4 ms·

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, Gmai

by 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.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- Steko 14y ago
  "I don't think most of us fall into that category." I'm calling bullshit. People all the time refer to Maps as one of, if not the biggest advantage of Android. Same thing with the Gmail client. In this very thread you refer to a Chrome for Android (not Chromium afaik) feature as Android (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4734771 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4734771). "What do you call the OS running on the Nook or Kindle?" Properly it's AOSP. That fact that Google has, whether intentionally or unintentionally, created a lot of confusion between AOSP (which you can't even use the Android mark with) and "what most people call Android" (the one you can actually use the Android mark with) doesn't mean you get to have your cake ("we're open") and eat it too ("android is so great because of <list of closed source features>!"). http://marketingland.com/what-is-the-one-true-android-and-how-open-is-it-21664 http://marketingland.com/what-is-the-one-true-android-and-ho...
  - myko 14y ago
    Call bullshit all you want, it doesn't make you any more correct. Android is an open source operating system, saying otherwise is ignorant. If you want to talk about Google Play, Maps, Gmail, etc., it's pretty easy to install as a user on any non-locked down AOSP based version of the OS that doesn't rip out necessary APIs. In any case I call these 'apps' which are available on Android, the OS.
  - bookwormAT 14y ago
    A propritary software that only runs on Android is for sure an advantage for Android. But that does not mean that it is Android. One advantage of Microsoft Windows over Ubuntu is that Windows runs Photoshop nativly and Ubuntu does not. But that does not mean that Photoshop is Windows.
    - Steko 14y ago
      People don't say that it's an advantage that Maps "runs on" Android. The way it's commonly discussed implies that to people, Maps is Android.
      - deleted 14y ago

by 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.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
Steko 14y ago
"I don't think most of us fall into that category." I'm calling bullshit. People all the time refer to Maps as one of, if not the biggest advantage of Android. Same thing with the Gmail client. In this very thread you refer to a Chrome for Android (not Chromium afaik) feature as Android (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4734771 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4734771). "What do you call the OS running on the Nook or Kindle?" Properly it's AOSP. That fact that Google has, whether intentionally or unintentionally, created a lot of confusion between AOSP (which you can't even use the Android mark with) and "what most people call Android" (the one you can actually use the Android mark with) doesn't mean you get to have your cake ("we're open") and eat it too ("android is so great because of <list of closed source features>!"). http://marketingland.com/what-is-the-one-true-android-and-how-open-is-it-21664 http://marketingland.com/what-is-the-one-true-android-and-ho...
- myko 14y ago
  Call bullshit all you want, it doesn't make you any more correct. Android is an open source operating system, saying otherwise is ignorant. If you want to talk about Google Play, Maps, Gmail, etc., it's pretty easy to install as a user on any non-locked down AOSP based version of the OS that doesn't rip out necessary APIs. In any case I call these 'apps' which are available on Android, the OS.
- bookwormAT 14y ago
  A propritary software that only runs on Android is for sure an advantage for Android. But that does not mean that it is Android. One advantage of Microsoft Windows over Ubuntu is that Windows runs Photoshop nativly and Ubuntu does not. But that does not mean that Photoshop is Windows.
  - Steko 14y ago
    People don't say that it's an advantage that Maps "runs on" Android. The way it's commonly discussed implies that to people, Maps is Android.
    - deleted 14y ago