just because people do not buy iOS devices solely based on marketing does not mean it does not play a role.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/02/13/uber_fanbois_begins_queuing… People never buy iPhones purely because of the marketing?
Edited 2014-02-14 13:51 UTC
That’s not what you said and you were very clear when you said, “So, let’s get this straight once and for all. People do not buy iPhone and iPads because of marketing or the Apple brand – they buy them because they’re genuinely good devices that are an optimal fit for many, many people.”
Since you didn’t agree when I previously said the same, what made you change your mind? Remember, you did argue against the idea.
Dianne Hackborn… what a last name.
“But… there is one they fear. In their tongue… she is ‘Rekkiin’ – Hackborn!” *skyrim music*
I wonder how often she hears about people joking about her last name, especially among the tech-savvy groups.
Daenerys Stormborn.
First, I want to say that I absolutely agree with most of Thom’s article. That original article on Ars had a quality I normally associate with lesser sites such as Gawker (or, dare I say it, Extremetech). The second Ars article (not linked by Thom), however, is on point. Aside from the snide jab: “Open comes with a lot of restrictions”, the article makes several points which Thom should give more credence to.
Firstly, it’s understandable that a lot of these licensing agreements are not “news”, but the documents are also the newest pieces of actual evidence we’ve got for these agreements. There’s a difference between facts and hearsay, and these are the facts for how Google deals with other companies.
Secondly, it is important to note that once you (as a large company) start using Android (vs AOSP) you are basically trapped forevermore. No one in your company can compete with Google’s services. This means that if you wanted to transition away from Android to AOSP or an AOSP fork, you would need to do it in one fell swoop, assuming you could do it at all.
This is likely why Samsung is building Tizen. It might even have preferred to work on AOSP apps, but it basically won’t be able to ship them. On Tizen it’s free to compete little by little with Google.
Thirdly, it is important to reiterate that AOSP is not a very community driven project. If Google don’t want your patches, AOSP won’t ever have those patches. If Amazon wanted to contribute patches back to AOSP, I don’t expect that they would be successful.
Finally, it is also important to realise that most people don’t interact with AOSP at all, rather with Android. So if they ask themselves “is Google spying on me?” the answer isn’t “well they can’t because Android is open”, it’s blurrier. If they ask “What features will I lose if I get Cyanogenmod” the answer is increasingly unclear. If they ask what apps they can run if they flash their phone, the answer is increasingly unclear.
Other comments here (and the article, too) are correctly identifying the divergence of AOSP and Android as operating systems. For me personally, I’m already looking to jump to one of the other communities which will be more open, more accepting, and have better relationships, such as Ubuntu, Jolla, OpenWebOS, or Firefox (or even Tizen). I wouldn’t want to start hacking on AOSP.
Edited 2014-02-14 04:23 UTC
How is that relevant (community-driven or not)? The point is that you can take the AOSP, drop in whatever you want and put it on your devices without the need to ‘sell your soul’ to Google.
Except many of the new APIs are only available via the Google services, so you also loose on the available applications.
Yes, but the point is how many of these “many APIs” are for proprietary Google services?
It depends on how you define “Google services”. The API for you to send data from *your* server to an Android device is in Google Play Services, not AOSP. This covers pushing notifications, sending messages upstream, everything. Is this a Google service? In technical terms, it very clearly is – the API passes the data through Google’s servers in order to get them onto the end-user’s phone. But when people hear “Google services”, they usually tend to think of consumer services like Gmail, Gchat or Google Maps, not low-level building blocks for applications which a consumer will neither see nor sign up to.
The situation with the Google Play Games Services is even more striking. This provides achievements, leaderboards and cloud save (enabling syncing of progress across devices). Any game relying on any of these features will simply not work on AOSP. Are these “Google services”? Again, they are in technical terms, but they’re not the sort of thing end-users will associate with “signing up for a Google service.” And the really striking thing is that Google supports these services on a range of platforms beyond Android – including iOS and even web games – but not AOSP.
The API? You mean one (particularly easy to use) API.
Same with Games Services. They interact with Google Accounts. Nothing prevents you from implementing your own achievements system, or using the web API.
Saying that apps running on AOSP without GMS cannot use pushing notifications or achievements in games would be disingenuous.
Oh, for crimmy’s sake. Yeah, sure. And you can write the whole thing to address controllers and devices directly and completely avoid using the OS’s APIs for interacting with them. Heck, you can write your own bootloader and OS kernel and avoid using the OS altogether. You don’t need any OS-provided API by that logic – nothing prevents you from implementing your own dialog box system.
