7 ms·

Google admits Android 'both open and closed'

43 points by barista 16y ago

justina1 16y ago
It seems to me they had two choices with the Honeycomb code: release something sub par or wait. And it seems like they landed on the side of quality over speed. Does that decision benefit their partners and hurt others? Yes. And if you want to argue holding the code back was a business move and not a quality issue, that's fair, but it's the one card they can play to ensure high-quality devices in the market. As an Android user, I say let them keep it.
- cube13 16y ago
  But Google has released the code to partners. Motorola has shipped the Xoom. Acer is releasing a tablet in a couple of weeks. HTC and Samsung are also releasing devices in the next few months. If the code is good enough to go in production devices, why isn't it good enough to be released to the public?
  - orangecat 16y ago
    If the code is good enough to go in production devices, why isn't it good enough to be released to the public? It's quite easy to create a code base that mostly works well, but whose structure and organization is utterly unsuitable for a public release. This is especially true when you have a marketing-driven deadline (e.g. "ship before the iPad 2") and have to take shortcuts.
    - nathanb 16y ago
      For an open source project the code is the product. If you claim to be open yet release your bits before the code, you are deluding yourself. The quote from Savoia and Copeland in the article seems to be saying that Google won't release the code until the product sees market in order to maintain their competitive advantage. That's one thing. But when they continue to sit on the code when the product is out, that's another thing entirely.
      - PetrolMan 16y ago
        It hasn't been widely released yet. As far as I know the Xoom is it. Others are in development or being prepared for release.
        cube13 16y ago
        Asus has shipped a tablet with Honeycomb on it. Also, they have also released the GPL-covered Linux kernel code as well.
  - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
    They claim it is ready for tablets, and have offered it to any tablet maker as long as they contact them and presumably sign some kind of NDA to prevent source release. I've not heard of any tablet maker, no matter how small, being refused. They have said it's not suitable for phones, apparently Honeycomb and Gingerbread were divergent forks that need to be merged rather than simply building on top of each other linearly.
- barista 16y ago
  I'd rather call it unfinished than subpar. But taht cannot be the just fication to not release it especially if you are in the open source domain? That is where you solicit early feedback, allow people to see and play with the code which it is still baking. To me it looks like they chose to be a little protective of their ideas, features etc in honeycomb. Nothing necessarily bad with it. AAPL and MSFT do it all the time but what is sad is that they do it while posing as a good citizen in open source world.
Kylekramer 16y ago
Google never had any qualms with releasing phone-centric Android code that anyone could squeeze onto a tablet. Why not release a tablet-centric version that anyone could attempt to squeeze onto a phone? I am fairly sure they did have qualms [1], and that is exactly why Google is doing this now. 1: http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/mobile-phones/google-android-not-optimised-for-tablets--715550 http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/mobil...
- njs12345 16y ago
  To prevent this surely Google could just make the terms under which a 3rd party can distribute the closed-source bundled Android apps (Maps, Market, GMail and so on) more restrictive. By doing that they could essentially prevent anyone from shipping a fully functional build of Android commercially without their permission while keeping the source for Honeycomb open and not impacting on hobbyists..
timtadh 16y ago
dumb question: Is Google violating the GPL by not releasing code that is shipping on devices (eg. Xoom). Didn't Tivo end up having to give up some of there code because it was based on linux? Is this a similar situation?
- SwellJoe 16y ago
  No. The code in question is not under the GPL, it is under the Apache license, which is a very liberal license that does not require distribution of source.
- natesm 16y ago
  Google releases the code that they have to (the kernel, anything else GPLed). Most of Android is not under the GPL (and it was written by Google anyways, so they can do whatever they want). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#Licensing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#Lice...
  - cube13 16y ago
    Asus has also released the Honeycomb code that is covered by the GPL for their tablet: http://www.androidtabletworld.com/android-news/asus-eee-pad-transformer-source-code-now-available http://www.androidtabletworld.com/android-news/asus-eee-pad-...
  - Peaker 16y ago
    This is a strong case for the GPL in the GPL-vs-BSD debate. Lots of the BSD-license proponents are claiming that the GPL would turn commercial companies away, and that if they give back due to the GPL, they'd do so for the BSD projects too.
- olalonde 16y ago
  No, for a very simple reason: only the copyright holder(s) of a product can enforce its license. They won't sue themselves for not following their own license ;) Of course, Google doesn't own all parts of Android and for instance, has to distribute the Linux Kernel's source code with every binary release of Android.
wvenable 16y ago
Android is not an open collaborative project like the Linux kernel or many distributions. Android, is still, however open source in so much as that Google has released the source under a license that permits derivative works. It is however, not Free Software, as it is Apache licensed. One needs to be careful not to mix terms. Android is "open source" but that's as far as they go. It's not Free Software and the development process is not collaborative.
- nathanb 16y ago
  Little hard to be open source when your source is closed and you don't let anyone look at. Android source is released sometime after the product has been out to market. Android is only open to the extent that it benefits Google, not the extent that it benefits the community. I'm not saying that this is the wrong way to go about it...were I a Google exec and responsible to shareholders, I would have difficulty justifying a truly open process. But at this point, "open" has become a bullet point on a product box to attract a certain demographic.
  - warfangle 16y ago
    You are confusing Open Source software and Free Software. Read the GP again.
