4 ms·

What people criticized about them was the delay of an open source release to sustain their business strategy (commoditize their products' complements via open s

by vladd 15y ago

What people criticized about them was the delay of an open source release to sustain their business strategy (commoditize their products' complements via open source but keep a integrated experience by proprietary early-access agreements - see also http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html ). This release doesn't change Google's strategy nor the fact that they will continue to release Android's source code in the future with a significant delay compared to early-access partners. There's no reason to congratulate them now nor complain louder some months from now, they'll continue to do what makes sense for them from a business standpoint. The only news are the yet-to-be-discovered jewels in the just-released source code.

shareme 15y ago
ahem if you check mobile dev history you will find Nokia did the same thing with open source Symbian, etc.. No viable successful open source mobile OS gives equal access to public and OEM partners to a private tree
- kprobst 15y ago
  So don't call it 'Open Source' then.
- hrktb 15y ago
  Well, if Nokia boasted about Symbian's openness, they were in the position to be criticized too. It's mostly a PR problem.
- Steko 15y ago
  "No viable successful open source mobile OS gives equal access to public and OEM partners to a private tree" This is a true statement but you've set the bar pretty low there with 4 qualifiers.
- foobarbazetc 15y ago
  And look how well that turned out for Nokia. Oh, wait...
roflharrison 15y ago
Some people criticized AOSP because they believe the delayed release is unfair (a reasonable criticism). Other people (sheep) criticized them because they actually believed Google was never going to release more source or because needed an arguing point against the OS.
- zobzu 15y ago
  Actually until Google releases the source you can never be sure if they're going to release it. They release this time.. you and I can only hope that they keep doing it in the future. It wouldn't be all that surprising if it would go closed source (except for key partners) at some point (and except for the GPL content). Specially when any company could just rip the source, make it nicer looking and release their own version of Android and close the source on that... oh look it has a name, it's called MIUI! Imagine if many cheap Chinese manufacturers release decent phones with it, that cost 3x cheaper than the rest, and no Google stuff inside, no control, yada yada. Well, personally I'd get one :-)
  - hetman 15y ago
    I'd like to understand why Google didn't use a copyleft licence.
    - wmf 15y ago
      Phone makers were afraid of copyleft for various reasons, mostly irrational. Also, copyleft probably wouldn't help Google's goal of getting as many Android devices in the market as possible.
      - ConstantineXVI 15y ago
        A viral license actually could have been a much more effective carrot/stick tool for Google vs. their current situation (early source access, carrier contracts, etc.). Play ball with us (Market, etc.), and we'll give you a full closed-source license. Otherwise, we expect to see full source of your modifications made available per the GPL.
generalk 15y ago
> This release doesn't change Google's strategy nor the > fact that they will continue to release Android's source > code in the future with a significant delay compared to > early-access partners. As of today there is not a single phone on the market that runs Android 4.0. Besides, open-source does not mean open-development. They have every right to release the code to whomever they want, whenever they want. And because they release the source to most (as of now, 3/4) major releases, that absolutely counts as "open source."
- greyish_water 15y ago
  Besides, open-source does not mean open-development. Google has done a lot to confuse this by referring to everything as just "open". They were still calling Android open even when it didn't meet Andy Rubin's own tweeted 'definition of open'.
  - bad_user 15y ago
    "open" is an overloaded term that doesn't mean anything nowadays. "open source" on the other hand has a clear definition and Android definitely fits that definition. Even yesterday, when Android 3/4 was not available as open-source, Android 2.2 and 2.3 which are the most deployed versions were definitely available as open-source. And this is relevant, because that's the power of open-source. If you're unhappy with how Google is managing the project you do have the right to fork it. Amazon did just that. Xorg also came into existence that way, amongst other projects. And yes, it takes resources and you've got to make it popular somehow and that ain't easy and I also fear that Google may close future versions of Android completely, but is it mature enough for a fork to be possible and to survive? Hell yes. Can the parent (Google) attack forks based on patents? No, because the Apache license protects you from that scenario (it's a little ironic that a pro-commercial license is safer than GPL v.2) Which is why I consider Android to be a lot more "open" than the other 2 alternatives floating around, iOS and WinMo. That's my own definition anyway, which is why I began by highlighting the meaninglessness of the word.
    - Supermighty 15y ago
megablast 15y ago
No, what the OP and I have criticized them for is not releasing the code for 4. If you are unable to understand this, that is your problem. Google have done good. What you are talking about is another issue, and an important one, but it does not change the fact that WE HAVE CRITICIZED them for exactly what the OP said.

