4 ms·

This ridiculous outraged tone describing how a company makes money with an open source project. If you like open source, shouldn't you be glad that companies ar

This ridiculous outraged tone describing how a company makes money with an open source project. If you like open source, shouldn't you be glad that companies are able to make money with it?

spydum 3y ago
They pretend that "android cost money", then go on to explain that "Google Mobile Services" cost money.. but pretend that GMS is really android?
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
It's fake open-source. A charade. Install AOSP and see how useless the phone becomes. You'll have missing hardware drivers and no Google apps. They've also removed the messaging app and dialer from AOSP. The foundation is open-source but nearly everything in userspace is closed-source. https://www.androidauthority.com/google-kill-android-aosp-dialer-messages-app-3334980/ https://www.androidauthority.com/google-kill-android-aosp-di... Edit- There is also no browser in AOSP, just webview, which is enough to look at the F-Droid website but not download and install F-Droid. https://web.archive.org/web/20131225075731/http://www.unwiredview.com/2013/11/21/android-4-4-kitkat-ships-without-browser-app-oems-have-to-license-chrome-or-build-their-own/ https://web.archive.org/web/20131225075731/http://www.unwire... > Android 4.4+ KitKat ships without browser app. OEMs have to license Chrome or build their own > According to Android developer and author Maximiliano Firtman, he just got official confirmation that KitKat “… doesn’t ship with any browser, just the WebView. The emulator has it but not real devices. It’s up to each vendor to create a browser app using the WebView (such as Samsung) or to get license to preinstall Chrome.”
- efdee 3y ago
  So you have to write a replacement for the Google apps and get driver support. Sounds a hell of a lot easier than writing your entire OS from scratch.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - AshamedCaptain 3y ago
    Or not? One example is that there are more OSes than there are for example kernels. There were (even before Android) _multiple_ Linux-based operating systems designed for PDAs and/or phones (remember GPE? Qtopia? etc), and there are (even after Android) multiple non-Android Linux-based operating systems for phones. Frankly, evidence seems to point that Google borrowed from the community much more than they gave back.
- dataangel 3y ago
  Presumably there are open source apps you can install on top of AOSP that let you message and dial though?
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
    Yep. I just find it funny- it's an operating system for a phone yet provides no way to use it as a phone without downloading a 3rd party app or writing your own. This would be like if a laptop came with no screen or a car came with no wheels. Just add your own! Why should you expect basic functionality!?
    - twism 3y ago
      used to be... but android is a full fledged OS in a lot of things that are not phones (TVs, cars, streaming sticks, etc)
    - maxwell 3y ago
      It's an OS for mobile devices, no mention of "phones" on the project site (https://source.android.com https://source.android.com) and lots of Android devices don't have cell service. Doesn't seem unreasonable to bring your own dialing and voice calling app(s) if you want a UI for punching in formatted E.164 identifiers and making PSTN calls.
    - amadeuspagel 3y ago
      It would be like if a laptop came with no ... preinstalled apps to do a bunch of things that you might want to do with a laptop.
- myko 3y ago
  This attitude is baffling to me. Android is clearly open source. Go build it yourself, it isn't terribly difficult.
- twism 3y ago
  that's how it's meant to be ... other companies that want to use android on their bespoke hardware need to write their own drivers/software/talk to their on servers anyways. If I put AOSP on my own device and it's talking to Google folks will start complaining the other way ... "why is this in AOSP?"
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
    AOSP has a lot of Google in it- the first thing you'll see is a big anachronistic Google search bar.
    - twism 3y ago
      that's just the "Launcher" app AOSP comes with. most folks using AOSP (commercially) use a different launcher for their own needs
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
        It's part of AOSP- is this it in their git tree? https://android.googlesource.com/platform/packages/apps/Launcher/ https://android.googlesource.com/platform/packages/apps/Laun...
        twism 3y ago
        yes and so is the "Settings" app. not sure i understand your point
        refulgentis 3y ago
        I'm honestly surprised at the intensity with which people are going to bat for this (context: used to work on Android and generally have a dim view of the open source-ness https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38725926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38725926) If I'm understanding you both right, I'd say their point is: - it's not very open source if the only thing you can rely on is "API shim on top of Linux kernel", there's to some approximation no phone app, no launcher, no Settings, no browser. Those are hard! - It's doubly so if _the apps for this open source OS regularly rely on GMS APIs_, which require a commercial relationship with Google. and your point is: - There _is_ a phone app, launcher, Settings, and browser. No one said the OS and a _full modern mobile application suite_ are open source. - It is very good that the OS is open source and that shouldn't be discounted just because its non-trivial to get your own distro up and running. - completely putting words in your mouth now :) - the GMS APIs are things that _should_ be vendored, it'd be worse if Google's location tracking was baked into the OS. Also, vendors can provide shims that allow apps to call GMS APIs "headers" even if the impementer isn't GMS
- tslocum 3y ago