The point is this. Google Android is moving in a direction that’s making interaction with online services as fundamental a part of the OS and its programming framework as interaction with the device’s hardware. This is how the OS is being designed, and this is how it’s going to evolve. We are getting to a stage where interaction with online services is as fundamental a part of an OS’s programming framework as interaction with the graphic module or the audio codec. If in such a world you have to reimplement virtually all APIs that entail interaction with online services, you’ve ended up with an OS that is no longer compatible with Google Android, because programs written for Google Android won’t run on it. An OS, many of whose core APIs are cordoned off and unavailable in the open-source version, is not an open OS. It may be built on top of an open OS, but it’s a different OS from that open OS. Android is already almost at that stage, and Ars Technica are completely correct to draw attention to the fact that this is where Google is going.
This doesn’t mean that AOSP not useful, or is a poor OS, or any such thing. It just means that we need to recognise that AOSP and Android are becoming two different things, and that we can’t call Android open just because AOSP is open. This is not an issue of semantics. As Ben Edelman points out in the piece* on which Ars was drawing, this has a range of legal implications – not least in terms of competition / antitrust law – which have been glossed over until now because of the “Android is open” argument, but which can’t be ignored if that no longer holds.
[*] http://www.benedelman.org/news/021314-1.html
This reads like you didn’t read Diane Hackborn’s rebuttal.
I love how Amazon provides us with nice counterexamples for all those uninformed opinions about how GMS is necessary and AOSP without it is useless.
Push notification via Amazon Device Messaging:
https://developer.amazon.com/public/apis/engage/device-messaging
Achievements and game progress tracking with Amazon GameCircle:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?docId=1000807511
Certainly, Amazon did not write any code to address controllers and devices directly.
Interaction with online services is easily possible and necessary, and only interaction with Google services is done through proprietary code.
Chithanh, you didn’t even read my post, did you? If you did, I don’t see how you could have missed this:
or this:
This is demonstrably true. Many games written for Google Android will not run on the Kindle Fire. An even better example is Ouya, which has had to run promotions to get game devs to code for their OS, because games written for Google Android will not run on an AOSP based OS. WHICH IS THE PRECISE POINT I HAVE BEEN MAKING!
Ach, I’m sick of this. You can have the last word.
oskeladden,
I agree with you, it is a legitimate concern that the proprietary bits being added by google are causing applications to break on the open source versions of AOSP.
The right thing for google to do, if they aren’t willing to open source the proprietary bits, would be to put the proprietary bits behind a vendor neutral open source API for others to implement. Otherwise we can conclude they’re knowingly (if not deliberately) fragmenting the apps to work on Android but not AOSP.
Diane Hackborn’s post, while rightfully correcting misinformation in the arttechnica article, has it’s own bias and didn’t do a convincing job (to me) that google isn’t trying to fragment AOSP using proprietary web service bits. Surely they are smart enough to know that their proprietary bits are *effectively* causing fragmentation of the platform.
From a business perspective I understand where google is coming from, they want to use proprietary bits to promote & differentiate their services. Otherwise, if others were 100% compatible, there would be far less motive to use google’s services in the first place, which is obviously bad for google. However the exact same could be said about microsoft’s method of embracing, enhancing, extinguishing myriads of protocols/formats/standards. The circumstances are a bit different, but there are similarities and the result is largely the same: fragmentation keeping the market dependent upon one’s own implementations.
Edited 2014-02-14 16:23 UTC
Weren’t those promotions to get developers to release timed exclusives for Ouya? (ie. not available on any other device for 6 months).
Facebook also provide game progress tracking…
Most, but all you’ve done is restate the problem in question form to say exactly what others are saying:
Many of the most useful APIs that an OEM would want access to our Google proprietary APIs. Yes. Your point?
Why so? The things that matter for company are pretty simple: mail, contacts, calendar (agenda), probably GPS tracking. All these services can be deployed from readily available software in a couple of hours (including thorough testing).
I use Android without gapps, and using my own VPS (or “cloud” if you slavishly follow all the latest buzz words) and FOSS I basically have all the functionality of Android + gapps…
All this BS is just that same as the fragmentation myth – my Fiancée run’s Gingerbread with many of the same apps I do, guess what she really can’t understand it when I attempt to explain the fragmentation myth…!
What is all boils down to is the same reason for the patent attacks – if you can’t compete then CHEAT, LIE and do ANYTHING to smear the reputation of the competition – all it really does is show the poor attitude and desperation of the “competition”
Why attempt to strive for 100% share when getting it would be counter productive and it will never happen anyway – oh silly me “common” sense again…
Edited 2014-02-14 06:50 UTC
As far I understand the contracts leaked:
* the Android OS is open
* the usage of the Android logo is restricted
But, this is old news.
Greetings,
pica
Exactly the first article was Ars making a huge reach to try and argue a pointless topic. The second is just click bait with information that virtually everyone familiar with Android already knows. Ars Technica has really gone downhill, I’m not sure if they are just looking for page views or someone there just really doesn’t like Android.
