5 ms·

We can fork and alter the code, and deploy it to our devices. I'll grant that it is not easy on some devices, but you can't argue against the carriers' right to

by shib71 16y ago

We can fork and alter the code, and deploy it to our devices. I'll grant that it is not easy on some devices, but you can't argue against the carriers' right to change the code without compromising your own.

msbarnett 16y ago
That's just shifting the goal-posts, though. Google touts the Android platform's openness as a benefit for developers and end-users. And yet: As a developer, I have, if anything, less visibility into upcoming changes to the Android SDK than I do into upcoming changes in iOS 4.2. As an end-user, Android's openness hasn't stopped carriers from foisting unremovable crapware on me, or given me any more control over my Droid X than I have over my iPhone 4. But whenever anyone dares to point out this disconnect between Google's marketing rhetoric and reality vis a vis openness, suddenly "open" means nothing more than "fulfills the letter of the contractual agreements of the GPL version 2 and provides no promises of anything beyond that". It's farcical.
- moultano 16y ago
  >As a developer As a developer, your customers can run the app even if the app store says no. >As a customer As a customer, you can choose from a range of android powered devices including those not approved by Google. The nook would likely not exist were it not for Android.
  - msbarnett 16y ago
    As a developer, if my app doesn't make it into the main app store, I'd be throwing good money after bad by trying to run about trying to set up my own payment infrastructure and trying to convince people to buy and side-load my app (which, among other things, Android's openness would keep AT&T Android users from doing anyways). From a pragmatic standpoint, there is no practical benefit to this openness for me, as a developer. As a customer, the freedom to "choose from a range of Android powered devices including those not approved by Google" simply means the burden of having to perform a complicated cost-benefits analysis, deciding which specific combination of carrier crap-ware and carrier locked out features, or unsubsidized hardware from little-known Chinese manufacturers is least un-appealing to me. I have to spend an enormous amount of time researching to ensure that the official app store is supported on such-and-such phone, to find out whether tethering works freely or not or whether I can side-load or not on such-and-such carrier. From a pragmatic standpoint, there is no practical benefit to this openness for me, as an average consumer. Openness is only a virtue if it has practical benefit. If Google is arguing for openness from a purely dogmatic, non-practical standpoint, then they should be honest about that instead of pretending that Android's openness is some kind of unicorns-and-candyfloss fun ride for app developers and end-users.
    - moultano 16y ago
      >As a developer, if my app doesn't make it into the main app store, I'd be throwing good money after bad by trying to run about trying to set up my own payment infrastructure and trying to convince people to buy and side-load my app (which, among other things, Android's openness would keep AT&T Android users from doing anyways). From a pragmatic standpoint, there is no practical benefit to this openness for me, as a developer. Or support it with ads? >As a customer, the freedom to "choose from a range of Android powered devices including those not approved by Google" simply means the burden of having to perform a complicated cost-benefits analysis, deciding which specific combination of carrier crap-ware and carrier locked out features, or unsubsidized hardware from little-known Chinese manufacturers is least un-appealing to me. I have to spend an enormous amount of time researching to ensure that the official app store is supported on such-and-such phone, to find out whether tethering works freely or not or whether I can side-load or not on such-and-such carrier. From a pragmatic standpoint, there is no practical benefit to this openness for me, as an average consumer. This seems no different to me than any other free market. I buy the argument that Google should simplify your purchasing decision by being more selective with the trademark, but that's an entirely different argument than the one we are having.
