3 ms·

All irrelevant. If I check out an open source project, expand it significantly, fix tons of bugs, increase performance, and commit the changes upstream, I have

All irrelevant. If I check out an open source project, expand it significantly, fix tons of bugs, increase performance, and commit the changes upstream, I have contributed back. The fact that I have built another product on top of that isn't 100% open source does not nullify the huge contributions of the former. Chrome isn't open source. Chromium is. Chromium contains V8. V8 alone launched the huge nodejs community. In your mind, because Chrome isn't 100% open source, the fact that you can use pieces of it that are for tremendous benefit to the community doesn't count? Handsets aren't the only thing Android is used for. Virtually every consumer product I see launch these days used some part of Android. TVs, smart speakers, IoT devices, thermostats, car entertainment systems, set top boxes, watches, and on and on. If someone wants to do a Kickstarter on a new piece of HW, the first thing that they're going to thing of is forking a chunk of AOSP, and to deny the immense value this has enabled for people building such devices is absurdly blind. Without ASOP, many of these projects wouldn't even exist. Your positions are transparently hypocritical for someone who was a Windows Mobile fanboy, and rarely says a negative word about Apple or Microsoft's 100% proprietary platforms.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
People in glass houses (or Google offices) should not throw stones. Also, I have a much longer history of criticizing Apple than Google, and give Microsoft significant flak on a regular basis for the way they've managed several aspects of Windows 10... including Mobile. I have no financial investment or implicit bias in any of these companies such as yourself. I have no problem with proprietary software, I have a problem with proprietary software masquerading as open software and trying to use claims like "fair use" for something tightly controlled with secret arrangements and bullying the industry into compliance. I would argue Android offers little benefit to the niches you detail, the only reason other Linux flavors don't make more sense is because they're taking advantage of the fact that they have to have Android developers anyways, because of app support. Android is not a good OS for smart devices, most of the bloat it shoves on top of Linux has little benefit to single-purpose hardware. I don't think Google gets to claim credit for the entire smart device market.
- cromwellian 9y ago
  The proof is in the pudding. Prior to the introduction of Android, embedded Linux in consumer electronics was awful and many devices often selected Windows Embedded, QNX, etc. I worked on embedded Windows in automotive devices and know first hand how a) horrible it was (slow, buggy, insecure) and b) how horrible to Linux replacements were that tried to rig up a half functioning platform. Most small companies do not have the skills to take vanilla Linux userspace, or even Debian or Ubuntu, and build out a polished mobile platform that they can shove into a thermostat or watch. The only semi-popular Linux attempts that succeeded in volume were HTML based like WebOS, which again, simply used a fork of an off the shelf complete platform mostly built by a corporation (e.g. WebKit) You can argue all you want, but evidence suggests otherwise. Someone building a sealed, firmware for a device today that doesn't permit third party apps, still chooses AOSP as a base more often than not, and the reason they do so, is because there is huge value in the platform. Whether you like the design or not, whether you think it is bloated or not, people think that using AOSP to bootstrap their HW lowers their time to market or costs. And for those people, they are receiving value.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

People in glass houses (or Google offices) should not throw stones. Also, I have a much longer history of criticizing Apple than Google, and give Microsoft significant flak on a regular basis for the way they've managed several aspects of Windows 10... including Mobile. I have no financial investment or implicit bias in any of these companies such as yourself. I have no problem with proprietary software, I have a problem with proprietary software masquerading as open software and trying to use claims like "fair use" for something tightly controlled with secret arrangements and bullying the industry into compliance. I would argue Android offers little benefit to the niches you detail, the only reason other Linux flavors don't make more sense is because they're taking advantage of the fact that they have to have Android developers anyways, because of app support. Android is not a good OS for smart devices, most of the bloat it shoves on top of Linux has little benefit to single-purpose hardware. I don't think Google gets to claim credit for the entire smart device market.

cromwellian 9y ago
The proof is in the pudding. Prior to the introduction of Android, embedded Linux in consumer electronics was awful and many devices often selected Windows Embedded, QNX, etc. I worked on embedded Windows in automotive devices and know first hand how a) horrible it was (slow, buggy, insecure) and b) how horrible to Linux replacements were that tried to rig up a half functioning platform. Most small companies do not have the skills to take vanilla Linux userspace, or even Debian or Ubuntu, and build out a polished mobile platform that they can shove into a thermostat or watch. The only semi-popular Linux attempts that succeeded in volume were HTML based like WebOS, which again, simply used a fork of an off the shelf complete platform mostly built by a corporation (e.g. WebKit) You can argue all you want, but evidence suggests otherwise. Someone building a sealed, firmware for a device today that doesn't permit third party apps, still chooses AOSP as a base more often than not, and the reason they do so, is because there is huge value in the platform. Whether you like the design or not, whether you think it is bloated or not, people think that using AOSP to bootstrap their HW lowers their time to market or costs. And for those people, they are receiving value.