  As someone who does exactly this (I run LineageOS with microG) I can attest to the fact that a lot of apps just don't work without proprietary, non-AOSP components being present on your device (GMS aka Play Services). microG helps, and does result in increased functionality of these apps (for now) however large parts of the applications remain unusable. AOSP is open source, "Android" the brand and platform controlled by Google is largely proprietary (if you want most of your applications to run properly).
- charcircuit 3y ago
  >but nearly everything in userspace is closed-source. The part you are referring to is not part of AOSP. Different vendors all build their own OS for their devices on top of AOSP.
- refulgentis 3y ago
  ^ this is correct and accurate. I worked on Android for several years and was struggling to find an entry point in the comments where people would be amenable to a message like this. You're either Samsung and have some bespoke deal with Google and get to negotiate out stuff such that you end up with a real, full, OS, or you're a nobody trying to make an increasingly bare version of the full thing work. The whole thing feels darn creaky too, Google teams outside the phone / tablet team infamously, constantly, struggled to work with it. Even today, my Google TV will sometimes freeze for 20-30 seconds after power on. I can't help thinking there's room for something much better, but, here we are. Many projects have lived and died on that shore. And if anything, I'm too negative on it. The flavored water dispenser, and a vending machine, I'm looking at both run on it.
ensignavenger 3y ago
Maybe I'm not reading the article in the same tone as you? I am not reading "outrage" in it, more a sort of casual "did you know" - "look how smart I am" ish tone. Cool thing about writing, one can read it in any tone they want, I suppose :)
- amadeuspagel 3y ago
  Maybe, but even reading it in that spirit, I think it's not a smart, and especially not a curious article, and even partly wrong on GMS licensing, which only costs that much in europe and only for devices without Chrome and Google search: > Android manufacturers will have to pay Google a surprisingly high cost in Europe in order to include Google’s Play Store and other mobile apps on their devices, according to documents obtained by The Verge. A confidential fee schedule shows costs as high as $40 per device to install the “Google Mobile Services” suite of apps, which includes the Google Play Store. The new fees vary depending on country and device type, and it would apply to devices activated on or after February 1st, 2019. > But phone manufacturers may not actually have to shoulder that cost: Google is also offering separate agreements to cover some or all of the licensing costs for companies that choose to install Chrome and Google search on their devices as well, according to a person familiar with the terms. Google declined to comment. > Google’s licensing terms are changing in Europe later this month on account of a European Commission ruling that barred the company from requiring phone manufacturers to bundle Chrome and search with the rest of its suite of apps. In public statements, Google has been cagey about exactly how the new licensing fees will be structured, but documents reveal the deal with EU manufacturers will be rated by country and pixel density. https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/19/17999366/google-eu-android-licensing-terms https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/19/17999366/google-eu-andro...
  - ensignavenger 3y ago
    I can pretty much agree with this assessment. I didn't personally think the article was all that smart or curious.
- fragsworth 3y ago
  I didn't read any outrage in the article either. Also I don't think any less of Google after reading it.
soperj 3y ago
Apple makes tons of money off of open source. Their operating system kernels are all derivatives of Mach -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_(kernel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_(kernel) -- I don't think anyone is celebrating it.
- amadeuspagel 3y ago
  But does Apple fund the development of Mach?
  - neurostimulant 3y ago
    I don't think so, the development is pretty much halted at this point. But some of their early devs were hired by NeXT and then Apple when it acquired NeXT.
- newshackr 3y ago
  I think they mean making money off open source contributions
etaweb 3y ago
Android™ is not Open Source, it is based on AOSP which is.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  AOSP is short for Android™ Open Source Project. It's open source. https://source.android.com/ https://source.android.com/ >Android is an open source operating system for mobile devices and a corresponding open source project led by Google.
  - fifteen1506 3y ago
    I'm not sure where you both going at but yes, stock ROMs even for Pixels are AOSP + proprietary apps replacements/add-ons.
  - etaweb 3y ago
    I would say that most people think of Android as the complete operating system experience that comes preinstalled on most Android phones, and that experience depends a lot on proprietary parts, especially Google Mobile Services that are apparently deeply integrated with the OS (could it be considered part of it at this point?). Plus, these proprietary parts are not fully nor easily replaceable as you almost certainly have to wipe the whole operating system to do so. So, in my opinion, calling Android an Open Source OS is kind of misleading, but it's a matter of how you interpret what Android is. I would rather refer to Android as the final product (which relies on proprietary software), and to AOSP as the open source project which Android is built on. Plus, I think that AOSP and Android are considered two different entities and I doubt that AOSP is under the trademark of Android.
    - charcircuit 3y ago
      To me Android is like freedesktop or GNU. It's a platform that apps target. Some of those apps may also be open source, but some of those may be closed sourced. There are a ton of different distributions for these operating systems and each one gives it it's own twist.