  - brown9-2 16y ago
    How "open" is a device whose OS has been configured so that you cannot remove certain applications from it? Sure the original OS is open source (and "open" as in visible), but how open is the platform when some companies put chains and locks around it? I can see how in Google's eyes the core platform is open - code is public, it can be forked, etc. But it's still an environment in which some vendors are free to lock down the system they sell to end-users to the point where a user is no longer free to uninstall programs they don't want. This dilutes the "openness" of the overall platform, since the lack of freedom and control on some Android devices reflects on the average perception of Android.
    - moultano 16y ago
      >How "open" is a device whose OS has been configured so that you cannot remove certain applications from it? Is linux not open because the PS3 exists? It seems like all of your arguments apply equally well there.
      - Herring 16y ago
        Yeah, its really a pleasure seeing all these people (Jobs especially) argue for the GPLv3 and against tivoization. Where were they in 2007..
        wtallis 16y ago
        Well, in 2007, Jobs was just barely able to get one carrier to surrender some control to the handset manufacturer. The iPhone would have been a non-starter if Jobs had been asking for all control over the software to be surrendered to the consumer.
      - msbarnett 16y ago
        The difference is that Sony isn't running around marketing the PS3 as being superior to the XBox because of its "openness". Nor is Kaz Hirai tweeting about cloning Sony's Linux kernel repo as if it were some notional benefit over the XBox for consumers.
- biafra 16y ago
  "...or given me any more control over my Droid X..." Why did you buy the wrong phone? It was all over the news, that Motorola locks down the bootloader. How is that Googles fault? How does that make Android less open? What about all those Linux boxes with locked bootloaders? How do they make Linux less open?
wtallis 16y ago
You can't always deploy your altered versions to your devices. Carriers have been experimenting with various techniques for locking down devices that have been rooted in any way, and the only completely unlocked Android phone (Nexus One when sold through Google) was a flop. If your reply to this is that you can always bypass whatever DRM they put in place: well, you can do that on the iPhone too. And if you're willing to count something as "open" when reverse engineering is required to use modified software, then the availability of source code for a reference implementation ceases to be a meaningful difference. Android is no more "open" than iOS under that definition, just easier to work on.
- biafra 16y ago
  You mean: You can't deploy your altered version to any device Assuming you did not break it while altering. Then you can always deploy your altered version to the ADP-Phones. For example the Nexus One. And this is not a theoretical possibility. I have done it. It works. I use it every day since.
  - wtallis 16y ago
    Open is not the same as "open, if you run it on special developer hardware". The Android platform cannot really be said to be open if none of the consumer products based on it are open.
    - biafra 16y ago
      The Nexus One is a consumer product. You do not have to be a developer to buy it nor is it special developer hardware. Those other devices are still closed because people still buy them. Vote with your wallets and you will have freedom.
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
        16y ago

