6 ms·

This is seriously good news. What many people don't realize is how powerful Android is. Open Source doesn't mean shitty quality software, contrary to popular be

by neya 14y ago

This is seriously good news. What many people don't realize is how powerful Android is. Open Source doesn't mean shitty quality software, contrary to popular belief. Android can do so many things that other Operating systems still cannot provide. All Android needs is some time, and some iterations and no one can even dream of killing it (like many plan to). Because, if anything history has taught us, Open Source will eventually win the war. I own a 42" Sony Bravia LCD TV. When I first purchased it, I got a hard copy of the GNU/GPL license. Wondering, I did a quick search and found out that my TV runs on Linux! Now, here's the sad part - Since I'm somewhat techie, I know my TV is powered by Open Source software. But the average end consumer doesn't know and doesn't care much, he just wants a good TV. So, the main area where open Source is weak at is marketing. And this too, is only a matter of time, till it catches up, I believe. Imagine if the Linux foundation advertised on TV like Apple did, for their Mac vs PC commercials? Then the average consumer would probably care. If you have a good product, you should let people know about it. Sadly, even the Nexus 10 and Nexus 4 have poor marketing in this context (Michael Arrington wrote a wonderful article on this[1]). One day, Android will reach 95%+, and I will live to watch it happen and I will tell my kids and my grandchildren without hesitation - "This is the future." [1] http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/31/hey-google-your-nexus-7-marketing-images-look-like-crap/ http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/31/hey-google-your-nexus-7-mar...

briandear 14y ago
Android is open source? Cool! Where's the source code?
- neya 14y ago
  http://source.android.com/ http://source.android.com/
  - taligent 14y ago
    Actually Android is closer to shared source than open source. A typical open source project has an open repository, allows third party contributors, open issue tracking etc. Last time I checked Android had none of these and only released source code after a release.
    - myko 14y ago
      https://android-review.googlesource.com/#/q/status:open,n,z https://android-review.googlesource.com/#/q/status:open,n,z
    - bookwormAT 14y ago
      No, Android is a open source project. Open Source does not require a community driven process. When Google releases a snapshot of Android under the Apache license, then this code is open source.
    - yohui 14y ago
      Downloading the Source Tree: https://source.android.com/source/downloading.html https://source.android.com/source/downloading.html android Git repositories: https://android.googlesource.com/ https://android.googlesource.com/ Submitting Patches: https://source.android.com/source/submit-patches.html https://source.android.com/source/submit-patches.html View Patches: https://android-review.googlesource.com/ https://android-review.googlesource.com/ View Issues: https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/ https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/ > only released source code after a release Granted. They don't release before they release.
      - neya 14y ago
        He is a well known troll. Don't feed him. But thanks for clarifying anyway.
  - Steko 14y ago
    It bears repeating that "what we call Android" is more then just what is available as open source. It's all that plus a lot of closed source: Maps, Play, Gmail, etc.
    - myko 14y ago
      Maybe what _you_ call Android. I don't think most of us fall into that category. What do you call the OS running on the Nook or Kindle?
      - shinratdr 14y ago
        Android fork? AOSP? Something besides "Android" because what consumers know as "Android" includes Gmail and Google Play.
        deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
        bookwormAT 14y ago
        Android is a technical term. I don't think it is important to this discussion what the press/ "average" consumer think the word Android means, because they are not part of this discussion. Consumers/press also have a very different meaning for the word "hacker" than most of us here have. Yet we can still use the original term here without getting confused. Gmail and Google Play are not Android, they are pieces of an app suite from Google. Samsung licensing Google Apps for their android-based operating system is not that different from Samsung licensing Adobe reader for their Android-based operating system. And Amazon is not making a fork. Amazon's software is fully compatible with Android 4.0.3. Android is what you find at http://source.android.com/ http://source.android.com/
        shinratdr 14y ago