    - nathanb 16y ago
      Can Google plausibly claim to be OSI-compliant on Honeycomb when they have released the product without the source? I like to think that I understand the difference between the two, but I have difficulty seeing how "I'll show you the source at some point in the future, when it's convenient for me to do so" is in any meaningful way open source.
      - wvenable 16y ago
        > Can Google plausibly claim to be OSI-compliant on Honeycomb when they have released the product without the source? The GPL requires that sort of thing, most other open source licenses do not. The Apache license covers what you can do with the source when it has been given to you. > I have difficulty seeing how "I'll show you the source at some point in the future, when it's convenient for me to do so" is in any meaningful way open source. Microsoft could release the source code to Windows tomorrow but say you have no right to modify it or distribute the modifications. Just because you've been given the source doesn't mean it's open source. Furthermore, if you haven't been given the source, there isn't anything to say about it. In this case, you are not entitled to the source just because you have the binary.
michaelpinto 16y ago
I hate to say it, but if it makes it easier to develop and support apps I wouldn't mind it if Android is closed. It just strikes me that there is too much fragmentation in the market, and since Google isn't doing their own phone they need to control what's out there.
- orangecat 16y ago
  if it makes it easier to develop and support apps I wouldn't mind it if Android is closed That would only make things worse. Fragmentation is caused by the incompetence and/or malice of manufacturers and carriers, and they're going to have the source regardless of whether it's publicly available. All closing the source would do is shut down projects like CyanogenMod, which reduce fragmentation by bringing current Android versions to more devices.
cparedes 16y ago
Clopen software?
joshu 16y ago
do not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both yes and no
mattmanser 16y ago
I found the last paragraph very strange: [Google] has every right to restrict what its Android partners can and can't do Maybe legally they do, but morally. Not at all. I don't think they do have every right at all. They promised an open source platform and then started close sourcing the updates to force partners to use their code in a particular way. Doesn't sounds one bit open source to me. I bet some manufacturers are starting to feel worried and very, very stupid right now. They've given up their own development efforts and found out they've sold their soul and their future to a wolf in sheep's clothing. At least Nokia did it with eyes open.
ChuckMcM 16y ago
"OpenVMS the only one word lie in the English language." -- Scott McNealy. I find the 'heat' over this topic (as measured by column inches of ongoing debate) fascinating. I used the McNealy quote above because when I joined Sun in 1986 they had just gone public and they were championing "Open Systems." As a concept this was pretty easy to explain, basically everything you needed to know in order to reproduce an equivalently functioning system was documented and unencumbered so that folks could create 'Sun compatible' Hard disks (Fujitsu Eagles were very popular) without paying a 'tax' to Sun. It also meant that as a company considering a significant investment in the technology, if Sun vanished tomorrow you had enough information to keep all your Sun gear running and third parties could continue to support it an create new peripherals for it, Etc. Eric Schmidt's first "real" management job was when he joined Sun and started heading up the systems group. The 'open systems' tactic relies on the incumbent player staying 'closed' to protect their turf for as long as possible, and it makes the alternative credible for people who are putting investment capital at risk. In Sun's case it was getting big players to bet on an untested OS (SunOS) and in Google's case it was getting big players to bet on an untested phone OS (Android). Had Google abandoned Android 1.6 and walked away, all the players at the time who were using it would have been able to still fix bugs and keep shipping handsets based on it without support from the big G. Now Android is the 'dominant' smartphone OS (in terms of volume) at least, and there are lots of signs that Google is changing the model to 'closed' to protect its turf, just as Sun closed ranks around Solaris and its own CPU architecture (SPARC). But there is a problem, in that the dominant tablet OS is not Android. So for that market one might want to still be playing the 'open' card, but if its the same as the phone OS then we play the 'closed' card, and we end up with 'both open and closed.' Google clearly wants Android to be successful. Whether or not you and I can get some, all, or none of the source is no doubt measured against that razor. It is impolitic of them to say to your face, "Look if you're not going to be making a million units a month we really don't care a whole lot what you think we should or should not be doing." but I am sure that if lying had not been invented that is exactly what they would say. Google makes money, lots of it, and even when these conversations happen inside the 'plex there is the reality that leaving money on the table is never a long term strategy. Just like that free toaster for opening a checking account isn't really free. I'll predict here today (and where perhaps Google's web crawler will be able to find it again in 5 years) that by 2016 it will be impossible to reload software on your phone if the original phone came with Goggle software but isn't sold by Google, whether they call it 'Android' or something else. Vendors will pay more to have the ability to limit your choices, Google will give them that capability to get paid more, the vendors will use that capability to limit your choices.
navs 16y ago
Often when I hear someone talk about Android, their first argument for the platform is: "it's open". I don't see that likely to change. "Open" has become as synonymous with Android as "Apps" are with the iPhone.
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  Android has strong claims to be "open", even if it was, or became, closed source e.g. I can easily install apps I wrote myself, I can set an alternative browser (and various other apps) to replace the system provided one, I can install alternative browser engines, it's made by multiple manufacturers etc. These things are sadly not universally true in mobile devices. GPL kernels and source code availability is extra "openness" on top of that.