This ridiculous outraged tone describing how a company makes money with an open source project. If you like open source, shouldn't you be glad that companies are able to make money with it?

spydum 3y ago

They pretend that "android cost money", then go on to explain that "Google Mobile Services" cost money.. but pretend that GMS is really android?

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago

It's fake open-source. A charade. Install AOSP and see how useless the phone becomes. You'll have missing hardware drivers and no Google apps. They've also removed the messaging app and dialer from AOSP. The foundation is open-source but nearly everything in userspace is closed-source. https://www.androidauthority.com/google-kill-android-aosp-dialer-messages-app-3334980/ https://www.androidauthority.com/google-kill-android-aosp-di... Edit- There is also no browser in AOSP, just webview, which is enough to look at the F-Droid website but not download and install F-Droid. https://web.archive.org/web/20131225075731/http://www.unwiredview.com/2013/11/21/android-4-4-kitkat-ships-without-browser-app-oems-have-to-license-chrome-or-build-their-own/ https://web.archive.org/web/20131225075731/http://www.unwire... > Android 4.4+ KitKat ships without browser app. OEMs have to license Chrome or build their own > According to Android developer and author Maximiliano Firtman, he just got official confirmation that KitKat “… doesn’t ship with any browser, just the WebView. The emulator has it but not real devices. It’s up to each vendor to create a browser app using the WebView (such as Samsung) or to get license to preinstall Chrome.”

efdee 3y ago
So you have to write a replacement for the Google apps and get driver support. Sounds a hell of a lot easier than writing your entire OS from scratch.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- AshamedCaptain 3y ago
  Or not? One example is that there are more OSes than there are for example kernels. There were (even before Android) _multiple_ Linux-based operating systems designed for PDAs and/or phones (remember GPE? Qtopia? etc), and there are (even after Android) multiple non-Android Linux-based operating systems for phones. Frankly, evidence seems to point that Google borrowed from the community much more than they gave back.
dataangel 3y ago
Presumably there are open source apps you can install on top of AOSP that let you message and dial though?
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  Yep. I just find it funny- it's an operating system for a phone yet provides no way to use it as a phone without downloading a 3rd party app or writing your own. This would be like if a laptop came with no screen or a car came with no wheels. Just add your own! Why should you expect basic functionality!?
  - twism 3y ago
    used to be... but android is a full fledged OS in a lot of things that are not phones (TVs, cars, streaming sticks, etc)
  - maxwell 3y ago
    It's an OS for mobile devices, no mention of "phones" on the project site (https://source.android.com https://source.android.com) and lots of Android devices don't have cell service. Doesn't seem unreasonable to bring your own dialing and voice calling app(s) if you want a UI for punching in formatted E.164 identifiers and making PSTN calls.
  - amadeuspagel 3y ago
    It would be like if a laptop came with no ... preinstalled apps to do a bunch of things that you might want to do with a laptop.
myko 3y ago
This attitude is baffling to me. Android is clearly open source. Go build it yourself, it isn't terribly difficult.
twism 3y ago
that's how it's meant to be ... other companies that want to use android on their bespoke hardware need to write their own drivers/software/talk to their on servers anyways. If I put AOSP on my own device and it's talking to Google folks will start complaining the other way ... "why is this in AOSP?"
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  AOSP has a lot of Google in it- the first thing you'll see is a big anachronistic Google search bar.
  - twism 3y ago
    that's just the "Launcher" app AOSP comes with. most folks using AOSP (commercially) use a different launcher for their own needs
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
      It's part of AOSP- is this it in their git tree? https://android.googlesource.com/platform/packages/apps/Launcher/ https://android.googlesource.com/platform/packages/apps/Laun...
      - twism 3y ago
        yes and so is the "Settings" app. not sure i understand your point
        refulgentis 3y ago
        I'm honestly surprised at the intensity with which people are going to bat for this (context: used to work on Android and generally have a dim view of the open source-ness https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38725926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38725926) If I'm understanding you both right, I'd say their point is: - it's not very open source if the only thing you can rely on is "API shim on top of Linux kernel", there's to some approximation no phone app, no launcher, no Settings, no browser. Those are hard! - It's doubly so if _the apps for this open source OS regularly rely on GMS APIs_, which require a commercial relationship with Google. and your point is: - There _is_ a phone app, launcher, Settings, and browser. No one said the OS and a _full modern mobile application suite_ are open source. - It is very good that the OS is open source and that shouldn't be discounted just because its non-trivial to get your own distro up and running. - completely putting words in your mouth now :) - the GMS APIs are things that _should_ be vendored, it'd be worse if Google's location tracking was baked into the OS. Also, vendors can provide shims that allow apps to call GMS APIs "headers" even if the impementer isn't GMS
tslocum 3y ago
As someone who does exactly this (I run LineageOS with microG) I can attest to the fact that a lot of apps just don't work without proprietary, non-AOSP components being present on your device (GMS aka Play Services). microG helps, and does result in increased functionality of these apps (for now) however large parts of the applications remain unusable. AOSP is open source, "Android" the brand and platform controlled by Google is largely proprietary (if you want most of your applications to run properly).
charcircuit 3y ago
>but nearly everything in userspace is closed-source. The part you are referring to is not part of AOSP. Different vendors all build their own OS for their devices on top of AOSP.
refulgentis 3y ago
^ this is correct and accurate. I worked on Android for several years and was struggling to find an entry point in the comments where people would be amenable to a message like this. You're either Samsung and have some bespoke deal with Google and get to negotiate out stuff such that you end up with a real, full, OS, or you're a nobody trying to make an increasingly bare version of the full thing work. The whole thing feels darn creaky too, Google teams outside the phone / tablet team infamously, constantly, struggled to work with it. Even today, my Google TV will sometimes freeze for 20-30 seconds after power on. I can't help thinking there's room for something much better, but, here we are. Many projects have lived and died on that shore. And if anything, I'm too negative on it. The flavored water dispenser, and a vending machine, I'm looking at both run on it.

