5 ms·

What's most striking to me is how easily this could have been avoided, everybody knew what liabilities would arise from betting your entire mobile platform on t

by Udo 10y ago

What's most striking to me is how easily this could have been avoided, everybody knew what liabilities would arise from betting your entire mobile platform on the goodwill of a competitor. With the massively overqualified talent pool Google hoards, they could absolutely have implemented a completely new language, compiler, and VM themselves. I'm sure this alternative must have been at least on the table. Does anyone with insider info know what the reasoning was behind that decision?

mikekchar 10y ago
I'm not an insider, but I think the decision making is pretty clear: they bought Android (the company). They could have started something from scratch, but they felt they could get to the market faster buying up a company that was already part of the way there. Android could easily have been built on the GPLed version of Java. But again the reasoning behind the decision of building your own JVM is pretty clear: Android wanted someone to buy their company and felt that the GPL might make the sale difficult. Of course with Google buying, they probably wouldn't have cared, but by the time Google was doing the buying, the decision was already made. Pretty typical story.
- monocasa 10y ago
  Also, the GPL version of Java wasn't available when Google bought Android.
iwwr 10y ago
If anything, Google's desire to reinvent the world has held them back here. They could have just forked OpenJDK and made their lives easier, in retrospect. Into this went their irrational fear of GPL (describing it as 'viral' or 'infectious'). The fact remains that not even Google can reinvent the world in their image. Building a whole new language at the same time as a legacy-prone ecosystem requires too many moving pieces to fit together quickly. They picked some middle ground, java allowed them to tap into the large java talent pool (then and now). Reinventing the guts allowed their ambitious engineers to show off, which they did, but maybe not as effectively as if they'd built on top of the work of others.
- Manishearth 10y ago
  > Into this went their irrational fear of GPL (describing it as 'viral' or 'infectious'). Why irrational? If they used the GPL, a lot more of Android would need to be open source today, yes? Including proprietary hardware things that can't be open sourced?
  - aries1980 10y ago
    This is not true. You could link the libraries as normal while maintaining your proprietary code. The GPL only asks you to release the code if a) you mix your proprietary code without separation from the GPL code b) you distribute the software to 3rd party. b) rarely happens if you sell the device as a closed/embedded system. Also, they could use BSD code as well that comes with a more permissive MIT licence.
    - bluesilver07 10y ago
      This is not true. Only the LGPL allows you to link to an open source library. That is why OpenJDK has a classpath exception (http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/119436/what-does-gpl-with-classpath-exception-mean-in-practice http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/119436/what-d...). GPL requires you to release the source code to the customer of your software upon request. The person who buys the phone is the customer.
      - aries1980 10y ago
        Correct in some way. Given the source code, e.g. Drupal (GPL v2), if you develop a proprietary module that can be shipped independently but relies on the Drupal Core or other GPL module, you still not violate GPL. It doesn't matter you need to compile it or not, at the end, most scripting language is compiled to bytecode in some for of JIT. I mentioned GPL in general, not dissecting to the various version, because the parent reply was about Google's fear of GPL (in general).
  - curt15 10y ago
    OpenJDK was not pure GPL but rather GPL+classpath exception.
baldfat 10y ago
Android's success was that its foundations was something the community knew. Java was either #1 or #2 of most popular language and their was a vast mind share that could be utilized. A new language for a new mobile platform would have been disastrous. Could you imagine someone saying her is our phone everyone learn it and make great apps for launch in 6 months?
- mseebach 10y ago
  You mean, like Objective-C was disastrous for the iPhone?
  - goldbrick 10y ago
    Umm, Objective-C wasn't a new language for the iPhone.
  - allemagne 10y ago
    Apple had the luxury of being the first to sell smartphones, they could do it in whatever language they wanted. Android could never have tried to do the same thing.
    - hammock 10y ago
      Apple were not the first smartphones. Without even nitpicking on Palm, etc, you're forgetting Blackberry.
      - dekhn 10y ago
        I wouldn't call the blackberries smartphones. They were feature phones where one of the features was a proprietary email system.
        scholia 10y ago
        There were touch-screen smartphones with no keyboards before the iPhone... http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/O2-Unveils-Xda-Orbit-Smartphone http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/O2-Unveils-Xda-Orbit-Smar...

