5 ms·

They're all bullshit except the 'Android is open' thing. That's just a plain fucking fact. Despite the incessant barrage of snarky 'open' jokes from profession

by veidr 15y ago

They're all bullshit except the 'Android is open' thing. That's just a plain fucking fact. Despite the incessant barrage of snarky 'open' jokes from professional Apple frother John Gruber (typically redeemed somewhat by being funny) and M.G. "Mini-Gruber" Siegler (not so much), you can go download the fucking source code: http://source.android.com/source/downloading.html http://source.android.com/source/downloading.html Sure, tons of manufacturers will sell you junky locked down Android-based phones (which they can do because... tada... it's open), you can also just go buy the unlocked phone that Google offers, and install whatever the hell you want on it. And if you really want to root your phone and install your own build of the OS, it's basically as easy as ↑↑↓↓←→←→BA and boom-you're-done. For any reasonable value of open, Android is. Claiming otherwise is just some weird kind of (apparently contagious) gobbledygook nonsense making the rounds among people emotionally invested in iOS. (Which I do use btw; although Android is open, it is still not good enough for me yet.)

nailer 15y ago
Except for a really long time, ie between Android 2.x and 4, you couldn't download the source code. Edit: why is that being downvoted? It's a fact. HN can be a strange beast at times.
- veidr 15y ago
  That's true. But still, Arment posted this today. Yesterday, daringfireball.net linked to a baseless Siegler snarkophany in the same vein. Etc etc etc. (Edit: No idea why your factual comment's getting downvoted, though. It'll hopefully get rectified as more people roll through this thread.)
  - jemfinch 15y ago
    It was being downvoted because it simply wasn't factual. Android was not closed "from 2.x to 4". Honeycomb (3.x) was first released on devices in February 2011 and its source was opened in November 2011. 9 months is not a "really long time".
- jemfinch 15y ago
  "A really long time"? Seriously--I know it's been a busy year--but the nine months (from February 2011 to November 2011) during which Android was being used in certain tablets without being open sourced hardly qualifies as "a really long time", especially in comparison to operating systems which have never been open.
  - potatolicious 15y ago
    I'm not sure how your'e able to say nine months isn't a long time (especially in this industry!) with a straight face. Also, I subscribe to a pretty liberal interpretation of "open source", and "source will be downloadable at an undetermined date in the future, if we feel like it" really doesn't qualify. There is, of course, the colloquial expectation of open - the implication that Google has never shied away from is that openness means choice. Of course, even with the source code, the vast majority of Android headsets are locked down - the openness does nobody any good except people who build custom distros (that normal users can't even install themselves!). The "open" argument, while arguably, technically correct (the source is available... kind of), fails to meet the bar for what techies consider to be essential to the concept of openness, nor does it meet the bar for what laymen would consider to be openness.
    - Joeri 15y ago
      For me an open platform is one that can be used, maintained and extended in ways the original platform owner actively disapproves of. Android fits that description, because you can in fact fork it and do what you want, even if its anti-google (like the kindle fire). I consider android similar to x.org when it was called xfree86, and oo.o before it became libreoffice. It's definitely open source, but it remains to be seen whether the project will develop an open culture. If not, a hostile fork will happen at some point.
    - jemfinch 15y ago
      Six months passed between the announcement of the iPhone and its release. More than a year passes between each iPhone generation. 9 months, even in the mobile world, is just not "a really long time", and we're talking about a version of Android that only ran on tablets (which was, incidentally, why its source wasn't released on schedule). Calling Android "open" is not just "technically" correct. It's really true: you can download the source to Android and build your own versions. Cyanogen does this. Amazon does this. Multiple handset manufacturers do this. Anyone can do this, and many do.
epo 15y ago
"Android is open" is BS for the plain and simple fact that (time delayed) source code availability is of no consequence to the vast majority of Android users. They say it as though it means something, it means nothing, rather like water vendors claiming "100% fat free" on a bottle of water. Marco didn't say the claim was factually incorrect, he said it was BS, it is.
- veidr 15y ago
  Although I'd love to have a few bottles of your fat-free water, it's a bogus analogy. It's more like claiming "100% trans fat free" on a package of cookies. That the vast majority of eaters don't care about or even know what trans fats are doesn't make the statement less true, or less relevant to those who do know and care. Android's openness is consequential to those who care about openness. And almost every Android user I know (yes, all fairly technical) likes that aspect and indeed takes advantage of it. To such people, the open aspects -- both the fact that the OS is open source, and that they can install whatever apps they want without having to find a buffer overflow bug in the OS somewhere to exploit first -- are attractive. The "vast majority of users" aren't the arbiter of whether or not something is consequential to me, or to the other people who generally prefer their systems to be more open.
  - makomk 15y ago
    Not really. Android's "openness" doesn't include the ability to actually modify the software running on your device, which means that on its own it's useless to everyone except hardware manufacturers. It's only on the rare occasions when those manufacturers actually choose to do more than is required on them and open up their hardware to modifications that "openness" is of any value at all.
    - veidr 15y ago
      > doesn't include the ability to actually modify the software running on your device OK, I am uncomfortable with my weird position in this thread as the Android Avenger (especially seeing as how I don't even use Android except to fuck around), so I apologize in advance for the breakdown in my civility function. However: ARE YOU FUCKING HIGH ON FIRE? YOU CAN COMPILE YOUR OWN MOTHERFUCKING (HACKED) ANDROID AND INSTALL IT ON YOUR OWN MOTHERFUCKING PHONE. FOR INSTANCE: http://www.droid-life.com/2011/12/20/variety-of-android-4-0-3-roms-already-available-for-the-galaxy-nexus-lte/ http://www.droid-life.com/2011/12/20/variety-of-android-4-0-...