by shib71 16y ago

msbarnett 16y ago

That's just shifting the goal-posts, though. Google touts the Android platform's openness as a benefit for developers and end-users. And yet: As a developer, I have, if anything, less visibility into upcoming changes to the Android SDK than I do into upcoming changes in iOS 4.2. As an end-user, Android's openness hasn't stopped carriers from foisting unremovable crapware on me, or given me any more control over my Droid X than I have over my iPhone 4. But whenever anyone dares to point out this disconnect between Google's marketing rhetoric and reality vis a vis openness, suddenly "open" means nothing more than "fulfills the letter of the contractual agreements of the GPL version 2 and provides no promises of anything beyond that". It's farcical.

moultano 16y ago
>As a developer As a developer, your customers can run the app even if the app store says no. >As a customer As a customer, you can choose from a range of android powered devices including those not approved by Google. The nook would likely not exist were it not for Android.
- msbarnett 16y ago
  As a developer, if my app doesn't make it into the main app store, I'd be throwing good money after bad by trying to run about trying to set up my own payment infrastructure and trying to convince people to buy and side-load my app (which, among other things, Android's openness would keep AT&T Android users from doing anyways). From a pragmatic standpoint, there is no practical benefit to this openness for me, as a developer. As a customer, the freedom to "choose from a range of Android powered devices including those not approved by Google" simply means the burden of having to perform a complicated cost-benefits analysis, deciding which specific combination of carrier crap-ware and carrier locked out features, or unsubsidized hardware from little-known Chinese manufacturers is least un-appealing to me. I have to spend an enormous amount of time researching to ensure that the official app store is supported on such-and-such phone, to find out whether tethering works freely or not or whether I can side-load or not on such-and-such carrier. From a pragmatic standpoint, there is no practical benefit to this openness for me, as an average consumer. Openness is only a virtue if it has practical benefit. If Google is arguing for openness from a purely dogmatic, non-practical standpoint, then they should be honest about that instead of pretending that Android's openness is some kind of unicorns-and-candyfloss fun ride for app developers and end-users.
  - moultano 16y ago
    >As a developer, if my app doesn't make it into the main app store, I'd be throwing good money after bad by trying to run about trying to set up my own payment infrastructure and trying to convince people to buy and side-load my app (which, among other things, Android's openness would keep AT&T Android users from doing anyways). From a pragmatic standpoint, there is no practical benefit to this openness for me, as a developer. Or support it with ads? >As a customer, the freedom to "choose from a range of Android powered devices including those not approved by Google" simply means the burden of having to perform a complicated cost-benefits analysis, deciding which specific combination of carrier crap-ware and carrier locked out features, or unsubsidized hardware from little-known Chinese manufacturers is least un-appealing to me. I have to spend an enormous amount of time researching to ensure that the official app store is supported on such-and-such phone, to find out whether tethering works freely or not or whether I can side-load or not on such-and-such carrier. From a pragmatic standpoint, there is no practical benefit to this openness for me, as an average consumer. This seems no different to me than any other free market. I buy the argument that Google should simplify your purchasing decision by being more selective with the trademark, but that's an entirely different argument than the one we are having.
- brown9-2 16y ago
  How "open" is a device whose OS has been configured so that you cannot remove certain applications from it? Sure the original OS is open source (and "open" as in visible), but how open is the platform when some companies put chains and locks around it? I can see how in Google's eyes the core platform is open - code is public, it can be forked, etc. But it's still an environment in which some vendors are free to lock down the system they sell to end-users to the point where a user is no longer free to uninstall programs they don't want. This dilutes the "openness" of the overall platform, since the lack of freedom and control on some Android devices reflects on the average perception of Android.
  - moultano 16y ago
    >How "open" is a device whose OS has been configured so that you cannot remove certain applications from it? Is linux not open because the PS3 exists? It seems like all of your arguments apply equally well there.
    - Herring 16y ago
      Yeah, its really a pleasure seeing all these people (Jobs especially) argue for the GPLv3 and against tivoization. Where were they in 2007..
      - wtallis 16y ago
        Well, in 2007, Jobs was just barely able to get one carrier to surrender some control to the handset manufacturer. The iPhone would have been a non-starter if Jobs had been asking for all control over the software to be surrendered to the consumer.
    - msbarnett 16y ago
      The difference is that Sony isn't running around marketing the PS3 as being superior to the XBox because of its "openness". Nor is Kaz Hirai tweeting about cloning Sony's Linux kernel repo as if it were some notional benefit over the XBox for consumers.
biafra 16y ago
"...or given me any more control over my Droid X..." Why did you buy the wrong phone? It was all over the news, that Motorola locks down the bootloader. How is that Googles fault? How does that make Android less open? What about all those Linux boxes with locked bootloaders? How do they make Linux less open?

wtallis 16y ago

You can't always deploy your altered versions to your devices. Carriers have been experimenting with various techniques for locking down devices that have been rooted in any way, and the only completely unlocked Android phone (Nexus One when sold through Google) was a flop. If your reply to this is that you can always bypass whatever DRM they put in place: well, you can do that on the iPhone too. And if you're willing to count something as "open" when reverse engineering is required to use modified software, then the availability of source code for a reference implementation ceases to be a meaningful difference. Android is no more "open" than iOS under that definition, just easier to work on.

biafra 16y ago
You mean: You can't deploy your altered version to any device Assuming you did not break it while altering. Then you can always deploy your altered version to the ADP-Phones. For example the Nexus One. And this is not a theoretical possibility. I have done it. It works. I use it every day since.
- wtallis 16y ago
  Open is not the same as "open, if you run it on special developer hardware". The Android platform cannot really be said to be open if none of the consumer products based on it are open.
  - biafra 16y ago
    The Nexus One is a consumer product. You do not have to be a developer to buy it nor is it special developer hardware. Those other devices are still closed because people still buy them. Vote with your wallets and you will have freedom.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
      - 16y ago