4 ms·

This article strikes me as inflammatory, the underlying actions by Google seem reasonable. There's a difference between valuing openness, and promising opennes

by bobz 16y ago

This 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 ago
http://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 ago
  Your 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.
  - cube13 16y ago
    >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. Which would be an acceptable reason if Honeycomb tablets weren't available for purchase. Since the Xoom is running Honeycomb, I cannot see how anyone can say that it's "experimental" at this point. It isn't just a commit that Google isn't done with yet, it is released software.
    - bobz 16y ago
      My interpretation is that the OS development has been "spiked" to target certain platforms, as a proof and exploration of the tablet form factor. But, as with most fast, targeted code pushes, some sacrifices have been made in the generalizablility of the code base. They may want a chance to go back and smooth out their hacks before eager vendors get their hands on it and start building the first at large generation of tablets. This is just one interpretation, but it's an example of a case where I'd be behind Google's actions.
      - cube13 16y ago
        I agree that this is a good reason why Google doesn't want the code released, but I do not believe that it is a good reason not to release the code. If your Open Source software is good enough to be shipped, the code should be good enough to be released. In this case, I think it's more an issue about how Google is managing expectations with the system. I think it would have made more sense to release a one-off Android branch for the Xoom. In addition, I would have: 1. Made it clear that this code release is a targeted device code release, and will have major issues with other devices. 2. Released a somewhat detailed timeline for when the stable, generalized 3.0 code is expected to be done. The first keeps the homebrew community happy, because they have something they can hack with on the Xoom. It might boost sales marginally, too. The second keeps the tablet manufacturers happy, because they now have a timeline for when Google is going to get a generalized tablet OS out the door.
- kj12345 16y ago
  But is it reasonable to say that Google has "sacrificed any idea of openness" by delaying the release of source code for one iteration of its platform?
  - protomyth 16y ago
    Yes. Eventually is not now. Right now, Honeycomb is a closed source OS. Allowing politicians to live in the eventually (so they can keep their pet issue alive to get re-elected and not solved) has done us no good. Allowing companies to pull the same trick is not acceptable either. Open should not be a marketing term. As mellis said http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2369108 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2369108 they shipped product so the source should be good enough to ship also.
  - ubernostrum 16y ago
    Well, I'd say it was reasonable to say Google sacrificed openness when * They made sure that many of the most compelling -- to end users -- built-in bits were proprietary (i.e., those sweet Google-branded apps that you can get C&D'd for distributing) * They began imposing requirements above and beyond software license compliance if you wanted full access * They made sure their default (and thus, to most users, only) marketplace had the same sort of remote kill switch people complained about in Apple's ecosystem * etc., etc. Android is a mobile platform that you can sometimes get source for, sometimes hack on, and sometimes do what you like with. Which, um, isn't any idea of "openness" I'm familiar with.
  - bonch 16y ago
    Yes, because Google's privileged partners like Motorola get to access the source before its official release in order to have it ready on their products immediately, while everyone else has to wait.
- Apocryphon 16y ago
  This smacks of black/white thinking of extremes to me. Perhaps what they're doing violates the principle of openness, but if Honeycomb is the one exception to Google's "openness", and they end up releasing the code soon, for pragmatic purposes who cares?
kj12345 16y ago
Yeah I think this sort of backlash hurts the overall push towards openness because for example Adobe probably looks at the possibility of publishing Flash player source but they know that instead of being celebrated that move will just create angry blog posts because of the license or that they don't accept patches etc.
StavrosK 16y ago
I value open source as much as the next guy, but here I agree. The competition is so great (this is Apple we're talking about) that the usability needs to be spot on. Apart from the open source project, Google needs to protect a brand as well. I hope Android will be open as much as the next guy, but right now Samsung et al have made some decisions that have impacted usability, so I hope that 3.x will be so greatly improved, usability-wise, that there won't be a need to keep the source closed, as nobody will find it necessary to "improve" upon it.
vidyesh 16y ago
Maybe you are right actually, Android on smartphones has gained fragmentation and this does affect alot to the OS reputation. There are devices which really can't handle Android OS and many Apps cannot run or even not installed. To just get over that embarrassment Google must have taken this step.But that destroys the whole idea behind the Android OS.

