5 ms·

Joe Hewitt: Android and Open Source

87 points by tonyskn 16y ago

pkaler 16y ago
To expand on my point from last time: Android source code is licensed under the GPL and Apache licenses and therefore the source code is open for developers. The Android project isn't really developed in the open therefore the process is closed for most developers. Most Android hardware is carrier locked, has proprietary firmware, or has proprietary services loaded on top and therefore is closed for users.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  "Most Android hardware is carrier locked, has proprietary firmware, or has proprietary services loaded on top and therefore is closed for users." Does Android mandate this or can you go and create a phone that has none of the carrier restrictions you noted? I think you can.
  - m0nastic 16y ago
    all Android phones have three sets of restrictions: 1.) Restrictions imposed by Google, which you are free to ignore if you stick to just the released source code of Android (like the Market or their proprietary apps) 2.) Restrictions imposed by the Manufacturer (which you could ignore by making your own phone) 3.) Restrictions imposed by the Carrier (which you can presumably ignore if you make an unlocked GSM phone). Working outside of all three of those restrictions would basically put you in the same category as OpenMoko (which while an enterprising idea was pretty much guaranteed to not go anywhere). So I'd agree, "you" can go create a phone without any of the carrier restrictions, provided you are a handset manufacturer. I'm not a handset manufacturer, so I can't.
    - slantyyz 16y ago
      But what of those "Chinese Android" phones I hear about? That they're based on Android but aren't officially Android?
      - m0nastic 16y ago
        As far as I know, any phone that runs Android is "Officially Android", of which there are a number of Chinese handset manufacturers making handsets. Many of them don't have access to the Market, or run Google's applications, but I don't think that makes them "not officially Android".
    - eli 16y ago
      Huh? If you want a phone without carrier restrictions, you just need to buy it somewhere else. It's not cheap, but it's very easy. See, for example, http://www.htcphonestore.com/ http://www.htcphonestore.com/
      - m0nastic 16y ago
        I was actually referring to making a phone, not buying one; but I thanks for the link. It could come in handy if I need a phone for development.
  - skybrian 16y ago
    You can buy a developer phone. However, I'm not sure you can get one for any carrier.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
kenjackson 16y ago
What Joe considers important (public source tree and outsider commits) are probably amongst the absolute least important and interesting aspects of openness. It's the type of thing only a maintainer would care about. He's arguing a point that nobody cares about. Even RMS is probably saying, "You're being a bit pedantic here about the definition, aren't you Joe?"
- joehewitt 16y ago
  That's a disappointing attitude. Let me give you a great counterexample. Chrome was initially a completely fork of Webkit, but Google eventually chose to work with Apple and merge all of their changes to the Webkit trunk. This was only possible because Webkit, unlike Android, allows outsiders to commit. The costs of maintaining a fork of a project as large as Webkit (or Android) are so huge, even Google didn't want to bear them for long. The benefits of the merge are huge for all users. Not only does Chrome continue to get Apple's changes downstream, like CSS transforms, but Safari gets Google's changes, like web sockets. In Android today, this sort of collaboration would be impossible.
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    And while everything you say may be true, I still don't think most people care. In fact, I'm fairly certain most people don't care. Ask your average developer, much less consumer, the difference between Chrome and Android with respect to openess and you'll probably get blank stares. Clearly Google doesn't think the benefits of public commits outweighs the costs, otherwise it would economically make sense. Additionally I suspect given the current state of mobile OS development vs browser development they probably realize that public contributions would be fewer and of less general utility than what we've seen with browsers. I still think the fact that one can pick up Android, even if it is just 2.2 today, and build it, and port it to any device they want, and rip out any code they like, and add any code they like is a pretty reasonable definition of open -- at least given that openness is a gradient and not absolute term.
    - GiraffeNecktie 16y ago
thought_alarm 16y ago
It seems whenever someone tries to come up with tangible benefits of Android's "openness" they invariably end up describing properties of the Palm Pilot, Windows Mobile, and Blackberry operating systems that have absolutely nothing to do with open source. Case in point: > I've been pleasantly surprised at how much more > configurable Android is. The fact that you can > replace the home screen with a third-party launcher > or even make your own app store is a clear sign > that Google's heart is in the right place. Or, it's a clear sign that Android isn't well designed and is no different than most of the other mobile devices that have appeared in the last 10 years. And if you purchase a locked-down Android device from your carrier then it literally is no different.
- thwarted 16y ago
  It's sad that we've reached a point where what is good design is such an absolute, with no consideration for customization as a design goal.
  - askbjoernhansen 16y ago
    Things aren't better just because they're more configurable, even if customization is a goal. More often options are just varnish because the defaults aren't reasonable. Make the defaults good first and then add configuration and options.
    - thwarted 16y ago
      Yeah, and they don't suck just because they do let you change something you don't like. Every Apple product is so well designed, until the next Apple product comes out.
  - MrScruff 16y ago
    Isn't this a rather old trend? As technology becomes more complex, we rely on the creator to make sensible decisions about the interface to allow us to focus primarily on what is relevant to achieving our goal. Abstraction is the only way technology can become more powerful and more accessible at the same time.
rquesada 16y ago
This article (please read the whole article, including the PDF that is mentioned) mentions that Google might be "open" regarding the source code, but it is not open regarding which components can be replaced in Android. It seems that Google doesn't allow the carries to replace the Google Location Service. http://daringfireball.net/2010/09/the_welcome_to_android http://daringfireball.net/2010/09/the_welcome_to_android
- eli 16y ago
  ...if they want to use the Google trademark and have the non-open Google apps like Maps and GMail.

