6 ms·

I 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

I 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 ago
If 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.
- kragen 16y ago
  What do you think are the examples of software freedom that are understood by everyday Indians?
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    Thanks, smartass. The real question would be, what are the examples of software freedom that are understood by the average user. There are plenty of those.
    - kragen 16y ago
      Everyday Indians are pretty average users; I don't know why you're quibbling with that part of my comment. What examples do you think would be good?
orangecat 16y ago
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. Agreed. I'm now even more glad that I went with the Nook Color instead, which is currently running a Cyanogen build of 2.3.
Pewpewarrows 16y ago
What's not to understand? They don't think Honeycomb is ready for general consumption, and they'd rather wait until Ice Cream (when the tablet and phone versions of Android converge) to release. If you want to hack away at Honeycomb for tablets, you just have to contact them and they'll provide you the full source code. They've done this to a lesser extent in the past with almost every major version of Android (where the Open Sourcing of it comes after devices already ship). Does it suck that it's taking longer for 3.0? Sure it does. Do they have a valid reason to do so? You bet they do. Avoiding almost certain fiascos of companies trying to shoe-horn Honeycomb onto phones is a definite concern.
- mycroftiv 16y ago
  I apologize for sounding argumentative, but you are missing the point. I understand Google's motivations, there is nothing mysterious about a company trying to protect its brand by controlling the user experience. I agree their actions are rational given their goals. The problem is that the essence of free open source software, which I believed Android was intended to be, is that users are given the freedom to modify the source code - regardless of whether or not such modifications are beneficial for anyone's brand! I am not a free software absolutist - people should be free to create and use proprietary software. However, I want to make the personal choice to use free software, and have access to the source code that is not conditional on whether my use is beneficial to any external entity. I understand that Google avoids the GPL for the non linux kernel portions of Android. I was hoping that Google would nonetheless treat Android as a free software OS where you always have access to the source code of any device. I feel like its a "bait and switch" in terms of how it has been portrayed to the community of users who care about software freedom. I don't understand why some people maintain that it doesn't change Android's openness just because Google says it will release the source code "someday".
  - enjo 16y ago
    I think you're over-thinking this. It's clear to me that Honeycomb simply isn't done. You can see it on the xoom. It's just not ready yet. It was shipped incredibly early. Google is holding it back because their probably just not happy with the state the thing is in. It was rushed and this is their implicit omission of it.I think this is a pride of ownership thing, nothing more.
vidyesh 16y ago
I guess, the only reason why Google took this bold step was the incomplete OS. Honeycomb is still under development and they jumped the wagon pretty fast and released it already just to beat other Tablets and steal their market. People already have the belief on Android devices and know how fast it grew, under the same pretext many would buy Honeycomb tablets but everyone fails to understand Honeycomb is far far different from the smartphone OS. It would really take time to make it work efficiently.
d_r 16y ago
Unfortunately it appears that in the common case, "open" for Android has to do more with how much carriers can "customize" the OS, and is not about an end-user's experience. I think this is in part because the primary customers of Android as a business are carriers (this is where Google makes money).
lukeschlather 16y ago
Android has never been that open. If Google was committed to a truly open source mobile operating system, they would have released it under the GPLv3. Something like most of Motorola's recent phones with locked down bootloader, those aren't in any meaningful sense running an open source OS. At least not any meaningful sense for the average consumer. For a business with the money to roll their own hardware, they can take advantage of the source, but for me, I can't get that kind of touchscreen hooked up to that kind of battery, CPU, and GPU unless I'm willing to accept a closed OS. Of course the point is moot, since Motorola would never use a GPLv3-licensed Android. I don't really see why, since, as I said, it's not the software but the hardware that I want to pay them for. (Though there's a good chance I would leave the software unmodified.)
- kenjackson 16y ago
  Why do they have to use GPLv3 to be open source? Apache, BSD, MIT, are no longer open source licenses?
  - jpk 16y ago
    The GPLv3 has provisions specifically for preventing the locked bootloader deal seen on most phones today.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - kenjackson 16y ago
      But surely for Honeycomb this isn't necessary. If Motorola wants to lock the bootloader then they can do so. This doesn't prevent Samsung or Archos from using the Honeycomb code. It just prevents people from rooting and modifying code that runs on Motorola's device, which is their perogative given that there is no end to HW manufacturers for Android products.
      - cube13 16y ago
mbrubeck 16y ago
This is bad, but it's not new. While it seems the Honeycomb source will be kept secret longer than usual, Google has always withheld source code from the community while providing it to privileged partners. For example, the Android 2.0 Eclair source code was not released to the Android Open Source Project until after it was already shipping on the Motorola Droid. Even carriers and manufacturers who were part of the Open Handset Alliance did not have access to it before then. I know, because I once worked with some of these companies on Android customization projects.
bonch 16y ago
"I don't understand all the justifications for Google's behavior being posted." By catering to the emotional OSS crowd, Google has bred a flock of fanboys even more defensive than Apple's.

