3 ms·

They never forked Android. The software on the original kindle fire is a fully compatible Android 2.3 based operating system.

ajross 14y ago
How is that not a fork? They took it, made changes, and shipped it without those changes being reintegrated with the upstream project. "Fork" isn't a moral condemnation, it's a description of a development model.
- jonknee 14y ago
  If that's your definition of a fork there are very very few Android devices since just about every OEM/Carrier does the same thing. Amazon was different though since they didn't refer to it as Android. Not a true fork though since they are bringing in the latest Android changes.
  - ajross 14y ago
    Most OEM/Carrier modifications are new launchers, or an app or three to check your minutes. Amazon deployed an entire content delivery network and device provisioning system, and they're maintaining that across upstream OS releases without an attempt to integrate that stuff. So yes, that is my definition of a fork. And while an OEM integration probably qualifies as a "fork" in a literal sense it doesn't really qualify in the same way Kindle does. Flip it around: if Kindle isn't a fork of Android than what does constitute a fork? Again, this isn't a moral judgement. Amazon had the legal right to do this, and they did it very well. So far it hasn't done anything but present the Android "community" with some nice hardware at good prices. But refusing to call it a fork is just ... weird.
- bookwormAT 14y ago
  But did they make any changes to Android? Again, the Amazon OS is fully compatible to Android 2.3. What Amazon actually did was making a new OS based on Android. That is not is not "making changes to Android". That's just using Android. Android is a platform that is supposed to be customized into different and unique ROMs. Amazon just created a new UI and installed different apps than other vendors do. In order to fork the platform, IMHO, they would have to break the APIs.

ajross 14y ago

How is that not a fork? They took it, made changes, and shipped it without those changes being reintegrated with the upstream project. "Fork" isn't a moral condemnation, it's a description of a development model.

jonknee 14y ago
If that's your definition of a fork there are very very few Android devices since just about every OEM/Carrier does the same thing. Amazon was different though since they didn't refer to it as Android. Not a true fork though since they are bringing in the latest Android changes.
- ajross 14y ago
  Most OEM/Carrier modifications are new launchers, or an app or three to check your minutes. Amazon deployed an entire content delivery network and device provisioning system, and they're maintaining that across upstream OS releases without an attempt to integrate that stuff. So yes, that is my definition of a fork. And while an OEM integration probably qualifies as a "fork" in a literal sense it doesn't really qualify in the same way Kindle does. Flip it around: if Kindle isn't a fork of Android than what does constitute a fork? Again, this isn't a moral judgement. Amazon had the legal right to do this, and they did it very well. So far it hasn't done anything but present the Android "community" with some nice hardware at good prices. But refusing to call it a fork is just ... weird.
bookwormAT 14y ago
But did they make any changes to Android? Again, the Amazon OS is fully compatible to Android 2.3. What Amazon actually did was making a new OS based on Android. That is not is not "making changes to Android". That's just using Android. Android is a platform that is supposed to be customized into different and unique ROMs. Amazon just created a new UI and installed different apps than other vendors do. In order to fork the platform, IMHO, they would have to break the APIs.