43 points by barista 16y ago

It seems to me they had two choices with the Honeycomb code: release something sub par or wait. And it seems like they landed on the side of quality over speed. Does that decision benefit their partners and hurt others? Yes. And if you want to argue holding the code back was a business move and not a quality issue, that's fair, but it's the one card they can play to ensure high-quality devices in the market. As an Android user, I say let them keep it.

cube13 16y ago
But Google has released the code to partners. Motorola has shipped the Xoom. Acer is releasing a tablet in a couple of weeks. HTC and Samsung are also releasing devices in the next few months. If the code is good enough to go in production devices, why isn't it good enough to be released to the public?
- orangecat 16y ago
  If the code is good enough to go in production devices, why isn't it good enough to be released to the public? It's quite easy to create a code base that mostly works well, but whose structure and organization is utterly unsuitable for a public release. This is especially true when you have a marketing-driven deadline (e.g. "ship before the iPad 2") and have to take shortcuts.
  - nathanb 16y ago
    For an open source project the code is the product. If you claim to be open yet release your bits before the code, you are deluding yourself. The quote from Savoia and Copeland in the article seems to be saying that Google won't release the code until the product sees market in order to maintain their competitive advantage. That's one thing. But when they continue to sit on the code when the product is out, that's another thing entirely.
    - PetrolMan 16y ago
      It hasn't been widely released yet. As far as I know the Xoom is it. Others are in development or being prepared for release.
      - cube13 16y ago
        Asus has shipped a tablet with Honeycomb on it. Also, they have also released the GPL-covered Linux kernel code as well.
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  They claim it is ready for tablets, and have offered it to any tablet maker as long as they contact them and presumably sign some kind of NDA to prevent source release. I've not heard of any tablet maker, no matter how small, being refused. They have said it's not suitable for phones, apparently Honeycomb and Gingerbread were divergent forks that need to be merged rather than simply building on top of each other linearly.
barista 16y ago
I'd rather call it unfinished than subpar. But taht cannot be the just fication to not release it especially if you are in the open source domain? That is where you solicit early feedback, allow people to see and play with the code which it is still baking. To me it looks like they chose to be a little protective of their ideas, features etc in honeycomb. Nothing necessarily bad with it. AAPL and MSFT do it all the time but what is sad is that they do it while posing as a good citizen in open source world.

