6 ms·

AOSP may be open, but on its own it is a skeleton of a OS. Most of the magic in Android today is housed in Play Services, one of two things Google can push an

AOSP may be open, but on its own it is a skeleton of a OS. Most of the magic in Android today is housed in Play Services, one of two things Google can push an update for (the other being the Play store app) without any dialog or concent from the device user.

gtirloni 10y ago
I'd say the majority of end users are not particularly knowledgeable about Google Play Services and the Store app to make an informed decision on whether to accept or not an update.
- JBiserkov 10y ago
  I think I agree... and that is a huge problem! The same can be said about Windows Update. Or any computing topic in particular! Which is an even bigger problem.
rtkwe 10y ago
That's kind of a demon of necessity though. Originally they did things more in the base OS but getting manufacturers to actually push updates was horrible. Now they can do bug, (minor) security and feature updates through a side channel that bypasses the carriers who don't want to update their older phones when people might go buy new ones instead.
- digi_owl 10y ago
  Thing is though that is proprietary to Google, anyone wanting to use AOSP for their own has to clone the APIs. This makes a lie of the whole notion that Android is open source. Yes, the skeleton is open, but the guts are proprietary. And the skeleton on its own is useless.
  - beaner 10y ago
    What makes it useless?
    - WorldMaker 10y ago
      Look at the efforts that Amazon continues to invest in Fire, and CyanogenMod (the Company that Went Bankrupt as opposed to the jailbreak mod that still mostly exists) tried to invest in a Play Store/Play Services competitor, and Samsung is trying to invest in its efforts while also trying to be stealthy about it in its current Cold War with Google... Android (AOSP) forks are numerous, yet competing with Play Store/Play Services seems expensive and onerous. Nontechnical consumers don't see Amazon's Fire as Android, just an Android-like system that runs many Android apps. Nontechnical consumers thought the same about CyanogenMod (the Company)'s efforts. Samsung's Cold War seems so desperate, from the outside, because they are trying to walk that fine line between remaining a consumer Android and yet still distance themselves from Google's control.
      - maverick_iceman 10y ago
        AOSP forks seem alive and well in China. But yes, in rest of the world non-Google Android is struggling.
        WorldMaker 10y ago
        I'm curious how many of the Chinese forks label themselves as "Android" and if the Chinese have a different mental model of what "Android" means. Without any first hand knowledge, I'd assume that the balance of things towards WeChat and away from Play Store/Play Services in China might mean that "Android" really does mean something different in Chinese markets? It's easier to sell an "Android" device if the benchmark is "runs WeChat" rather than "runs the apps I see advertised everywhere" (given the near ubiquity of Play Store emblems on American ads) and "runs the collection of apps I've bought over the last few years from the Play Store".
        oefrha 10y ago
- iainmerrick 10y ago
  There's no technical necessity for it to be closed source, though. That's a business decision.
  - s73ver 10y ago
    I imagine the bits that to talk to Google's servers need to be.
    - dpark 10y ago
      I imagine that's a purely business decision since Google owns the code and can open-source it if they wish. There's no reason that the code to talk to Google's servers needs to be closed source.
      - geodel 10y ago
        One reason is API change. For closed source solution they do not have to worry about API changes but open Android has to have much more elaborate API deprecation and change process.
        codys 10y ago
        That isn't true. Nothing about open source requires that they in any way stabilize their web-side APIs, the process they would follow could be the same as their binary releases, just with open source code released at the same time.
        s73ver 10y ago
        In theory that's true, but in practice, not so much. Even if they told people to not use those APIs, that they're not stable, people would still use them, based on the open source they saw. And then they would change, and people would be mad. This is assuming that Google wants people to see and be able to use these APIs in the first place.
- ksk 10y ago
  Well, for one they got manufacturers to adopt Google branding for Android phones, but then we're led to believe that getting them to update on time was hard. But from Google's POV, the only "necessity" here is that Google gets your data and tracks you.
  - dpark 10y ago
    > but then we're led to believe that getting them to update on time was hard "Led to believe"? Is there any dispute about the fact that most Android manufacturers deliver major updates very slowly and often not at all?
    - ksk 10y ago
      So apparently "phone manufacturer must preload all Google applications" and "phone manufacturer must set Google as default search engine", and "Google network service must be preloaded" made it in the contract, but "phone manufacturer must update the phone" didn't. Those sneaky phone manufacturers !!
      - mattnewton 10y ago
        Those things you listen actually make less work for the manufacturers, and speedy updates make more work - that solves the mystery for me at least.
        ksk 10y ago
        Oh, its not a mystery at all. Its just odd to come across people (in general, not you) who still think an advertising company would care all that much about their users (who are not their customers anyway). But yes, they're quite far from being the worst in this aspect.
        mattnewton 10y ago
        Well I'm guilty of that same conception too. Why are the two at odds? Google wants to own the best platform for users out there. Engineers want to work on the best, app developers want to work on the best, and users want to use the best they can afford.
s73ver 10y ago
Or the device maker and network provider, both were the bottlenecks in pushing out updates.
codys 10y ago
> one of two things Google can push an update for [...] without any dialog or concent One of the two things Google _chooses_ to do this for. Nothing prevents them from doing the same thing for other pieces of software, except, perhaps, their own policy.

gtirloni 10y ago

I'd say the majority of end users are not particularly knowledgeable about Google Play Services and the Store app to make an informed decision on whether to accept or not an update.

