3 ms·

Because Google has almost completely stopped pushing things to AOSP and instead keeps all the goodies locked under their proprietary apps. There is no AOSP for

by jbiddy 11y ago

Because Google has almost completely stopped pushing things to AOSP and instead keeps all the goodies locked under their proprietary apps. There is no AOSP for their "Okay, Google" stuff for instance. Most Google AOSP functionality is stuck in Android 2.x days.

criddell 11y ago
I don't think that argument makes any sense. The options seem to be write everything from scratch or take AOSP and write only the services. The latter option makes a lot more sense to me.
- ocdtrekkie 11y ago
  The biggest problem with forking Android is that all of the apps will be developed for Google's flavor of Android. Which generally means you need to try to remain compatible with it, with ends with "you have to follow Google's development direction". And Google's development direction, of course, is selected by Google's business interests.
  - criddell 11y ago
    > Which generally means you need to try to remain compatible with it, with ends with "you have to follow Google's development direction" You certainly don't need to do any of that. Amazon didn't do that and they have a pretty successful line of tablets. Even their crappy phone was far better than the Firefox OS phone. Firefox could fork AOSP, break compatibility (if they want), rename it, and never look back. If they did this, they would be far ahead of where they are right now with Firefox OS.
    - ocdtrekkie 11y ago
      Amazon DOES have to do that. Each version of their OS is based on a version of Google's version of Android. And they have to follow Google in re-implementing every Google API as an Amazon API as quickly as possible so they don't lose compatibility with apps.
      - criddell 11y ago
        Good point. Still, any AOSP fork needs to track Google's version only if they want to run applications built for Google's version of Android. The first iteration of Firefox's mobile OS didn't run any Android apps so it would be no loss if their fork of AOSP also didn't run Android apps. That's why I would suggest renaming so that people don't think they can install Android apps.
        ocdtrekkie 11y ago
        The question then is... why would you build on Android? It's not exactly the zippiest platform around these days. The primary pain point for alternative platforms like Windows Phone or any other "third OS" is the lack of apps. Which is the case for keeping compatibility. If you're going to drop it, why not at least focus on a more performant core to your platform? Also, currently Android has been ruled as copyright infringement from Oracle over Java APIs. It may be advisable to avoid building your own new OS on those same APIs.
        criddell 11y ago
        > It's not exactly the zippiest platform around these days. It's zippy enough, especially when you look at all the different platforms it works on. It's pretty far behind iOS, but then iOS has only a few platforms to worry about. Android is probably good enough especially when you factor in power consumption. In the end though, it's all about trade-offs. Going with an Android fork gives you a pretty solid base to build off of. It's a nice option for app developers because the tools for Android development are excellent and the OS is well understood.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]

by jbiddy 11y ago

criddell 11y ago

I don't think that argument makes any sense. The options seem to be write everything from scratch or take AOSP and write only the services. The latter option makes a lot more sense to me.

ocdtrekkie 11y ago
The biggest problem with forking Android is that all of the apps will be developed for Google's flavor of Android. Which generally means you need to try to remain compatible with it, with ends with "you have to follow Google's development direction". And Google's development direction, of course, is selected by Google's business interests.
- criddell 11y ago
  > Which generally means you need to try to remain compatible with it, with ends with "you have to follow Google's development direction" You certainly don't need to do any of that. Amazon didn't do that and they have a pretty successful line of tablets. Even their crappy phone was far better than the Firefox OS phone. Firefox could fork AOSP, break compatibility (if they want), rename it, and never look back. If they did this, they would be far ahead of where they are right now with Firefox OS.
  - ocdtrekkie 11y ago
    Amazon DOES have to do that. Each version of their OS is based on a version of Google's version of Android. And they have to follow Google in re-implementing every Google API as an Amazon API as quickly as possible so they don't lose compatibility with apps.
    - criddell 11y ago
      Good point. Still, any AOSP fork needs to track Google's version only if they want to run applications built for Google's version of Android. The first iteration of Firefox's mobile OS didn't run any Android apps so it would be no loss if their fork of AOSP also didn't run Android apps. That's why I would suggest renaming so that people don't think they can install Android apps.
      - ocdtrekkie 11y ago
        The question then is... why would you build on Android? It's not exactly the zippiest platform around these days. The primary pain point for alternative platforms like Windows Phone or any other "third OS" is the lack of apps. Which is the case for keeping compatibility. If you're going to drop it, why not at least focus on a more performant core to your platform? Also, currently Android has been ruled as copyright infringement from Oracle over Java APIs. It may be advisable to avoid building your own new OS on those same APIs.
        criddell 11y ago
        > It's not exactly the zippiest platform around these days. It's zippy enough, especially when you look at all the different platforms it works on. It's pretty far behind iOS, but then iOS has only a few platforms to worry about. Android is probably good enough especially when you factor in power consumption. In the end though, it's all about trade-offs. Going with an Android fork gives you a pretty solid base to build off of. It's a nice option for app developers because the tools for Android development are excellent and the OS is well understood.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]