by bobz 16y ago

anon1385 16y ago

http://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 ago
Your 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.
- cube13 16y ago
  >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. Which would be an acceptable reason if Honeycomb tablets weren't available for purchase. Since the Xoom is running Honeycomb, I cannot see how anyone can say that it's "experimental" at this point. It isn't just a commit that Google isn't done with yet, it is released software.
  - bobz 16y ago
    My interpretation is that the OS development has been "spiked" to target certain platforms, as a proof and exploration of the tablet form factor. But, as with most fast, targeted code pushes, some sacrifices have been made in the generalizablility of the code base. They may want a chance to go back and smooth out their hacks before eager vendors get their hands on it and start building the first at large generation of tablets. This is just one interpretation, but it's an example of a case where I'd be behind Google's actions.
    - cube13 16y ago
      I agree that this is a good reason why Google doesn't want the code released, but I do not believe that it is a good reason not to release the code. If your Open Source software is good enough to be shipped, the code should be good enough to be released. In this case, I think it's more an issue about how Google is managing expectations with the system. I think it would have made more sense to release a one-off Android branch for the Xoom. In addition, I would have: 1. Made it clear that this code release is a targeted device code release, and will have major issues with other devices. 2. Released a somewhat detailed timeline for when the stable, generalized 3.0 code is expected to be done. The first keeps the homebrew community happy, because they have something they can hack with on the Xoom. It might boost sales marginally, too. The second keeps the tablet manufacturers happy, because they now have a timeline for when Google is going to get a generalized tablet OS out the door.
kj12345 16y ago
But is it reasonable to say that Google has "sacrificed any idea of openness" by delaying the release of source code for one iteration of its platform?
- protomyth 16y ago
  Yes. Eventually is not now. Right now, Honeycomb is a closed source OS. Allowing politicians to live in the eventually (so they can keep their pet issue alive to get re-elected and not solved) has done us no good. Allowing companies to pull the same trick is not acceptable either. Open should not be a marketing term. As mellis said http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2369108 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2369108 they shipped product so the source should be good enough to ship also.
- ubernostrum 16y ago
  Well, I'd say it was reasonable to say Google sacrificed openness when * They made sure that many of the most compelling -- to end users -- built-in bits were proprietary (i.e., those sweet Google-branded apps that you can get C&D'd for distributing) * They began imposing requirements above and beyond software license compliance if you wanted full access * They made sure their default (and thus, to most users, only) marketplace had the same sort of remote kill switch people complained about in Apple's ecosystem * etc., etc. Android is a mobile platform that you can sometimes get source for, sometimes hack on, and sometimes do what you like with. Which, um, isn't any idea of "openness" I'm familiar with.
- bonch 16y ago
  Yes, because Google's privileged partners like Motorola get to access the source before its official release in order to have it ready on their products immediately, while everyone else has to wait.
Apocryphon 16y ago
This smacks of black/white thinking of extremes to me. Perhaps what they're doing violates the principle of openness, but if Honeycomb is the one exception to Google's "openness", and they end up releasing the code soon, for pragmatic purposes who cares?

kj12345 16y ago

Yeah I think this sort of backlash hurts the overall push towards openness because for example Adobe probably looks at the possibility of publishing Flash player source but they know that instead of being celebrated that move will just create angry blog posts because of the license or that they don't accept patches etc.

StavrosK 16y ago

I value open source as much as the next guy, but here I agree. The competition is so great (this is Apple we're talking about) that the usability needs to be spot on. Apart from the open source project, Google needs to protect a brand as well. I hope Android will be open as much as the next guy, but right now Samsung et al have made some decisions that have impacted usability, so I hope that 3.x will be so greatly improved, usability-wise, that there won't be a need to keep the source closed, as nobody will find it necessary to "improve" upon it.

vidyesh 16y ago

Maybe you are right actually, Android on smartphones has gained fragmentation and this does affect alot to the OS reputation. There are devices which really can't handle Android OS and many Apps cannot run or even not installed. To just get over that embarrassment Google must have taken this step.But that destroys the whole idea behind the Android OS.