JBiserkov 10y ago
I think I agree... and that is a huge problem! The same can be said about Windows Update. Or any computing topic in particular! Which is an even bigger problem.

rtkwe 10y ago

That's kind of a demon of necessity though. Originally they did things more in the base OS but getting manufacturers to actually push updates was horrible. Now they can do bug, (minor) security and feature updates through a side channel that bypasses the carriers who don't want to update their older phones when people might go buy new ones instead.

digi_owl 10y ago
Thing is though that is proprietary to Google, anyone wanting to use AOSP for their own has to clone the APIs. This makes a lie of the whole notion that Android is open source. Yes, the skeleton is open, but the guts are proprietary. And the skeleton on its own is useless.
- beaner 10y ago
  What makes it useless?
  - WorldMaker 10y ago
    Look at the efforts that Amazon continues to invest in Fire, and CyanogenMod (the Company that Went Bankrupt as opposed to the jailbreak mod that still mostly exists) tried to invest in a Play Store/Play Services competitor, and Samsung is trying to invest in its efforts while also trying to be stealthy about it in its current Cold War with Google... Android (AOSP) forks are numerous, yet competing with Play Store/Play Services seems expensive and onerous. Nontechnical consumers don't see Amazon's Fire as Android, just an Android-like system that runs many Android apps. Nontechnical consumers thought the same about CyanogenMod (the Company)'s efforts. Samsung's Cold War seems so desperate, from the outside, because they are trying to walk that fine line between remaining a consumer Android and yet still distance themselves from Google's control.
    - maverick_iceman 10y ago
      AOSP forks seem alive and well in China. But yes, in rest of the world non-Google Android is struggling.
      - WorldMaker 10y ago
        I'm curious how many of the Chinese forks label themselves as "Android" and if the Chinese have a different mental model of what "Android" means. Without any first hand knowledge, I'd assume that the balance of things towards WeChat and away from Play Store/Play Services in China might mean that "Android" really does mean something different in Chinese markets? It's easier to sell an "Android" device if the benchmark is "runs WeChat" rather than "runs the apps I see advertised everywhere" (given the near ubiquity of Play Store emblems on American ads) and "runs the collection of apps I've bought over the last few years from the Play Store".
        oefrha 10y ago
iainmerrick 10y ago
There's no technical necessity for it to be closed source, though. That's a business decision.
- s73ver 10y ago
  I imagine the bits that to talk to Google's servers need to be.
  - dpark 10y ago
    I imagine that's a purely business decision since Google owns the code and can open-source it if they wish. There's no reason that the code to talk to Google's servers needs to be closed source.
    - geodel 10y ago
      One reason is API change. For closed source solution they do not have to worry about API changes but open Android has to have much more elaborate API deprecation and change process.
      - codys 10y ago
        That isn't true. Nothing about open source requires that they in any way stabilize their web-side APIs, the process they would follow could be the same as their binary releases, just with open source code released at the same time.
        s73ver 10y ago
        In theory that's true, but in practice, not so much. Even if they told people to not use those APIs, that they're not stable, people would still use them, based on the open source they saw. And then they would change, and people would be mad. This is assuming that Google wants people to see and be able to use these APIs in the first place.
ksk 10y ago
Well, for one they got manufacturers to adopt Google branding for Android phones, but then we're led to believe that getting them to update on time was hard. But from Google's POV, the only "necessity" here is that Google gets your data and tracks you.
- dpark 10y ago
  > but then we're led to believe that getting them to update on time was hard "Led to believe"? Is there any dispute about the fact that most Android manufacturers deliver major updates very slowly and often not at all?
  - ksk 10y ago
    So apparently "phone manufacturer must preload all Google applications" and "phone manufacturer must set Google as default search engine", and "Google network service must be preloaded" made it in the contract, but "phone manufacturer must update the phone" didn't. Those sneaky phone manufacturers !!
    - mattnewton 10y ago
      Those things you listen actually make less work for the manufacturers, and speedy updates make more work - that solves the mystery for me at least.
      - ksk 10y ago
        Oh, its not a mystery at all. Its just odd to come across people (in general, not you) who still think an advertising company would care all that much about their users (who are not their customers anyway). But yes, they're quite far from being the worst in this aspect.
        mattnewton 10y ago
        Well I'm guilty of that same conception too. Why are the two at odds? Google wants to own the best platform for users out there. Engineers want to work on the best, app developers want to work on the best, and users want to use the best they can afford.

s73ver 10y ago

Or the device maker and network provider, both were the bottlenecks in pushing out updates.

codys 10y ago

> one of two things Google can push an update for [...] without any dialog or concent One of the two things Google _chooses_ to do this for. Nothing prevents them from doing the same thing for other pieces of software, except, perhaps, their own policy.