Kylekramer 16y ago

Google never had any qualms with releasing phone-centric Android code that anyone could squeeze onto a tablet. Why not release a tablet-centric version that anyone could attempt to squeeze onto a phone? I am fairly sure they did have qualms [1], and that is exactly why Google is doing this now. 1: http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/mobile-phones/google-android-not-optimised-for-tablets--715550 http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/mobil...

njs12345 16y ago
To prevent this surely Google could just make the terms under which a 3rd party can distribute the closed-source bundled Android apps (Maps, Market, GMail and so on) more restrictive. By doing that they could essentially prevent anyone from shipping a fully functional build of Android commercially without their permission while keeping the source for Honeycomb open and not impacting on hobbyists..

timtadh 16y ago

dumb question: Is Google violating the GPL by not releasing code that is shipping on devices (eg. Xoom). Didn't Tivo end up having to give up some of there code because it was based on linux? Is this a similar situation?

SwellJoe 16y ago
No. The code in question is not under the GPL, it is under the Apache license, which is a very liberal license that does not require distribution of source.
natesm 16y ago
Google releases the code that they have to (the kernel, anything else GPLed). Most of Android is not under the GPL (and it was written by Google anyways, so they can do whatever they want). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#Licensing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#Lice...
- cube13 16y ago
  Asus has also released the Honeycomb code that is covered by the GPL for their tablet: http://www.androidtabletworld.com/android-news/asus-eee-pad-transformer-source-code-now-available http://www.androidtabletworld.com/android-news/asus-eee-pad-...
- Peaker 16y ago
  This is a strong case for the GPL in the GPL-vs-BSD debate. Lots of the BSD-license proponents are claiming that the GPL would turn commercial companies away, and that if they give back due to the GPL, they'd do so for the BSD projects too.
olalonde 16y ago
No, for a very simple reason: only the copyright holder(s) of a product can enforce its license. They won't sue themselves for not following their own license ;) Of course, Google doesn't own all parts of Android and for instance, has to distribute the Linux Kernel's source code with every binary release of Android.

wvenable 16y ago

Android is not an open collaborative project like the Linux kernel or many distributions. Android, is still, however open source in so much as that Google has released the source under a license that permits derivative works. It is however, not Free Software, as it is Apache licensed. One needs to be careful not to mix terms. Android is "open source" but that's as far as they go. It's not Free Software and the development process is not collaborative.

nathanb 16y ago
Little hard to be open source when your source is closed and you don't let anyone look at. Android source is released sometime after the product has been out to market. Android is only open to the extent that it benefits Google, not the extent that it benefits the community. I'm not saying that this is the wrong way to go about it...were I a Google exec and responsible to shareholders, I would have difficulty justifying a truly open process. But at this point, "open" has become a bullet point on a product box to attract a certain demographic.
- warfangle 16y ago
  You are confusing Open Source software and Free Software. Read the GP again.
  - nathanb 16y ago
    Can Google plausibly claim to be OSI-compliant on Honeycomb when they have released the product without the source? I like to think that I understand the difference between the two, but I have difficulty seeing how "I'll show you the source at some point in the future, when it's convenient for me to do so" is in any meaningful way open source.
    - wvenable 16y ago
      > Can Google plausibly claim to be OSI-compliant on Honeycomb when they have released the product without the source? The GPL requires that sort of thing, most other open source licenses do not. The Apache license covers what you can do with the source when it has been given to you. > I have difficulty seeing how "I'll show you the source at some point in the future, when it's convenient for me to do so" is in any meaningful way open source. Microsoft could release the source code to Windows tomorrow but say you have no right to modify it or distribute the modifications. Just because you've been given the source doesn't mean it's open source. Furthermore, if you haven't been given the source, there isn't anything to say about it. In this case, you are not entitled to the source just because you have the binary.

