5 ms·

Hmm... so effectively Android is no longer open.

• ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  It is a challenging definition, but I would argue that it is not. Because while the core OS is open, you are not effectively able to fork it. Google's developer advocates heavily encourages the use of proprietary Google APIs in app development, which binds those apps to Google's proprietary packages. I guess the question is how you define a platform or an operating system, but I think that the platform apps on it run off of is a major part of it. And the difference in what will run on AOSP and what will run on Google Play flavored Android is staggering.
  • cm3 10y ago
    Is there a page to check what popular app does not work on F-Droid or Cyanogen? Say something like Nokia's mapping app.
    • ocdtrekkie 10y ago
      I don't know, but please tell me if you find one. I have F-Droid and Play on my phone, and disabled Google Play Services to see how many of the apps I have installed and use continued to work. Many gave me "must update Play Services" dialogs, some just crashed outright. I've been trying to transition to open apps or apps available outside the Play Store, but unfortunately, Skype is one need I can't work around right now.
      • cm3 10y ago
        I suppose Skype might work in a mobile browser via WebRTC, but from what I gather it's not there yet.
    • dublinben 10y ago
      You can be pretty certain that any free software apps found in F-Droid will not require proprietary Google APIs. Every other app in the Play Store can be assumed to require them.
• pjmlp 10y ago
  It was never really open. And even though it uses Linux as kernel, even that doesn't matter. The API surface that NDK code is allowed to use is so constrained that they could replace the kernel with something else and only OEMs would notice.
• Zigurd 10y ago
  It's open enough that direct competitors, like Amazon, for example, can base their own OSs that have their own ecosystems on AOSP. Google could be more open. But there isn't any evidence the parts of Android that are not open are not open in order to stop open or even competitive semi-closed Android derivatives. They are open enough enable competitors to use the same technology platform, including some very valuable technologies like the ART compilers. If they intended to lock out competitors, they could easily have done so.
  • ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    No, it's actually so closed that only Amazon-scale competitors can make viable forks. Samsung is maybe the only other company with the scale and scope to accomplish that, which is why Google has entered into some special arrangements with them.
    • Zigurd 10y ago
      Viable platforms require viable ecosystems. I don't see how you can get around that fact. That's what sets the lower bound for scale. If you do not have a an ecosystem that's comparable or, alternatively, sufficiently non-overlapping then you can't compete. Amazon's OS crew is relatively small. Samsung can't compete because there is no viable Samsung ecosystem, and Samsung has not aligned with an ecosystem partner other than Google.
      • ocdtrekkie 10y ago
        This is false if Android is an open platform. Because then it's "viable" by the very nature that tons of apps exist for it. The problem is that Google is creating a walled garden, to prevent competing app stores. Apps developed on Android could be easily listed, downloaded, and installed on any flavor of Android. Samsung, Amazon, etc. could all have their app stores, and developers could script a simple command to update their apps everywhere. However, by creating a proprietary layer like Play Services, Google has effectively made a proprietary fork of Android the dominant one, requiring different levels of effort to support non-Google phones.