ensignavenger 3y ago

Maybe I'm not reading the article in the same tone as you? I am not reading "outrage" in it, more a sort of casual "did you know" - "look how smart I am" ish tone. Cool thing about writing, one can read it in any tone they want, I suppose :)

amadeuspagel 3y ago
Maybe, but even reading it in that spirit, I think it's not a smart, and especially not a curious article, and even partly wrong on GMS licensing, which only costs that much in europe and only for devices without Chrome and Google search: > Android manufacturers will have to pay Google a surprisingly high cost in Europe in order to include Google’s Play Store and other mobile apps on their devices, according to documents obtained by The Verge. A confidential fee schedule shows costs as high as $40 per device to install the “Google Mobile Services” suite of apps, which includes the Google Play Store. The new fees vary depending on country and device type, and it would apply to devices activated on or after February 1st, 2019. > But phone manufacturers may not actually have to shoulder that cost: Google is also offering separate agreements to cover some or all of the licensing costs for companies that choose to install Chrome and Google search on their devices as well, according to a person familiar with the terms. Google declined to comment. > Google’s licensing terms are changing in Europe later this month on account of a European Commission ruling that barred the company from requiring phone manufacturers to bundle Chrome and search with the rest of its suite of apps. In public statements, Google has been cagey about exactly how the new licensing fees will be structured, but documents reveal the deal with EU manufacturers will be rated by country and pixel density. https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/19/17999366/google-eu-android-licensing-terms https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/19/17999366/google-eu-andro...
- ensignavenger 3y ago
  I can pretty much agree with this assessment. I didn't personally think the article was all that smart or curious.
fragsworth 3y ago
I didn't read any outrage in the article either. Also I don't think any less of Google after reading it.

soperj 3y ago

Apple makes tons of money off of open source. Their operating system kernels are all derivatives of Mach -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_(kernel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_(kernel) -- I don't think anyone is celebrating it.

amadeuspagel 3y ago
But does Apple fund the development of Mach?
- neurostimulant 3y ago
  I don't think so, the development is pretty much halted at this point. But some of their early devs were hired by NeXT and then Apple when it acquired NeXT.
newshackr 3y ago
I think they mean making money off open source contributions

etaweb 3y ago

Android™ is not Open Source, it is based on AOSP which is.

charcircuit 3y ago
AOSP is short for Android™ Open Source Project. It's open source. https://source.android.com/ https://source.android.com/ >Android is an open source operating system for mobile devices and a corresponding open source project led by Google.
- fifteen1506 3y ago
  I'm not sure where you both going at but yes, stock ROMs even for Pixels are AOSP + proprietary apps replacements/add-ons.
- etaweb 3y ago
  I would say that most people think of Android as the complete operating system experience that comes preinstalled on most Android phones, and that experience depends a lot on proprietary parts, especially Google Mobile Services that are apparently deeply integrated with the OS (could it be considered part of it at this point?). Plus, these proprietary parts are not fully nor easily replaceable as you almost certainly have to wipe the whole operating system to do so. So, in my opinion, calling Android an Open Source OS is kind of misleading, but it's a matter of how you interpret what Android is. I would rather refer to Android as the final product (which relies on proprietary software), and to AOSP as the open source project which Android is built on. Plus, I think that AOSP and Android are considered two different entities and I doubt that AOSP is under the trademark of Android.
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    To me Android is like freedesktop or GNU. It's a platform that apps target. Some of those apps may also be open source, but some of those may be closed sourced. There are a ton of different distributions for these operating systems and each one gives it it's own twist.