3 ms·

And by now not even the caller app, or the phonebook app, or the calendar, or Homescreen, or settings, or search are open anymore.[1] Everything now requires G

And by now not even the caller app, or the phonebook app, or the calendar, or Homescreen, or settings, or search are open anymore.[1] Everything now requires Google's proprietary services Oh, and Google prevents OEMs from cooperating with Amazon.[2] As result, Android is almost completely controlled by Google. And you call that "open"? ________________________ [1] To disprove this, please find me the full current source code of the Google Dialer, Google Contacts, Android Nessages, Google Calendar, Pixel Launcher, and Google Search apps — all these used to be open source in Android 2.3.7, if you find me the full source code of their current versions, I'll take this point back. [2] See the ongoing Antitrust case in the EU against Google

ZiiS 9y ago
You can still go fully open; https://microg.org/ https://microg.org/ and https://f-droid.org/en/ https://f-droid.org/en/ I don't have Pay, and no cloud push notifications, and the GPS assist isn't quite as perfect, but the only real bugbare is no swyping keyboard.
- kuschku 9y ago
  Sure, but that's not the same. By that argument — the core of the OS is open, just everything on top isn't — you might as well call macOS open because Darwin is open. Android is nowadays proprietary, sadly.
  - swiley 9y ago
    This is actually a very good analogy. There are even open reimplementations of core foundation and coaca, but no one would ever call OSX open.
sangnoir 9y ago
Android was always "completely controlled by Google". It wasn't developed in the open - they would throw the code over the wall when it was ready. Does software have to be developed in the open for the result to be open? Answers to this vary depending on your perspective. If you're going to dismiss "open-core" and corporate-controlled open projects out of hand, I have bad news to tell you Gitlab, Red Hat, VS Code and hundreds of other projects the rest of us non-purists are grateful for providing their source under licenses that allow for modifications or forking...
- kuschku 9y ago
  Yes, but in the past they actually threw code over the wall. They stopped updating most system apps code, and never continued even providing the code. Originally, everything was open source at least.

ZiiS 9y ago

You can still go fully open; https://microg.org/ https://microg.org/ and https://f-droid.org/en/ https://f-droid.org/en/ I don't have Pay, and no cloud push notifications, and the GPS assist isn't quite as perfect, but the only real bugbare is no swyping keyboard.

kuschku 9y ago
Sure, but that's not the same. By that argument — the core of the OS is open, just everything on top isn't — you might as well call macOS open because Darwin is open. Android is nowadays proprietary, sadly.
- swiley 9y ago
  This is actually a very good analogy. There are even open reimplementations of core foundation and coaca, but no one would ever call OSX open.

sangnoir 9y ago

Android was always "completely controlled by Google". It wasn't developed in the open - they would throw the code over the wall when it was ready. Does software have to be developed in the open for the result to be open? Answers to this vary depending on your perspective. If you're going to dismiss "open-core" and corporate-controlled open projects out of hand, I have bad news to tell you Gitlab, Red Hat, VS Code and hundreds of other projects the rest of us non-purists are grateful for providing their source under licenses that allow for modifications or forking...

kuschku 9y ago
Yes, but in the past they actually threw code over the wall. They stopped updating most system apps code, and never continued even providing the code. Originally, everything was open source at least.