9 ms·
Android openness withering as Google withholds Honeycomb
- dazzla 16y agoIs Apple sponsoring these articles or something?
- rimantas 16y agoSo, by this kind of logic articles about apps rejected or 30% subscription fee were sponsored by Google? Is the idea that this turn of event (Honeycomb source not being open for indefinite amount of time) being interesting by itself so weird?
- dazzla 16y agoOf course I don't really think that's the case I'm just amazed by the over reaction to something google have done all along.
- wzdd 16y agoThis is true and happened with 1.5 and with the Nexus One: new version dev in private, then a big open sourcing effort (by specific team members) after the version is released. I guess the difference here is that for 3.0 they indicated that they made a lot of tablet-specific changes which won't translate well to phones. So the source isn't in a state where they want to release it for phones, and get the opposite of last year's fiasco (when OEMs put 2.x onto tablets).
- roc 16y agoTry not think of it as being an argument about what Android is, or what Google has done, so much as an argument about what a reasonable definition of "Open" entails. All along Google has behaved in a way inconsistent with their "Open" marketing. And people have criticized them, not for what they were doing, but for trying to contort the definition of "Open" to still fit what they were doing. Now that the project doesn't even meet the most-basic definition[1], there is simply no more wiggle room and those who would prefer "Open" still mean something at the end of the day are again pointing out the Emperor is naked [2]. [1] As codified in Rubin's famous tweet. [2] Not because it's wrong to be naked, but because he insisted he was wearing clothes that he quite clearly is not.
- gthank 16y agoThese articles are cropping up because Google (quite cleverly) utilized the "We're Open" mantra to gain a lot of momentum very quickly. Since the evolution of Android shows more and more evidence of "We're Open When Convenient/Beneficial", a lot of their most ardent supporters now feel betrayed/played. If Google had said "We're not as secretive as Apple", there would be less bitterness now, but there also never would have been the sort of momentum/buzz they built early on.
- dazzla 16y agogthank, roc. Very few situations are black and white. Sure Android may not be open as other open source projects but that doesn't mean they it is closed. Also google are not talking about closing it down. They are just talking about a delay in widening who has access.
- kinofcain 16y agoI'm amazed what google's been doing all along hasn't caused this kind of reaction. Throwing a source dump over the wall to out of date code has always been their operating procedure, but they've never publicly stated, as bald-faced as they have now, that they're not going to be releasing the source because they don't want smaller ODMs to have access to it. This has nothing to do with hobbyist devs, this has everything to do with keeping Honeycomb limited to the few companies that have paid Google hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars for that access. The rest of the manufacturers aren't "worthy".
- bonch 16y agoPerhaps it's because Android is touted by Google fans as an open platform, yet the source is withheld and only given to Google's special partners until an official release.
- trotsky 16y agoWhile I'm sure they aren't, apple vs. google articles are so polarizing, and so many people, journalists included, seem to have portions of their identities wrapped up into the war that it's apparently inevitable some stuff that sounds like this comes out. I'm not wanting to debate how right or wrong google's position might be here (it's clearly not awesome), but it's hard to take this specific article seriously when it's written with such a polarized tone.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- anon1385 16y agohttp://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429 http://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429 the definition of open: “mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make”
- mambodog 16y agoThe article states that "Google's evangelists touted it as an open ecosystem" and seems to be taking the position that Google have not lived up to this claim. All Rubin's tweet indicates is that Android is open source.
- roc 16y agowas open source.
- tvon 16y agoSo Honeycomb is not "open" because you can't download it, I guess you're saying? It would help if your comment was more than just a quoted tweet.
- anon1385 16y agoSorry, I guess I should have added some context. It was a response to Steve Jobs and was widely publicised on tech blogs at the time. http://www.pcmag.com/print_article2/0,1217,a=255840,00.asp?hidPrint=true http://www.pcmag.com/print_article2/0,1217,a=255840,00.asp?h... Google's Andy Rubin hit back at Steve Jobs Monday with a tweet that touted the openness of Google's Android platform. Rubin, who serves as vice president of engineering at Google, posted a message to the micro-blogging site that might be somewhat confusing to those not familiar with the ins and out of Android coding. Translation: Rubin's tweet includes the commands needed to start compiling a copy of Android on a home Linux machine. He's stressing that anyone can develop for, hack, or even create their own version of Android.
