Linked by the_randymon on Tue 29th Jan 2013 01:23 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless "Samsung's recent Android 4.1.2 upgrade for the Galaxy Note 10.1 adds power and flexibility to the company's unique offering of Android multiwindowing features. With this update, the Galaxy Note 10.1 can run up to 16 multiwindow-enabled Android apps at once, Windows/Mac-like, on a single screen. Apps endowed with Samsung's multiwindow technology are usable in three viewing modes: full screen, dual view, and cascade view." There are already some complaining this represents a dangerous fork of Android. I thinks it's a step in the right direction.
Thread beginning with comment 550744
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: Comment by Laurence
by some1 on Tue 29th Jan 2013 16:39 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by Laurence"
Member since:

Not really. Eg Chrome/WebKit is LGPL.

Chrome is not a part of Android platform. It's an optional Google app. IIUC, anyone can write and distribute GPL and LGPL apps via Play store.

So, what would be the advantages to not opensource?

Ask on Apple forum :-)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[10]: Comment by Laurence
by cdude on Wed 30th Jan 2013 09:44 in reply to "RE[9]: Comment by Laurence"
cdude Member since:

Chrome is not a part of Android platform.

Chrome-WebKit and Chrome-V8 are even very central parts of the core libraries. See

It's an optional Google app.

Only the Chrome shell is. The Chrome-variant of WebKit and the V8 Javascript-interpreter are core components. They are also exposed through Android API to allow to write all kind if different UI-shells on top, to give platform support to Javascript, WebGL, SVG, etc.

"So, what would be the advantages to not opensource?

Ask on Apple forum :-)

That answer isn't even close related to my question. It may if your point is that it prevents others from using your software too to make products. But that was never ever a goal for Android. Google didn't even had any consumer products based on Android. It was much later Google came in to make Nexus (which they not make themselfs too) and even later when they took over Moto (where patents where the driving force and not necessarly Android consumer devices). From the beginning, when the OHA was formed, the concept was to focus on the service-side and have partners to make the actual products. Services are Google's core-business, where they made the money, not selling devices. Very different from Apple.

All in all you seem to agree that there is NO single advantage in not open-sourcing for Google but there are lots of advantages in open-sourcing Android.

Edited 2013-01-30 09:48 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[11]: Comment by Laurence
by Havin_it on Wed 30th Jan 2013 17:13 in reply to "RE[10]: Comment by Laurence"
Havin_it Member since:


Sorry to go off-topic but please study a little more on the correct usages of

1) there / their / they're
2) where / were

because reading your posts above was genuinely painful.

There's more, but I appreciate you're probably not a native speaker and I don't want to be *that* much of an asshole.


Reply Parent Score: 3