by vladd 15y ago

shareme 15y ago

ahem if you check mobile dev history you will find Nokia did the same thing with open source Symbian, etc.. No viable successful open source mobile OS gives equal access to public and OEM partners to a private tree

kprobst 15y ago
So don't call it 'Open Source' then.
hrktb 15y ago
Well, if Nokia boasted about Symbian's openness, they were in the position to be criticized too. It's mostly a PR problem.
Steko 15y ago
"No viable successful open source mobile OS gives equal access to public and OEM partners to a private tree" This is a true statement but you've set the bar pretty low there with 4 qualifiers.
foobarbazetc 15y ago
And look how well that turned out for Nokia. Oh, wait...

roflharrison 15y ago

Some people criticized AOSP because they believe the delayed release is unfair (a reasonable criticism). Other people (sheep) criticized them because they actually believed Google was never going to release more source or because needed an arguing point against the OS.

zobzu 15y ago
Actually until Google releases the source you can never be sure if they're going to release it. They release this time.. you and I can only hope that they keep doing it in the future. It wouldn't be all that surprising if it would go closed source (except for key partners) at some point (and except for the GPL content). Specially when any company could just rip the source, make it nicer looking and release their own version of Android and close the source on that... oh look it has a name, it's called MIUI! Imagine if many cheap Chinese manufacturers release decent phones with it, that cost 3x cheaper than the rest, and no Google stuff inside, no control, yada yada. Well, personally I'd get one :-)
- hetman 15y ago
  I'd like to understand why Google didn't use a copyleft licence.
  - wmf 15y ago
    Phone makers were afraid of copyleft for various reasons, mostly irrational. Also, copyleft probably wouldn't help Google's goal of getting as many Android devices in the market as possible.
    - ConstantineXVI 15y ago
      A viral license actually could have been a much more effective carrot/stick tool for Google vs. their current situation (early source access, carrier contracts, etc.). Play ball with us (Market, etc.), and we'll give you a full closed-source license. Otherwise, we expect to see full source of your modifications made available per the GPL.

generalk 15y ago

> This release doesn't change Google's strategy nor the > fact that they will continue to release Android's source > code in the future with a significant delay compared to > early-access partners. As of today there is not a single phone on the market that runs Android 4.0. Besides, open-source does not mean open-development. They have every right to release the code to whomever they want, whenever they want. And because they release the source to most (as of now, 3/4) major releases, that absolutely counts as "open source."

greyish_water 15y ago
Besides, open-source does not mean open-development. Google has done a lot to confuse this by referring to everything as just "open". They were still calling Android open even when it didn't meet Andy Rubin's own tweeted 'definition of open'.
- bad_user 15y ago
  "open" is an overloaded term that doesn't mean anything nowadays. "open source" on the other hand has a clear definition and Android definitely fits that definition. Even yesterday, when Android 3/4 was not available as open-source, Android 2.2 and 2.3 which are the most deployed versions were definitely available as open-source. And this is relevant, because that's the power of open-source. If you're unhappy with how Google is managing the project you do have the right to fork it. Amazon did just that. Xorg also came into existence that way, amongst other projects. And yes, it takes resources and you've got to make it popular somehow and that ain't easy and I also fear that Google may close future versions of Android completely, but is it mature enough for a fork to be possible and to survive? Hell yes. Can the parent (Google) attack forks based on patents? No, because the Apache license protects you from that scenario (it's a little ironic that a pro-commercial license is safer than GPL v.2) Which is why I consider Android to be a lot more "open" than the other 2 alternatives floating around, iOS and WinMo. That's my own definition anyway, which is why I began by highlighting the meaninglessness of the word.
  - Supermighty 15y ago

megablast 15y ago

No, what the OP and I have criticized them for is not releasing the code for 4. If you are unable to understand this, that is your problem. Google have done good. What you are talking about is another issue, and an important one, but it does not change the fact that WE HAVE CRITICIZED them for exactly what the OP said.