5 ms·

If Android was locked down, it would be tiny and irrelevant.

by COGlory 3y ago

smoldesu 3y ago
The Nintendo Switch runs a locked-down version of Android that has sold over 100 million units of associated hardware.
- StressedDev 3y ago
  I do not think the Switch runs Android. I think it runs BSD. Could you please provide a link showing the Switch runs Android?
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    It looks like I was wrong. Same family of hardware/drivers, different OS. Same principle and concept, though; I think BSD's success in the console industry proves that open OSes can find use (albeit as components of closed systems).
    - donkeybeer 3y ago
      I'd say the main reason is that BSD licensed oses are attractive to these locked down devices because there is no requirement to keep your fork open source as well. Play Station 3, and if this is true then apparently Nintendo Switch as well, and so on.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    Wikipedia says you're both wrong—it uses some code from both FreeBSD and Android, but isn't actually based on either. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Switch_system_software#Open_source_components https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Switch_system_softw...
- COGlory 3y ago
  Blackberry, Tizen, Windows Phone, FirefoxOS. Samsung, HTC, Huawei, Alcatel, Nokia, LG. How does Google, running closed and un-licensable Android with no phone to put it on, compete?
  - Pxtl 3y ago
    Name one of those OSes that had a quality phone on the market with a zero-dollar-license OS in 2009. Android was first modern mobile OS to market that would run on 3rd party devices (unlike Apple and RIM). Tizen was 2013. Win phone was 2011, and had license fees to use it.
    - COGlory 3y ago
      In this scenario (locked down like Apple), 3rd party devices aren't running Android.
      - Pxtl 3y ago
        What? Why would devices locked down at the OS-level to only a 1st-party store and only permitting installing through that 1st-party store be hardware-bound? Winphones were bound to the Windows store, but were 3rd-party devices.
        COGlory 3y ago
        Because the comparison is to Apple.
        Pxtl 3y ago
        The lawsuits vs Google and Apple were about was allowing 3rd-party stores onto your platform, not about hardware lock-in.
        COGlory 3y ago
        Epic vs Google: Epic wins. Epic vs Apple: Epic loses. Comments like OP: "Lesson learned: just lock down your platform like Apple" My response: "If Android is locked down [like Apple] it never gets big" Not sure why this is so hard to follow.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

If Android was locked down, it would be tiny and irrelevant.

smoldesu 3y ago

The Nintendo Switch runs a locked-down version of Android that has sold over 100 million units of associated hardware.

StressedDev 3y ago
I do not think the Switch runs Android. I think it runs BSD. Could you please provide a link showing the Switch runs Android?
- smoldesu 3y ago
  It looks like I was wrong. Same family of hardware/drivers, different OS. Same principle and concept, though; I think BSD's success in the console industry proves that open OSes can find use (albeit as components of closed systems).
  - donkeybeer 3y ago
    I'd say the main reason is that BSD licensed oses are attractive to these locked down devices because there is no requirement to keep your fork open source as well. Play Station 3, and if this is true then apparently Nintendo Switch as well, and so on.
- lolinder 3y ago
  Wikipedia says you're both wrong—it uses some code from both FreeBSD and Android, but isn't actually based on either. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Switch_system_software#Open_source_components https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Switch_system_softw...
COGlory 3y ago
Blackberry, Tizen, Windows Phone, FirefoxOS. Samsung, HTC, Huawei, Alcatel, Nokia, LG. How does Google, running closed and un-licensable Android with no phone to put it on, compete?
- Pxtl 3y ago
  Name one of those OSes that had a quality phone on the market with a zero-dollar-license OS in 2009. Android was first modern mobile OS to market that would run on 3rd party devices (unlike Apple and RIM). Tizen was 2013. Win phone was 2011, and had license fees to use it.
  - COGlory 3y ago
    In this scenario (locked down like Apple), 3rd party devices aren't running Android.
    - Pxtl 3y ago
      What? Why would devices locked down at the OS-level to only a 1st-party store and only permitting installing through that 1st-party store be hardware-bound? Winphones were bound to the Windows store, but were 3rd-party devices.
      - COGlory 3y ago
        Because the comparison is to Apple.
        Pxtl 3y ago
        The lawsuits vs Google and Apple were about was allowing 3rd-party stores onto your platform, not about hardware lock-in.
        COGlory 3y ago
        Epic vs Google: Epic wins. Epic vs Apple: Epic loses. Comments like OP: "Lesson learned: just lock down your platform like Apple" My response: "If Android is locked down [like Apple] it never gets big" Not sure why this is so hard to follow.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]