        > Android is a technical term. So why do carriers sell those devices as Android smartphones then? Why does Bell run a campaign advertising "Android superphones" as gifts for the holidays? Because it's not a technical term, it's what people call devices that run Android. "My Android" like "My Mac" or "My iPhone. I would love to hear you argue that "Mac" or "iPhone" is a technical term. In that scenario, they instantly roll Google Play, Gmail, and the various other apps that ship on all Google-approved Android devices into the mix. > I don't think it is important to this discussion what the press/ "average" consumer think the word Android means, because they are not part of this discussion. Yes, they are. That was the point of the "most of us" comment. > Yet we can still use the original term here without getting confused. Maybe die-hard Android fans can. Everyone else associates Android with the Market, Gmail and various other apps just like they associate iOS with the App Store. > Samsung licensing Google Apps for their android-based operating system is not that different from Samsung licensing Adobe reader for their Android-based operating system. That could be the dumbest thing I have ever read. Why don't you go ask Microsoft about the differences between shipping applications with the OS you build and negotiating with 3rd party software vendors and get back to me. > And Amazon is not making a fork. Amazon's software is fully compatible with Android 4.0.3. Compatibility with applications has nothing to do with whether or not software is a fork or not. It simply implies a split development path. > Android is what you find at http://source.android.com/ http://source.android.com/ No, it isn't. It's a stripped down subset missing most things associated with Android as being good or useful, like the Market or Gmail. I personally call that AOSP, because that's what it is. Its own separate thing.
shinratdr 14y ago
> Because, if anything history has taught us, Open Source will eventually win the war. How does that work? Where is the open source OS that "won" the desktop war? Where is the open source codec that "won" the codec wars?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- biomechanica 14y ago
  I'm unsure I agree with it also. Android has Google's wallet to fall back on. That could be one reason why it's successful. Mobile devices fill a different "comfort", I think. Desktop OS's out there try to fill a broad spectrum of wants (and needs). I think Linus has been quoted as saying something like, "Desktop is a hard problem to solve", and that the Linux world hasn't even come close to solving it (yet). I know a lot of people who would otherwise be lost on a Windows machine be completely comfortable with iPhone or Android devices simply because it fills that niche. Computer illiterate people seem to gravitate to, not desktop, but mobile devices. So maybe Android is the new "desktop" for those types of users. Power users are now left to fill their own comforts. Maybe Linux powered desktops will eventually be the winner in the future. We'll see. Open source codec race is, as far as I'm concerned, not over yet. Opus shows a ton of potential for audio related streaming/recording. Webm is supported by most browsers (except for Safari and IE). It's not a bad container, too. Compared to mp4, it's not that great, but I really can't tell the difference when watching something online anymore. So, the wars aren't over. Android with Google's backing will be, and is, a force to be reckoned with. However, I wouldn't cancel out the possibility of another open source and free alternative coming around the corner to change that. Perhaps Firefox OS, who knows?
  - bdcravens 14y ago
    Pretty much every open source project that has succeeded has been the result of fat wallet corporate backing. I'm sure someone will offer a counterexample, but for the most part, hackers have to eat, and I haven't seen the "donate" model really work out. However, this is cool: it shows that open source isn't anti-commercial, it's pro-freedom.
ConstantineXVI 14y ago
The Android codebase may not be killable, but Android as a platform certainly is. Google is the only thing holding Android together; if they pull out or a major OEM or carrier grows balls, they'll fork and the ecosystem will shatter. Remember Android is mainly [edit: Apache] licensed so there's no requirement for forkers to stay open; I have serious doubts OEMs and carriers are interested in helping their competitors.
- myko 14y ago
  Actually it's Apache: http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html
  - ConstantineXVI 14y ago
    My fault. Noted.
credo 14y ago
>>Open Source will eventually win the war. You're neglecting to mention one important fact. Open Source often relies on subsidies and handouts from companies/organizations(that use open-source software to compete with (and attack) software companies that created the original software product). Sun is a good example that comes to mind here In case of Android, Google is an ad company and don't need to earn money by selling mobile OS software. I have had Android phones since the G1 (and wrote a prototype Android app long before the first Android phone (G1) was in the market). However, that doesn't blind me to the fact that Google's business model (free software that obtains user information and monetizes users through ads) is very different from the business model of companies like Microsoft and Apple.

