Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 21st Oct 2013 22:15 UTC, submitted by ddc_

Ars Technica has a great article about what, exactly, Google is doing to retain (or retake) control over Android. Many things were already known, and have, in fact, been discussed here before. For instance, the Open Handset Alliance prohibits its members from forking Android or using other companies' forks. This had been known for a long time, and has always been an important aspect of the OHA - its goal is to prevent the fragmentation of Android, after all. Another thing we've always known is that the Google Applications - like YouTube and such - have always been closed source, and that a license is required to use them (they are freely available though, and Android is completely usable about them.

There are two bigger problems, however. First, the more Google moves parts of Android to Google Play (such as the keyboard or calendar), the less open source Android becomes.

For some of these apps, there might still be an AOSP equivalent, but as soon as the proprietary version was launched, all work on the AOSP version was stopped. Less open source code means more work for Google's competitors. While you can't kill an open source app, you can turn it into abandonware by moving all continuing development to a closed source model. Just about any time Google rebrands an app or releases a new piece of Android onto the Play Store, it's a sign that the source has been closed and the AOSP version is dead.

There's definitely an opportunity here for groups like CyanogenMod - and in fact, that's exactly what's happening. For instance, CM has created the camera application Focal, which is available in the Play Store. In other words, most of the Google Applications can be recreated and improved upon easily, after which they can be placed in the Play Store. An exception, of course, is the Play Store application itself, but even that one has alternatives, such as the Amazon App Store.

A bigger problem, however, are the Google Play Services. This is an Android application - closed source - that provides developers with access to a whole bunch of Google's APIs. It's becoming more and more mandatory.

Taking the Android app ecosystem from Google seems easy: just get your own app store up and running, convince developers to upload their apps to it, and you're on your way. But the Google APIs that ship with Play Services are out to stop this by convincing developers to weave dependence on Google into their apps. Google's strategy with Google Play Services is to turn the "Android App Ecosystem" into the "Google Play Ecosystem" by making a developer's life as easy as possible on a Google-approved device - and as difficult as possible on a non-Google-approved device.

In other words, there's a lot going on at Google to prevent more forks, such as Kindle Fire, from happening. I had no issues with Google's own applications being closed source (you can easily replace them), but the Play Services are a much bigger issue. As more and more applications adopt Play Services, the harder it'll become to run Android 'Google free' - and that's not exactly an ideal situation.

Thread beginning with comment 575295
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
At the end of the day
by BallmerKnowsBest on Wed 23rd Oct 2013 15:18 UTC
Member since:

Google does some things that are deserving of criticism, there's no doubt about that. But if you skim through the comments on this article, it quickly becomes apparent that the loudest and shrillest voices whining about Google are also the most active members of the local Apple Defense Brigade. In other words, people with a clear agenda to criticize Google at every opportunity, solely because they see it as a threat to Apple - not people expressing genuine concerns and complaints.

The amusing part is that the over-zealousness of the iFanboys/Google anti-fanboys will likely have a "boy who cried wolf" effect. People are desensitized after 3-4 years of Apple apologists going into orgies of "but.... but.... but..." breathless hand-waving over every action Google has taken, so now they're less likely to care about actual problems.

Good job, guys!

Reply Score: 4

RE: At the end of the day
by ari-free on Wed 23rd Oct 2013 18:04 in reply to "At the end of the day"
ari-free Member since:

I take any open source I can get and as long as Android is more open than Windows or Apple, I will go with Google, even if it doesn't meet RMS' lofty standards.

Reply Parent Score: 2

BallmerKnowsBest Member since:

I take any open source I can get and as long as Android is more open than Windows or Apple, I will go with Google, even if it doesn't meet RMS' lofty standards.

Yep, and that's the other absurd part of it: no matter how much time & effort the iFanboys spend pointing out parts of Android that aren't open, the simple fact of the matter is that it's still more open than iOS. So if lack of openness is something to be abhorred, then iOS is infinitely worse than Android (hypothetically, of course, since Apple apologists would need to understand the concept of "intellectual consistency" to come to that conclusion).

Watching iFanboys complain about Android not being 100% open is ridiculous, in the same way that it's ridiculous to watch creationists trying to complain that "evolution is a religion."

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: At the end of the day
by spikeb on Fri 25th Oct 2013 14:28 in reply to "At the end of the day"
spikeb Member since:

sure, some of the anti defamation league for apple(TM) cries wolf. but the fact remains that google is 1) big and 2) bad. Apple is not a viable alternative to that, however. Nor is MS.

Reply Parent Score: 2