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 ago

If 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.

kragen 16y ago
What do you think are the examples of software freedom that are understood by everyday Indians?
- stcredzero 16y ago
  Thanks, smartass. The real question would be, what are the examples of software freedom that are understood by the average user. There are plenty of those.
  - kragen 16y ago
    Everyday Indians are pretty average users; I don't know why you're quibbling with that part of my comment. What examples do you think would be good?

orangecat 16y ago

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. Agreed. I'm now even more glad that I went with the Nook Color instead, which is currently running a Cyanogen build of 2.3.

Pewpewarrows 16y ago

What's not to understand? They don't think Honeycomb is ready for general consumption, and they'd rather wait until Ice Cream (when the tablet and phone versions of Android converge) to release. If you want to hack away at Honeycomb for tablets, you just have to contact them and they'll provide you the full source code. They've done this to a lesser extent in the past with almost every major version of Android (where the Open Sourcing of it comes after devices already ship). Does it suck that it's taking longer for 3.0? Sure it does. Do they have a valid reason to do so? You bet they do. Avoiding almost certain fiascos of companies trying to shoe-horn Honeycomb onto phones is a definite concern.

mycroftiv 16y ago
I apologize for sounding argumentative, but you are missing the point. I understand Google's motivations, there is nothing mysterious about a company trying to protect its brand by controlling the user experience. I agree their actions are rational given their goals. The problem is that the essence of free open source software, which I believed Android was intended to be, is that users are given the freedom to modify the source code - regardless of whether or not such modifications are beneficial for anyone's brand! I am not a free software absolutist - people should be free to create and use proprietary software. However, I want to make the personal choice to use free software, and have access to the source code that is not conditional on whether my use is beneficial to any external entity. I understand that Google avoids the GPL for the non linux kernel portions of Android. I was hoping that Google would nonetheless treat Android as a free software OS where you always have access to the source code of any device. I feel like its a "bait and switch" in terms of how it has been portrayed to the community of users who care about software freedom. I don't understand why some people maintain that it doesn't change Android's openness just because Google says it will release the source code "someday".
- enjo 16y ago
  I think you're over-thinking this. It's clear to me that Honeycomb simply isn't done. You can see it on the xoom. It's just not ready yet. It was shipped incredibly early. Google is holding it back because their probably just not happy with the state the thing is in. It was rushed and this is their implicit omission of it.I think this is a pride of ownership thing, nothing more.

vidyesh 16y ago

I guess, the only reason why Google took this bold step was the incomplete OS. Honeycomb is still under development and they jumped the wagon pretty fast and released it already just to beat other Tablets and steal their market. People already have the belief on Android devices and know how fast it grew, under the same pretext many would buy Honeycomb tablets but everyone fails to understand Honeycomb is far far different from the smartphone OS. It would really take time to make it work efficiently.

d_r 16y ago

Unfortunately it appears that in the common case, "open" for Android has to do more with how much carriers can "customize" the OS, and is not about an end-user's experience. I think this is in part because the primary customers of Android as a business are carriers (this is where Google makes money).

lukeschlather 16y ago

Android has never been that open. If Google was committed to a truly open source mobile operating system, they would have released it under the GPLv3. Something like most of Motorola's recent phones with locked down bootloader, those aren't in any meaningful sense running an open source OS. At least not any meaningful sense for the average consumer. For a business with the money to roll their own hardware, they can take advantage of the source, but for me, I can't get that kind of touchscreen hooked up to that kind of battery, CPU, and GPU unless I'm willing to accept a closed OS. Of course the point is moot, since Motorola would never use a GPLv3-licensed Android. I don't really see why, since, as I said, it's not the software but the hardware that I want to pay them for. (Though there's a good chance I would leave the software unmodified.)

kenjackson 16y ago
Why do they have to use GPLv3 to be open source? Apache, BSD, MIT, are no longer open source licenses?
- jpk 16y ago
  The GPLv3 has provisions specifically for preventing the locked bootloader deal seen on most phones today.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    But surely for Honeycomb this isn't necessary. If Motorola wants to lock the bootloader then they can do so. This doesn't prevent Samsung or Archos from using the Honeycomb code. It just prevents people from rooting and modifying code that runs on Motorola's device, which is their perogative given that there is no end to HW manufacturers for Android products.
    - cube13 16y ago

mbrubeck 16y ago

This is bad, but it's not new. While it seems the Honeycomb source will be kept secret longer than usual, Google has always withheld source code from the community while providing it to privileged partners. For example, the Android 2.0 Eclair source code was not released to the Android Open Source Project until after it was already shipping on the Motorola Droid. Even carriers and manufacturers who were part of the Open Handset Alliance did not have access to it before then. I know, because I once worked with some of these companies on Android customization projects.

bonch 16y ago

"I don't understand all the justifications for Google's behavior being posted." By catering to the emotional OSS crowd, Google has bred a flock of fanboys even more defensive than Apple's.