by neya 14y ago

briandear 14y ago

Android is open source? Cool! Where's the source code?

neya 14y ago
http://source.android.com/ http://source.android.com/
- taligent 14y ago
  Actually Android is closer to shared source than open source. A typical open source project has an open repository, allows third party contributors, open issue tracking etc. Last time I checked Android had none of these and only released source code after a release.
  - myko 14y ago
    https://android-review.googlesource.com/#/q/status:open,n,z https://android-review.googlesource.com/#/q/status:open,n,z
  - bookwormAT 14y ago
    No, Android is a open source project. Open Source does not require a community driven process. When Google releases a snapshot of Android under the Apache license, then this code is open source.
  - yohui 14y ago
    Downloading the Source Tree: https://source.android.com/source/downloading.html https://source.android.com/source/downloading.html android Git repositories: https://android.googlesource.com/ https://android.googlesource.com/ Submitting Patches: https://source.android.com/source/submit-patches.html https://source.android.com/source/submit-patches.html View Patches: https://android-review.googlesource.com/ https://android-review.googlesource.com/ View Issues: https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/ https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/ > only released source code after a release Granted. They don't release before they release.
    - neya 14y ago
      He is a well known troll. Don't feed him. But thanks for clarifying anyway.
- Steko 14y ago
  It bears repeating that "what we call Android" is more then just what is available as open source. It's all that plus a lot of closed source: Maps, Play, Gmail, etc.
  - myko 14y ago
    Maybe what _you_ call Android. I don't think most of us fall into that category. What do you call the OS running on the Nook or Kindle?
    - shinratdr 14y ago
      Android fork? AOSP? Something besides "Android" because what consumers know as "Android" includes Gmail and Google Play.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - bookwormAT 14y ago
        Android is a technical term. I don't think it is important to this discussion what the press/ "average" consumer think the word Android means, because they are not part of this discussion. Consumers/press also have a very different meaning for the word "hacker" than most of us here have. Yet we can still use the original term here without getting confused. Gmail and Google Play are not Android, they are pieces of an app suite from Google. Samsung licensing Google Apps for their android-based operating system is not that different from Samsung licensing Adobe reader for their Android-based operating system. And Amazon is not making a fork. Amazon's software is fully compatible with Android 4.0.3. Android is what you find at http://source.android.com/ http://source.android.com/
        shinratdr 14y ago
        > Android is a technical term. So why do carriers sell those devices as Android smartphones then? Why does Bell run a campaign advertising "Android superphones" as gifts for the holidays? Because it's not a technical term, it's what people call devices that run Android. "My Android" like "My Mac" or "My iPhone. I would love to hear you argue that "Mac" or "iPhone" is a technical term. In that scenario, they instantly roll Google Play, Gmail, and the various other apps that ship on all Google-approved Android devices into the mix. > I don't think it is important to this discussion what the press/ "average" consumer think the word Android means, because they are not part of this discussion. Yes, they are. That was the point of the "most of us" comment. > Yet we can still use the original term here without getting confused. Maybe die-hard Android fans can. Everyone else associates Android with the Market, Gmail and various other apps just like they associate iOS with the App Store. > Samsung licensing Google Apps for their android-based operating system is not that different from Samsung licensing Adobe reader for their Android-based operating system. That could be the dumbest thing I have ever read. Why don't you go ask Microsoft about the differences between shipping applications with the OS you build and negotiating with 3rd party software vendors and get back to me. > And Amazon is not making a fork. Amazon's software is fully compatible with Android 4.0.3. Compatibility with applications has nothing to do with whether or not software is a fork or not. It simply implies a split development path. > Android is what you find at http://source.android.com/ http://source.android.com/ No, it isn't. It's a stripped down subset missing most things associated with Android as being good or useful, like the Market or Gmail. I personally call that AOSP, because that's what it is. Its own separate thing.

shinratdr 14y ago

> Because, if anything history has taught us, Open Source will eventually win the war. How does that work? Where is the open source OS that "won" the desktop war? Where is the open source codec that "won" the codec wars?

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
biomechanica 14y ago
I'm unsure I agree with it also. Android has Google's wallet to fall back on. That could be one reason why it's successful. Mobile devices fill a different "comfort", I think. Desktop OS's out there try to fill a broad spectrum of wants (and needs). I think Linus has been quoted as saying something like, "Desktop is a hard problem to solve", and that the Linux world hasn't even come close to solving it (yet). I know a lot of people who would otherwise be lost on a Windows machine be completely comfortable with iPhone or Android devices simply because it fills that niche. Computer illiterate people seem to gravitate to, not desktop, but mobile devices. So maybe Android is the new "desktop" for those types of users. Power users are now left to fill their own comforts. Maybe Linux powered desktops will eventually be the winner in the future. We'll see. Open source codec race is, as far as I'm concerned, not over yet. Opus shows a ton of potential for audio related streaming/recording. Webm is supported by most browsers (except for Safari and IE). It's not a bad container, too. Compared to mp4, it's not that great, but I really can't tell the difference when watching something online anymore. So, the wars aren't over. Android with Google's backing will be, and is, a force to be reckoned with. However, I wouldn't cancel out the possibility of another open source and free alternative coming around the corner to change that. Perhaps Firefox OS, who knows?
- bdcravens 14y ago
  Pretty much every open source project that has succeeded has been the result of fat wallet corporate backing. I'm sure someone will offer a counterexample, but for the most part, hackers have to eat, and I haven't seen the "donate" model really work out. However, this is cool: it shows that open source isn't anti-commercial, it's pro-freedom.

ConstantineXVI 14y ago

The Android codebase may not be killable, but Android as a platform certainly is. Google is the only thing holding Android together; if they pull out or a major OEM or carrier grows balls, they'll fork and the ecosystem will shatter. Remember Android is mainly [edit: Apache] licensed so there's no requirement for forkers to stay open; I have serious doubts OEMs and carriers are interested in helping their competitors.

myko 14y ago
Actually it's Apache: http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html
- ConstantineXVI 14y ago
  My fault. Noted.

credo 14y ago

>>Open Source will eventually win the war. You're neglecting to mention one important fact. Open Source often relies on subsidies and handouts from companies/organizations(that use open-source software to compete with (and attack) software companies that created the original software product). Sun is a good example that comes to mind here In case of Android, Google is an ad company and don't need to earn money by selling mobile OS software. I have had Android phones since the G1 (and wrote a prototype Android app long before the first Android phone (G1) was in the market). However, that doesn't blind me to the fact that Google's business model (free software that obtains user information and monetizes users through ads) is very different from the business model of companies like Microsoft and Apple.