- tvon 16y ago
- bobz 16y agoThis article strikes me as inflammatory, the underlying actions by Google seem reasonable. There's a difference between valuing openness, and promising openness at the expense of all other values. To me, Google has demonstrated the first consistently throughout the history of their company. I'm sure there are good reasons to hold back the source. My guess would be, they don't want people trying to build tablets that can't run the OS properly. If Android gets a reputation for shitty tablets, that would be devastating to the platform. If we still don't have up to date source in two years, we can start to worry that the Google we loved is dead.
- anon1385 16y agohttp://source.android.com/ http://source.android.com/ states that Android is an open-source software stack for mobile devices, and a corresponding open-source project led by Google. We created Android in response to our own experiences launching mobile apps. We wanted to make sure that there was no central point of failure, so that no industry player can restrict or control the innovations of any other. That's why we created Android, and made its source code open. It doesn't say Android is a closed-source software stack for mobile devices, and a corresponding closed-source project led by Google. We created Android in response to our own experiences launching mobile apps. We wanted to make sure that there was a central point of control, so that we can protect our brand assets. That's why we created Android, and kept its source code secret. If to get your open platform to become popular you have to sacrifice any idea of openness, then what was the point?
- bobz 16y agoYour question is ambiguous, depending on how I read the word any... so I'll address both. 1. ...to compromise the idea of openness at all... The point is not to be open. Openness is a tool that Google uses to create the product and ecosystem that it wants. In sacrificing a little openness, it loses a little bit of the perks of being "open," but probably gains other things, so I can respect that. 2. ...to compromise the idea of openness entirely... I don't think we can say that they've done this, at least not yet. I'm just look at it as an experimental branch of the code that isn't yet ready to be merged into the trunk. It makes a lot of sense to me that, if they rushed this code out for strategic reasons, that they would want to keep it a little close to the chest until it was more stable. Remember, while to you this is an abstract principle of openness, to them this is a product they ship, and they WILL be judged on its performance.
- silvestrov 16y ago...Google has made the decision to keep the Honeycomb source code under wraps because it doesn't want hardware vendors to adapt it to run on other form factors where it might not function properly. This is completely bullshit. If code is really open, it allows everybody to use the code as they see fit, however unfit other users might think it is. The Apache webserver is really open: I can modify it and use it without any restriction from the Apache Foundation just because they might think my modifications "don't function properly".
- jessriedel 16y agoThis ignores the difference in technical competence of consumers versus Apache users. If some vendor makes a crappy tablet that runs Android, users will associate that crappiness with the Android trademark because they are unable to tell whose fault it is. There is no similar risk of the Apache trademark being tarnished because some guy sets up a crappy webserver with it.
- ssp 16y agousers will associate that crappiness with the Android trademark That's a legitimate concern, but it could be fixed by not allowing people to use the Android trademark on hardware that Google deemed crappy.
- albertzeyer 16y agoYes, exactly like Firefox. This may be after all a good idea.
- roc 16y ago> "This ignores the difference in technical competence of consumers versus Apache users." No, it doesn't. It insists that "Open" retain some reasonable meaning. The difference in technical competence is what makes this move understandable and in Google's best interests. But that doesn't mean it makes any sense to continue calling the project "Open". Honeycomb is closed. The reasons are irrelevant to whether "Open" is an acceptable descriptor. Google may one day make Honeycomb "Open". But that too is irrelevant to whether "Open" is an acceptable descriptor today.
