4 ms·

FTA: >derStandard.at: How does a company like Google balance the need between wanting secrecy on new developments and doing it open source? Chris DiBona: That

by rkwz 15y ago

FTA: >derStandard.at: How does a company like Google balance the need between wanting secrecy on new developments and doing it open source? Chris DiBona: That varies between project. If you look at Chrome, every commit is instantly online. Android has a punctuated release model based on its marketing needs. derStandard.at: Why is the chosen model for Android and Chrome so fundamentally different? Chris DiBona: It's a different kind of market. If you look at Android we have lots of partners. We have chipset partners, we have handset partners, we have carrier partners. They all want to use Android and they all want to have something special about themselves. So they want to use Android for that specialness. What that means is that one handset vendor probably doesn't want to interact too much with the other handset vendors because they are competitors. And Android gets caught in the middle of all of this. And the bigger question then becomes how you architect software that it's still useful around that kind of model. He doesn't really say why Android development needs to be secret. So much for openess.

nl 15y ago
He doesn't really say why Android development needs to be secret. So much for openess. I thought this was a pretty direct response: What that means is that one handset vendor probably doesn't want to interact too much with the other handset vendors because they are competitors. And Android gets caught in the middle of all of this. ie - the handset vendors want to keep things secret from each other (and they could gain a lot of information if they saw the commits as they happened on Android). No surprise there, right?
- rkwz 15y ago
  >the handset vendors want to keep things secret from each other >and they could gain a lot of information if they saw the commits as they happened on Android These two statements contradict each other. All handset makers are using the same Android code with some changes. The Android 2.3 in Sony Ericsson is same as the one in Samsung or HTC. Or is Google developing separate Android OSes with each hardware vendor? My question is what's stopping Google from releasing the base Android OS? And what's stopping them from following a open development model like chromium? Sure MS/Apple/HP/RIM can gain some insight if they saw the commits but that's another matter.
  - nl 15y ago
    My question is what's stopping Google from releasing the base Android OS? Ignoring Honeycomb, they do that - they just delay it. I thought the delay is what you were talking about. Or is Google developing separate Android OSes with each hardware vendor? It's not an either/or question. Each vendor has different drivers (for things like different kinds of screens, 3D cameras etc), and if other vendors saw these it would give away their capabilities early. I believe that each vendor doesn't get to see the whole tree until there is a complete release. And what's stopping them from following a open development model like chromium? Chromium doesn't have tight hardware integration. A better example is something like the graphics drivers in the Linux kernel. Nvidia & ATI have historically been very reluctant to release the code for them and have tried to avoid it in various ways. Handset vendors have the same motivations as the video card vendors, and so Google has to accommodate them somewhat to get them to use Android.

by rkwz 15y ago

nl 15y ago

He doesn't really say why Android development needs to be secret. So much for openess. I thought this was a pretty direct response: What that means is that one handset vendor probably doesn't want to interact too much with the other handset vendors because they are competitors. And Android gets caught in the middle of all of this. ie - the handset vendors want to keep things secret from each other (and they could gain a lot of information if they saw the commits as they happened on Android). No surprise there, right?

rkwz 15y ago
>the handset vendors want to keep things secret from each other >and they could gain a lot of information if they saw the commits as they happened on Android These two statements contradict each other. All handset makers are using the same Android code with some changes. The Android 2.3 in Sony Ericsson is same as the one in Samsung or HTC. Or is Google developing separate Android OSes with each hardware vendor? My question is what's stopping Google from releasing the base Android OS? And what's stopping them from following a open development model like chromium? Sure MS/Apple/HP/RIM can gain some insight if they saw the commits but that's another matter.
- nl 15y ago
  My question is what's stopping Google from releasing the base Android OS? Ignoring Honeycomb, they do that - they just delay it. I thought the delay is what you were talking about. Or is Google developing separate Android OSes with each hardware vendor? It's not an either/or question. Each vendor has different drivers (for things like different kinds of screens, 3D cameras etc), and if other vendors saw these it would give away their capabilities early. I believe that each vendor doesn't get to see the whole tree until there is a complete release. And what's stopping them from following a open development model like chromium? Chromium doesn't have tight hardware integration. A better example is something like the graphics drivers in the Linux kernel. Nvidia & ATI have historically been very reluctant to release the code for them and have tried to avoid it in various ways. Handset vendors have the same motivations as the video card vendors, and so Google has to accommodate them somewhat to get them to use Android.