michaelpinto 16y ago

I hate to say it, but if it makes it easier to develop and support apps I wouldn't mind it if Android is closed. It just strikes me that there is too much fragmentation in the market, and since Google isn't doing their own phone they need to control what's out there.

orangecat 16y ago
if it makes it easier to develop and support apps I wouldn't mind it if Android is closed That would only make things worse. Fragmentation is caused by the incompetence and/or malice of manufacturers and carriers, and they're going to have the source regardless of whether it's publicly available. All closing the source would do is shut down projects like CyanogenMod, which reduce fragmentation by bringing current Android versions to more devices.

cparedes 16y ago

Clopen software?

joshu 16y ago

do not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both yes and no

mattmanser 16y ago

I found the last paragraph very strange: [Google] has every right to restrict what its Android partners can and can't do Maybe legally they do, but morally. Not at all. I don't think they do have every right at all. They promised an open source platform and then started close sourcing the updates to force partners to use their code in a particular way. Doesn't sounds one bit open source to me. I bet some manufacturers are starting to feel worried and very, very stupid right now. They've given up their own development efforts and found out they've sold their soul and their future to a wolf in sheep's clothing. At least Nokia did it with eyes open.

ChuckMcM 16y ago

"OpenVMS the only one word lie in the English language." -- Scott McNealy. I find the 'heat' over this topic (as measured by column inches of ongoing debate) fascinating. I used the McNealy quote above because when I joined Sun in 1986 they had just gone public and they were championing "Open Systems." As a concept this was pretty easy to explain, basically everything you needed to know in order to reproduce an equivalently functioning system was documented and unencumbered so that folks could create 'Sun compatible' Hard disks (Fujitsu Eagles were very popular) without paying a 'tax' to Sun. It also meant that as a company considering a significant investment in the technology, if Sun vanished tomorrow you had enough information to keep all your Sun gear running and third parties could continue to support it an create new peripherals for it, Etc. Eric Schmidt's first "real" management job was when he joined Sun and started heading up the systems group. The 'open systems' tactic relies on the incumbent player staying 'closed' to protect their turf for as long as possible, and it makes the alternative credible for people who are putting investment capital at risk. In Sun's case it was getting big players to bet on an untested OS (SunOS) and in Google's case it was getting big players to bet on an untested phone OS (Android). Had Google abandoned Android 1.6 and walked away, all the players at the time who were using it would have been able to still fix bugs and keep shipping handsets based on it without support from the big G. Now Android is the 'dominant' smartphone OS (in terms of volume) at least, and there are lots of signs that Google is changing the model to 'closed' to protect its turf, just as Sun closed ranks around Solaris and its own CPU architecture (SPARC). But there is a problem, in that the dominant tablet OS is not Android. So for that market one might want to still be playing the 'open' card, but if its the same as the phone OS then we play the 'closed' card, and we end up with 'both open and closed.' Google clearly wants Android to be successful. Whether or not you and I can get some, all, or none of the source is no doubt measured against that razor. It is impolitic of them to say to your face, "Look if you're not going to be making a million units a month we really don't care a whole lot what you think we should or should not be doing." but I am sure that if lying had not been invented that is exactly what they would say. Google makes money, lots of it, and even when these conversations happen inside the 'plex there is the reality that leaving money on the table is never a long term strategy. Just like that free toaster for opening a checking account isn't really free. I'll predict here today (and where perhaps Google's web crawler will be able to find it again in 5 years) that by 2016 it will be impossible to reload software on your phone if the original phone came with Goggle software but isn't sold by Google, whether they call it 'Android' or something else. Vendors will pay more to have the ability to limit your choices, Google will give them that capability to get paid more, the vendors will use that capability to limit your choices.

navs 16y ago

Often when I hear someone talk about Android, their first argument for the platform is: "it's open". I don't see that likely to change. "Open" has become as synonymous with Android as "Apps" are with the iPhone.

ZeroGravitas 16y ago
Android has strong claims to be "open", even if it was, or became, closed source e.g. I can easily install apps I wrote myself, I can set an alternative browser (and various other apps) to replace the system provided one, I can install alternative browser engines, it's made by multiple manufacturers etc. These things are sadly not universally true in mobile devices. GPL kernels and source code availability is extra "openness" on top of that.