- mycroftiv 16y agoI don't understand all the justifications for Google's behavior being posted. I chose to purchase an Android phone because I believed that Google was committed to a truly open source mobile operating system. To me, that means that when I buy a hardware device that runs the OS, I can also download the source code the device uses, modify it, make use of my customized version, and share my changes with others. I feel that Google is trying to have their cake, and eat it too. At this point in time, I regard the Motorola Xoom and other Honeycomb devices as proprietary platforms that should be avoided by those who care about their software freedom.
- mquander 16y ago+1 on this. If I were to make a list of reasons that a FOSS mobile OS is great, then "porting it to devices which it was not originally designed for" would be at the very top of the list! Restricting what people can do with Android because they are worried that they might do something that is ugly -- that is the absolute antithesis of being open, and it's directly harmful to the people who may have very well been interested in using a hacked-up version of Honeycomb on a smaller device, not to mention the people using Honeycomb on the Xoom right now who wish to access source. Although Google is far more open than their competitors, that doesn't put them beyond criticism. It's not reasonable to compromise a core virtue of your ecosystem because you think you might have a branding problem.
- stcredzero 16y agoIf delivering on the promise of a slate/tablet like the iPad is difficult, and any company is its own worst enemy, then I'd say that closed vertical integration is the right strategy and openness is the wrong one. (With regards to winning in the general marketplace, not with regards to software freedom.) All Apple has to do with iPad is to maintain a tight ship, and wait for their opponent's missteps. As I commented elsewhere, I wonder if HP or RIM can now make a play for #2 tablet? EDIT: For those concerned with software freedom, take a cue from Gandhi's playbook: Concentrate on examples of software freedom that are understood by the general marketplace. (Just as he concentrated on the pain of everyday Indians.) Sometimes, there is a place for the unpopular stance. Just be clear on what you're trying to accomplish when you're using that tactic.
- yhlasx 16y agoDo haters always has to come up with something to say how Google did wrong ? They were complaining that Android is turning into a mess, running out of control, because Google let it FREE in all means. That Google is doing wrong, that they need to take situation under control. And now ? Again Google did wrong ? Yeah No one can deny that Android was a HUGE HUGE success. Google is innovating and making money, at the same time keeping customers pleased. That is what they do best, as one blog here said. They manage to keep their interests along with customer wishes. [Down voters, thank you ! :)]
- bonch 16y agoThe most amusing part of your post, other than the strange grammar, is your implication that Google is some target of bias. Google gets more glowing press coverage and free passes than any other technology company. Imagine the red-hot nerd rage if it was Apple who had been caught driving vans through neighborhoods and archiving people's unprotected WiFi data.
- enjo 16y agoIs it possible that there is a much simpler explanation here? For anyone who has touched a XOOM, it's clear that Honeycomb wasn't ready when it was launched. Bugs, incomplete features, and general lack of polish was really evident. I think this is Google admitting that. They're not releasing it not out of some closed-source conspiracy, but rather because the damn thing isn't ready to be released. Sorry Motorola, but you pushed something out the door you shouldn't have. It's the simplest explanation, and IMHO most likely the correct one. Google doesn't want this in the wild simply because it shouldn't be. They can't say that, but that sure seems to be what's happening.
- guygurari 16y agoThen why did they release it to manufacturers like Motorola? Edit: To clarify, I think being open means that you either release to everyone or to no one. So arguing that it isn't ready became irrelevant once the xoom shipped.
- nathanb 16y agoI think that this hits the nail on the head. If the code is ready to be used by consumers, it should be ready for developers to inspect it. Imagine if a writer said "I'm ready to publish my book, but I'm not willing to release the manuscript to editors". This isn't a perfect analogy since I'm sure Google do massive amounts of in-house QA, but it seems like the more feedback you're getting on the code, the easier it will be to whip it into shape. Saying you don't want to release the source because it's not ready or not mature is almost nonsensical.
- jwhitlark 16y agoActually, it seems like the reverse, "I'm ready for editors to take a look at my book, but not ready to publish everything." I get what people are complaining about, and I'm not terribly happy about it either, but it's not like I push every commit to github as soon as I've got it running on my server; frequently there is cleanup to be done first.