by veidr 15y ago

nailer 15y ago

Except for a really long time, ie between Android 2.x and 4, you couldn't download the source code. Edit: why is that being downvoted? It's a fact. HN can be a strange beast at times.

veidr 15y ago
That's true. But still, Arment posted this today. Yesterday, daringfireball.net linked to a baseless Siegler snarkophany in the same vein. Etc etc etc. (Edit: No idea why your factual comment's getting downvoted, though. It'll hopefully get rectified as more people roll through this thread.)
- jemfinch 15y ago
  It was being downvoted because it simply wasn't factual. Android was not closed "from 2.x to 4". Honeycomb (3.x) was first released on devices in February 2011 and its source was opened in November 2011. 9 months is not a "really long time".
jemfinch 15y ago
"A really long time"? Seriously--I know it's been a busy year--but the nine months (from February 2011 to November 2011) during which Android was being used in certain tablets without being open sourced hardly qualifies as "a really long time", especially in comparison to operating systems which have never been open.
- potatolicious 15y ago
  I'm not sure how your'e able to say nine months isn't a long time (especially in this industry!) with a straight face. Also, I subscribe to a pretty liberal interpretation of "open source", and "source will be downloadable at an undetermined date in the future, if we feel like it" really doesn't qualify. There is, of course, the colloquial expectation of open - the implication that Google has never shied away from is that openness means choice. Of course, even with the source code, the vast majority of Android headsets are locked down - the openness does nobody any good except people who build custom distros (that normal users can't even install themselves!). The "open" argument, while arguably, technically correct (the source is available... kind of), fails to meet the bar for what techies consider to be essential to the concept of openness, nor does it meet the bar for what laymen would consider to be openness.
  - Joeri 15y ago
    For me an open platform is one that can be used, maintained and extended in ways the original platform owner actively disapproves of. Android fits that description, because you can in fact fork it and do what you want, even if its anti-google (like the kindle fire). I consider android similar to x.org when it was called xfree86, and oo.o before it became libreoffice. It's definitely open source, but it remains to be seen whether the project will develop an open culture. If not, a hostile fork will happen at some point.
  - jemfinch 15y ago
    Six months passed between the announcement of the iPhone and its release. More than a year passes between each iPhone generation. 9 months, even in the mobile world, is just not "a really long time", and we're talking about a version of Android that only ran on tablets (which was, incidentally, why its source wasn't released on schedule). Calling Android "open" is not just "technically" correct. It's really true: you can download the source to Android and build your own versions. Cyanogen does this. Amazon does this. Multiple handset manufacturers do this. Anyone can do this, and many do.

epo 15y ago

"Android is open" is BS for the plain and simple fact that (time delayed) source code availability is of no consequence to the vast majority of Android users. They say it as though it means something, it means nothing, rather like water vendors claiming "100% fat free" on a bottle of water. Marco didn't say the claim was factually incorrect, he said it was BS, it is.

veidr 15y ago
Although I'd love to have a few bottles of your fat-free water, it's a bogus analogy. It's more like claiming "100% trans fat free" on a package of cookies. That the vast majority of eaters don't care about or even know what trans fats are doesn't make the statement less true, or less relevant to those who do know and care. Android's openness is consequential to those who care about openness. And almost every Android user I know (yes, all fairly technical) likes that aspect and indeed takes advantage of it. To such people, the open aspects -- both the fact that the OS is open source, and that they can install whatever apps they want without having to find a buffer overflow bug in the OS somewhere to exploit first -- are attractive. The "vast majority of users" aren't the arbiter of whether or not something is consequential to me, or to the other people who generally prefer their systems to be more open.
- makomk 15y ago
  Not really. Android's "openness" doesn't include the ability to actually modify the software running on your device, which means that on its own it's useless to everyone except hardware manufacturers. It's only on the rare occasions when those manufacturers actually choose to do more than is required on them and open up their hardware to modifications that "openness" is of any value at all.
  - veidr 15y ago
    > doesn't include the ability to actually modify the software running on your device OK, I am uncomfortable with my weird position in this thread as the Android Avenger (especially seeing as how I don't even use Android except to fuck around), so I apologize in advance for the breakdown in my civility function. However: ARE YOU FUCKING HIGH ON FIRE? YOU CAN COMPILE YOUR OWN MOTHERFUCKING (HACKED) ANDROID AND INSTALL IT ON YOUR OWN MOTHERFUCKING PHONE. FOR INSTANCE: http://www.droid-life.com/2011/12/20/variety-of-android-4-0-3-roms-already-available-for-the-galaxy-nexus-lte/ http://www.droid-life.com/2011/12/20/variety-of-android-4-0-...