7 ms·

"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. T

by 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-...
  - drivebyacct2 15y ago
    I don't really get what you're saying here. Some Android devices have locked bootloaders, but that doesn't affect the openness of AOSP. If anything, you're making an argument for GPLv3 which would require Android OEM's to allow for open bootloaders and (S-OFF (htc)). But I can assure you, my Galaxy Nexus is running a CM9 alpha that I built from source last night.
    - ootachi 15y ago
      Replace "some Android devices" with "the vast majority of Android devices". That is Marco's point.
      - drivebyacct2 15y ago
        All HTC devices since September, most devices from <=2010 (and many, many more with community support); all Samsung/LG devices; some early Moto devices (and all if you don't count the kernel via the community) can have custom software installed. And if that's Marco's point, it's pretty damn poor. How does what Motorola does with the bootloader of their phone have to do with the code that Google puts out exactly?
        ootachi 15y ago
        As has been explained many times in the past, Android's relative openness compared to iOS at the source code level does not translate to measurable benefits for the majority of users because of carrier/manufacturer lockdown. Rooting is a security exploit, and I don't consider it relevant to whether the OS is practically open.
        drivebyacct2 15y ago
        Now you're just shifting around your position. I thought it was about the unlocked nature of bootloaders? Yes, in my last post I included some that require "root" but, #1, not all of those root methods are through user-facing security exploits, and #2, most of them allow custom software out of the box from the manufacturer (specifically without rooting or really any work at all), I noted the ones that require "community" support. Your characterization is disingenuous. Now it's about the openness at the source code level? I think you should look up the CM statistics. There is a measurable percentage (or may tenth of a percent) of Android users that run custom software, so I benefit from that. I and others will only buy devices that will have CM support. Further, the open nature of Android absolutely trickles down to the users. There are a dozen different (and with different physical form factor) Android models that are free on contract to buy. There is only one WP7 that I'm aware of that that is true for. Lower development costs are passed on to users, I've discussed this further somewhere else on this thread.
drivebyacct2 15y ago
Really? An operating system that is cheaper to OEM manufacturers (and thus cheaper per-device costs) as well as a vastly expanded variety of physical hardware isn't a benefit?
orangecat 15y ago
First, by that standard anyone's claim of openness is BS, because most users of any open source project don't actually use the source themselves. Second, Android is "open" in ways that have nothing to do with source availability. Even with a closed-source Honeycomb device, you can run apps from arbitrary sources, access the filesystem, replace OS components like the keyboard and launcher, and develop your own apps without asking (or paying) for permission.

by epo 15y ago

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-...
- drivebyacct2 15y ago
  I don't really get what you're saying here. Some Android devices have locked bootloaders, but that doesn't affect the openness of AOSP. If anything, you're making an argument for GPLv3 which would require Android OEM's to allow for open bootloaders and (S-OFF (htc)). But I can assure you, my Galaxy Nexus is running a CM9 alpha that I built from source last night.
  - ootachi 15y ago
    Replace "some Android devices" with "the vast majority of Android devices". That is Marco's point.
    - drivebyacct2 15y ago
      All HTC devices since September, most devices from <=2010 (and many, many more with community support); all Samsung/LG devices; some early Moto devices (and all if you don't count the kernel via the community) can have custom software installed. And if that's Marco's point, it's pretty damn poor. How does what Motorola does with the bootloader of their phone have to do with the code that Google puts out exactly?
      - ootachi 15y ago
        As has been explained many times in the past, Android's relative openness compared to iOS at the source code level does not translate to measurable benefits for the majority of users because of carrier/manufacturer lockdown. Rooting is a security exploit, and I don't consider it relevant to whether the OS is practically open.
        drivebyacct2 15y ago
        Now you're just shifting around your position. I thought it was about the unlocked nature of bootloaders? Yes, in my last post I included some that require "root" but, #1, not all of those root methods are through user-facing security exploits, and #2, most of them allow custom software out of the box from the manufacturer (specifically without rooting or really any work at all), I noted the ones that require "community" support. Your characterization is disingenuous. Now it's about the openness at the source code level? I think you should look up the CM statistics. There is a measurable percentage (or may tenth of a percent) of Android users that run custom software, so I benefit from that. I and others will only buy devices that will have CM support. Further, the open nature of Android absolutely trickles down to the users. There are a dozen different (and with different physical form factor) Android models that are free on contract to buy. There is only one WP7 that I'm aware of that that is true for. Lower development costs are passed on to users, I've discussed this further somewhere else on this thread.

drivebyacct2 15y ago

Really? An operating system that is cheaper to OEM manufacturers (and thus cheaper per-device costs) as well as a vastly expanded variety of physical hardware isn't a benefit?

orangecat 15y ago

First, by that standard anyone's claim of openness is BS, because most users of any open source project don't actually use the source themselves. Second, Android is "open" in ways that have nothing to do with source availability. Even with a closed-source Honeycomb device, you can run apps from arbitrary sources, access the filesystem, replace OS components like the keyboard and launcher, and develop your own apps without asking (or paying) for permission.