- 16y ago
- mmcdan 16y agoI don't understand all the animosity. Google should have never called Android "open-source", which is a loaded word, and called it a "Mobile Platform with Viewable Source" or something. If Google did the exact same thing under a non-loaded name, they would be praised for the fact that they handle all the carrier bullshit/politics and developed an OS that is not a black box. To have a true "Open Source TM" mobile OS, Google would have to stop working with carriers(the definition of a closed ecosystem). I would rather develop on a platform with delayed source code releases that will be on the majority of phones in the world, than an open-source platform that carriers were too afraid to use on their phones. So as a developer, I'm not really pissed about the fact that the source is delayed for a month or two. I'm more pissed about the shitty Market experience which drives customers away and the many countries that are not allowed to purchase paid apps.
- dspeyer 16y agoI wonder if people would be less upset if it were called Gingerbread-tablet, and described as a temporary closed fork to meet manufacturing deadlines. That's really what it is, but giving it the Honeycomb name makes it look like the future of android, which it isn't.
- harshaw 16y ago<sigh> Occam's razor. Google seems to be committed to open source when ready.
- escanda 16y agoThe idea Google is waiting to have polished this release to open it so device creators don't ship it is flawed. If such were their concern they would revoke the use of the Android trademark and manufacturers could have to call it by a different name avoiding the issue.
- VladRussian 16y agoIt was Apple and MS, now Apple and Google. The structure of the market is the same because of the same acting forces. Google fills the same space for mobile non-PC gadgets that MS has filled for PC - the common software platform for hardware manufacturers. As in case of PC, the hardware manufacturers who isn't running the platform will become flushed out (except for Apple :). There is nothing in that situation that requires openness, even more - the openness may put the business at risk.
- Apocryphon 16y agoYou either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
- lutorm 16y agoCan someone explain to me how shipping devices with Honeycomb without supplying the source is not a violation of the GPL?
- wmf 16y agoThe source that they're witholding is not GPL.
- lutorm 16y agoAnd it's not a derivative work of the Linux kernel? I don't know much about how Android is structured, but I thought people were complaining that Google didn't push their changes upstream into the main Linux kernel, which would imply that it's part of the Linux kernel.
- ugh 16y agoI don’t think it matters. If you think it does I would like to hear some reasonable scenarios from you that affect a large number of users negatively.
- jwhitlark 16y agoLet he who publishes every commit to github immediately cast the first stone.
- jsmcgd 16y agoWhy doesn't Google instead completely open up the platform and offer Android certificates for hardware that passes muster? That way the platform stays open and their brand doesn't get destroyed by 3rd rate hardware.
- kfir 16y agoSadly Android was never open source; in the past you could get the source but you NEVER had the ability to submit patches, unless you worked at one of Google strategic partners.
- benatkin 16y agoI feel like I was fooled by this: https://twitter.com/#!/Arubin/status/27808662429 https://twitter.com/#!/Arubin/status/27808662429 http://www.quora.com/Whats-the-most-epic-tweet-on-Twitter/answer/Aditya-Rathnam http://www.quora.com/Whats-the-most-epic-tweet-on-Twitter/an...
- wslh 16y agoI ask again: Where is the Open Source Mobile scene?
- nethsix 16y agoI think we should always be skeptical when something appears to be 'free', especially when it comes from a company that is likely to monetize it in the future. Android was probably started to unseat Apple's dominance and touting it as open was the best strategy to attract developers. There are probably many of such cases, e.g., Amazon, Twitter changing their stance, leading to products depending on them to suffer. Companies are selfish so they'll do what is best for them. However, developers mainly have themselves to blame for wanting to believe that such 'free' platforms exist in their own pursuit to monetize it. Unless something is endorsed by Free Software Foundation, then you should take it as not entirely 'free'.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- billmcneale 16y agoGoogle has never open sourced an Android version before it estimated it ready. Honeycomb is no different. I don't understand the fuss.
- guelo 16y agohttp://source.android.com/faqs.html http://source.android.com/faqs.html here google fully explains their thinking around android soure.