87 points by tonyskn 16y ago

To expand on my point from last time: Android source code is licensed under the GPL and Apache licenses and therefore the source code is open for developers. The Android project isn't really developed in the open therefore the process is closed for most developers. Most Android hardware is carrier locked, has proprietary firmware, or has proprietary services loaded on top and therefore is closed for users.

kenjackson 16y ago
"Most Android hardware is carrier locked, has proprietary firmware, or has proprietary services loaded on top and therefore is closed for users." Does Android mandate this or can you go and create a phone that has none of the carrier restrictions you noted? I think you can.
- m0nastic 16y ago
  all Android phones have three sets of restrictions: 1.) Restrictions imposed by Google, which you are free to ignore if you stick to just the released source code of Android (like the Market or their proprietary apps) 2.) Restrictions imposed by the Manufacturer (which you could ignore by making your own phone) 3.) Restrictions imposed by the Carrier (which you can presumably ignore if you make an unlocked GSM phone). Working outside of all three of those restrictions would basically put you in the same category as OpenMoko (which while an enterprising idea was pretty much guaranteed to not go anywhere). So I'd agree, "you" can go create a phone without any of the carrier restrictions, provided you are a handset manufacturer. I'm not a handset manufacturer, so I can't.
  - slantyyz 16y ago
    But what of those "Chinese Android" phones I hear about? That they're based on Android but aren't officially Android?
    - m0nastic 16y ago
      As far as I know, any phone that runs Android is "Officially Android", of which there are a number of Chinese handset manufacturers making handsets. Many of them don't have access to the Market, or run Google's applications, but I don't think that makes them "not officially Android".
  - eli 16y ago
    Huh? If you want a phone without carrier restrictions, you just need to buy it somewhere else. It's not cheap, but it's very easy. See, for example, http://www.htcphonestore.com/ http://www.htcphonestore.com/
    - m0nastic 16y ago
      I was actually referring to making a phone, not buying one; but I thanks for the link. It could come in handy if I need a phone for development.
- skybrian 16y ago
  You can buy a developer phone. However, I'm not sure you can get one for any carrier.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

kenjackson 16y ago

What Joe considers important (public source tree and outsider commits) are probably amongst the absolute least important and interesting aspects of openness. It's the type of thing only a maintainer would care about. He's arguing a point that nobody cares about. Even RMS is probably saying, "You're being a bit pedantic here about the definition, aren't you Joe?"

joehewitt 16y ago
That's a disappointing attitude. Let me give you a great counterexample. Chrome was initially a completely fork of Webkit, but Google eventually chose to work with Apple and merge all of their changes to the Webkit trunk. This was only possible because Webkit, unlike Android, allows outsiders to commit. The costs of maintaining a fork of a project as large as Webkit (or Android) are so huge, even Google didn't want to bear them for long. The benefits of the merge are huge for all users. Not only does Chrome continue to get Apple's changes downstream, like CSS transforms, but Safari gets Google's changes, like web sockets. In Android today, this sort of collaboration would be impossible.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  And while everything you say may be true, I still don't think most people care. In fact, I'm fairly certain most people don't care. Ask your average developer, much less consumer, the difference between Chrome and Android with respect to openess and you'll probably get blank stares. Clearly Google doesn't think the benefits of public commits outweighs the costs, otherwise it would economically make sense. Additionally I suspect given the current state of mobile OS development vs browser development they probably realize that public contributions would be fewer and of less general utility than what we've seen with browsers. I still think the fact that one can pick up Android, even if it is just 2.2 today, and build it, and port it to any device they want, and rip out any code they like, and add any code they like is a pretty reasonable definition of open -- at least given that openness is a gradient and not absolute term.
  - GiraffeNecktie 16y ago

thought_alarm 16y ago

It seems whenever someone tries to come up with tangible benefits of Android's "openness" they invariably end up describing properties of the Palm Pilot, Windows Mobile, and Blackberry operating systems that have absolutely nothing to do with open source. Case in point: > I've been pleasantly surprised at how much more > configurable Android is. The fact that you can > replace the home screen with a third-party launcher > or even make your own app store is a clear sign > that Google's heart is in the right place. Or, it's a clear sign that Android isn't well designed and is no different than most of the other mobile devices that have appeared in the last 10 years. And if you purchase a locked-down Android device from your carrier then it literally is no different.

thwarted 16y ago
It's sad that we've reached a point where what is good design is such an absolute, with no consideration for customization as a design goal.
- askbjoernhansen 16y ago
  Things aren't better just because they're more configurable, even if customization is a goal. More often options are just varnish because the defaults aren't reasonable. Make the defaults good first and then add configuration and options.
  - thwarted 16y ago
    Yeah, and they don't suck just because they do let you change something you don't like. Every Apple product is so well designed, until the next Apple product comes out.
- MrScruff 16y ago
  Isn't this a rather old trend? As technology becomes more complex, we rely on the creator to make sensible decisions about the interface to allow us to focus primarily on what is relevant to achieving our goal. Abstraction is the only way technology can become more powerful and more accessible at the same time.

rquesada 16y ago

This article (please read the whole article, including the PDF that is mentioned) mentions that Google might be "open" regarding the source code, but it is not open regarding which components can be replaced in Android. It seems that Google doesn't allow the carries to replace the Google Location Service. http://daringfireball.net/2010/09/the_welcome_to_android http://daringfireball.net/2010/09/the_welcome_to_android

eli 16y ago
...if they want to use the Google trademark and have the non-open Google apps like Maps and GMail.