Since very early on Android has contained proprietary Google apps. They have always been separate and complimentary, and not essential, to the AOSP base. The amount of Google apps has grown(not surprising) and Google has created a separate app that contains shared code(Google play services) that others can even use. Of course Google would like everyone to use their services, this is not news. The beauty of Android is that others(like Microsoft) could make their own app that contains plugins and ties to their services. How is this “locking down” or making Android less open?
Google owns the name Android and makes an agreement that if you want to use their propitiatory name and services you have to use it properly. Again how is this news?
Because Google is tying more and more of the low end through the proprietary wall so its no longer “write once run anywhere” but “Write for Google, Android, ASOP” and guess which one of those three gets left out often?
But don’t take my word for it, load ASOP onto a device you have and try loading the top 20 off the Playstore and see for yourself. its really not hard to do, just download them from the Playstore onto an Android device and copy the .APKs.
I have a feeling you’ll find that quite a few don’t work and this is why it very much IS a problem and DOES make the platform less open, because what good is having the code if the apps don’t run? after all by that logic the TiVo is “open” because they give you the code,never mind you can’t do anything with it.
At the end of the day the ASOP is worthless if Android apps won’t run without major porting, and this is a serious problem that I have a feeling will only get worse as more competition enters the market and Google tries to lock in their place at the top of the heap. Remember friends, with Google products you are NOT the customer, you are THE PRODUCT and if they can’t lock down those eyeballs,make sure those ads aren’t blocked, and gather that data? Then that is tens of millions of profits right down the drain. So just like every corp that has reached #1 they will do whatever it takes, ethical or not, to continue to dominate the market.
Surprised nobody has mentioned the “new launcher” thing (available in the Nexus 5) which is proprietary and not in AOSP.
So, the argument that GMS is only for accessing Google’s services became invalid with KitKat. Now, fundamental parts of the OS are shoved under Google Mobile Services, while the corresponding AOSP versions will be left to rot just like the stock android browser was.
Edited 2014-02-14 12:38 UTC
How is the standard launcher “rotting”? The nexus 7 still uses it, it’s still in AOSP. Just because Google has made a proprietary version(to incorporate Google now) doesn’t mean the AOSP version is junk. The Nexus 5 version is simply the AOSP version with Google now incorporated. Most third party launchers are based on the AOSP launcher, would you call them rotting?
Thom, i appreciate your enthusiasm, but there’s no point posting stuff that’s common-knowledge
I defend his decision on this one. Recently (since the nokia android rumour) there have been a lot of ‘half truth’ articles floating around. Its by no means a bad idea to remind people of the known truths we take for granted.
On the Internet no-one can hear your facts.
Android has an open “core” of functionality but is basically useless without Google’s non-open apps like the Google Play Store, Maps, etc.
This is similar to Apple’s OSX which has an open kernel.
The difference is that when Apple goes around saying their OS runs on an open kernel they’re explicit about it only being the kernel that is open.
The problem with Android now is the definition. Similar to the problem with Linux a while back and lead to the term GNU/Linux.
Should we start referring to these devices as Google/Android/Linux devices where Android and Linux may be open and free but Google’s stuff isn’t.
You are either trolling or completely ignorant. I can flash Android on my HP touchpad, not install Google apps and still have a 100% working device. I can install a third party app store or just apks. Tell me how OSX’s kernel is anything like that at all? It’s like comparing a complete car without XM radio to an engine.
So lots of things that make Android well Android is missing, but Android is still open.
I wonder if the same will be said when they just post the modified Linux kernel.
Bright’s article, which Hackborn did not “tear to shreds” but rather received with familiar defensiveness about Google’s precious good intentions and not-being-evil, was about how it would be completely unproductive to fork AOSP, because it wouldn’t give Microsoft any technology they haven’t already built themselves and it wouldn’t grant any compatibility with actual Android apps that exist, full stop.
In order to get compatibility with actual Android apps that exist, you have to buy into the entire Google ecosystem, all strings attached, including a mandatory (for both OEM and user) installation of the Google+ app that no one wants and a clause forbidding your company from using AOSP in any other ways.
Bright’s completely un-torn-to-shreds article correctly points out that Android without Google’s full suite of “added” value is nothing recognizable as Android, and the fact is that no part of GMS is open: not the code, not the terms, not the updates, not the review process.
These newly released licensing terms additionally make it clear that Android’s dependence on Google is no accident or technical necessity, as Hackborn would have you believe. Android OEMs are not “free” to decline to incorporate Google+ or to use Skyhook for location services, because Google makes it mandatory that you align your phone’s function completely with Google’s apps, services, and vision, and that you not simultaneously leverage AOSP into any less-Googly alternatives. You can argue that that’s fair as a form of payment, but not in the same breath as you argue that Androidâ„¢ is open.