by Udo 10y ago

mikekchar 10y ago

I'm not an insider, but I think the decision making is pretty clear: they bought Android (the company). They could have started something from scratch, but they felt they could get to the market faster buying up a company that was already part of the way there. Android could easily have been built on the GPLed version of Java. But again the reasoning behind the decision of building your own JVM is pretty clear: Android wanted someone to buy their company and felt that the GPL might make the sale difficult. Of course with Google buying, they probably wouldn't have cared, but by the time Google was doing the buying, the decision was already made. Pretty typical story.

monocasa 10y ago
Also, the GPL version of Java wasn't available when Google bought Android.

iwwr 10y ago

If anything, Google's desire to reinvent the world has held them back here. They could have just forked OpenJDK and made their lives easier, in retrospect. Into this went their irrational fear of GPL (describing it as 'viral' or 'infectious'). The fact remains that not even Google can reinvent the world in their image. Building a whole new language at the same time as a legacy-prone ecosystem requires too many moving pieces to fit together quickly. They picked some middle ground, java allowed them to tap into the large java talent pool (then and now). Reinventing the guts allowed their ambitious engineers to show off, which they did, but maybe not as effectively as if they'd built on top of the work of others.

Manishearth 10y ago
> Into this went their irrational fear of GPL (describing it as 'viral' or 'infectious'). Why irrational? If they used the GPL, a lot more of Android would need to be open source today, yes? Including proprietary hardware things that can't be open sourced?
- aries1980 10y ago
  This is not true. You could link the libraries as normal while maintaining your proprietary code. The GPL only asks you to release the code if a) you mix your proprietary code without separation from the GPL code b) you distribute the software to 3rd party. b) rarely happens if you sell the device as a closed/embedded system. Also, they could use BSD code as well that comes with a more permissive MIT licence.
  - bluesilver07 10y ago
    This is not true. Only the LGPL allows you to link to an open source library. That is why OpenJDK has a classpath exception (http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/119436/what-does-gpl-with-classpath-exception-mean-in-practice http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/119436/what-d...). GPL requires you to release the source code to the customer of your software upon request. The person who buys the phone is the customer.
    - aries1980 10y ago
      Correct in some way. Given the source code, e.g. Drupal (GPL v2), if you develop a proprietary module that can be shipped independently but relies on the Drupal Core or other GPL module, you still not violate GPL. It doesn't matter you need to compile it or not, at the end, most scripting language is compiled to bytecode in some for of JIT. I mentioned GPL in general, not dissecting to the various version, because the parent reply was about Google's fear of GPL (in general).
- curt15 10y ago
  OpenJDK was not pure GPL but rather GPL+classpath exception.

baldfat 10y ago

Android's success was that its foundations was something the community knew. Java was either #1 or #2 of most popular language and their was a vast mind share that could be utilized. A new language for a new mobile platform would have been disastrous. Could you imagine someone saying her is our phone everyone learn it and make great apps for launch in 6 months?

mseebach 10y ago
You mean, like Objective-C was disastrous for the iPhone?
- goldbrick 10y ago
  Umm, Objective-C wasn't a new language for the iPhone.
- allemagne 10y ago
  Apple had the luxury of being the first to sell smartphones, they could do it in whatever language they wanted. Android could never have tried to do the same thing.
  - hammock 10y ago
    Apple were not the first smartphones. Without even nitpicking on Palm, etc, you're forgetting Blackberry.
    - dekhn 10y ago
      I wouldn't call the blackberries smartphones. They were feature phones where one of the features was a proprietary email system.
      - scholia 10y ago
        There were touch-screen smartphones with no keyboards before the iPhone... http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/O2-Unveils-Xda-Orbit-Smartphone http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/O2-Unveils-Xda-Orbit-Smar...