6 ms·

Edit: Here's the keynote video. Skip to about 6:35 sec for the new bits. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpWHJDLsqTU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpWHJDLsqT

Edit: Here's the keynote video. Skip to about 6:35 sec for the new bits. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpWHJDLsqTU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpWHJDLsqTU Direct link to 6:35 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpWHJDLsqTU&feature=player_detailpage#t=401s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpWHJDLsqTU&feature=play... First thoughts: 2014 is a long way away and a whole year is an eternity in mobile space. It kind of looks like Unity in portrait mode but without the dock. What does it bring new to developers that isn't there in Android? Firefox OS's USP is web apps with native bindings(same as WebOS'). It says it uses the Android kernel and drivers to be compatible with the hardware, so will OEM(s) shipping devices with this OSes fall foul of Google's anti-fork rules[1] for Android? Or does that apply only to the Android SDK/Dalvik VM? [1] http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57512418-94/alibaba-google-forced-acer-to-drop-our-new-mobile-os/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57512418-94/alibaba-google-...

justincormack 14y ago
I think having anti-fork rules on the Android kernel would violate the GPL, so that couldn't happen...
- Andrex 14y ago
  The anti-fork rules concern Google's support and applications for devices, not the source code of the OS itself. Amazon has forked Android, but by doing so they aren't allowed to use any of Google's apps in their devices.
- fluidcruft 14y ago
  The golden handcuffs are your ability to ship Android's userland (including access to use of trademarks and Play Store). If Google shuts you out, you're out. Ship all the linux kernels you want. Technically, you can probably ship something based on pure AOSP, but your competitors will have had pre-AOSP access to the code for multiple months and there are no guarantees that AOSP even works without Google's magic proprietary mojo. CyanogenMod had to develop the missing pieces when Google sent their C&D over the proprietary bits. I would suspect defensive things designed to make it more difficult for Amazon to leech AOSP are either present or coming soon particularly with the rumors that Amazon is working toward introducing a phone.
  - css771 14y ago
    > there are no guarantees that AOSP even works without Google's magic proprietary mojo What do you mean by this? If you mean in the market, it can work. Amazon's devices are proof. If a manufacturer is shipping just AOSP, it needs to have a working complement to Google's suite of apps or it needs to have a different value proposition altogether. > CyanogenMod had to develop the missing pieces when Google sent their C&D over the proprietary bits What "missing bits"? They were shipping Google's suite of proprietary apps on top of their AOSP-based ROM and they stopped after the C&D.
    - fluidcruft 14y ago
      Once Google's proprietary stuff was deleted, it was not possible to provision a phone (until the FOSS alternates for things like Provision.apk were developed). I can't remember if you got bootloops or what. There were other problems, too. I think AOSP has been friendly toward patches for that sort of thing... ensuring AOSP without gapps works just wasn't one of Google's requirements (at least early on--it may be now for all I know). Not that you can really fault them for having different priorities.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- Zigurd 14y ago
  The "anti fork" agreements Google has with OEMs are not public, but some terms of these agreements were made public in a lawsuit involving Skyhook: http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-lawsuit-motorola-samsung/ http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-la... What it boils down to is that Google has a final approval over any Google-logo Android device. For phone OEMs, this looks like absolute and arbitrary control by Google, but, in reality, it's a three-way negotiation between the OEM, Google, and, in the US, the carrier controlling the channel for the product, with any one of them able to sink a product before it reaches the market. Google has never seen fit to make licensing terms for Google's ecosystem apps (Maps, Play, etc.) transparent. That's a pretty sharp contrast with Android as an open source project, and even with the way Windows Mobile (not Windows Phone) was licensed. So Android is open, on the one (AOSP) hand, and un-transparently proprietary on the other hand. That leaves an obvious market opening for a truly open OS. But, so far, Tizen, Open WebOS, or any other possible contenders have been insufficient and/or under-developed. Maybe Canonical will get it right.
mtgx 14y ago
> It says it uses the Android kernel and drivers to be compatible with the hardware Where did you see that? Are you sure you're not confusing it with the "Ubuntu for Android" project? That is a different project from this. I don't think an Ubuntu phone will have anything to do with Android. It's its own OS, and you won't see it on all phones or anything like that - just on the "Ubuntu phones" that will be shipping starting with 2014. They might port it to some existing hardware like Galaxy Nexus for demo purposes, though, the way Mozilla did with Firefox OS on Galaxy S2.
- recoiledsnake 14y ago
  I got it from The Verge. "As already teased and promised, today Canonical is taking the wraps off the mobile version of Ubuntu, which is built around the existing Android kernel and drivers, but doesn't use a Java Virtual Machine and promises to use "the full power of the phone."" http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/2/3827922/ubuntu-phone-os-announcement http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/2/3827922/ubuntu-phone-os-ann... I got confused with all the simultaneous news articles so sorry about the "it says" part.
- gregr401 14y ago
  > Where did you see that? Are you sure you're not confusing it with the "Ubuntu for Android" project? That is a different project from this. It was mentioned in the keynote video, towards the very end ~21:00.
- JoshTriplett 14y ago
  Quoting http://www.ubuntu.com/devices/phone/operators-and-oems http://www.ubuntu.com/devices/phone/operators-and-oems : > Ubuntu has already been adapted to run on chipsets using the ARM and Intel x86 architectures relevant for mobile devices, with the core system based around a typical Android Board Support Package (BSP). So chipset vendors and hardware manufacturers do not need to invest in or maintain new hardware support packages for Ubuntu on smartphones. In short, if you already make handsets that run Android, the work needed to adopt Ubuntu will be trivial.
  - mtgx 14y ago
firefoxman1 14y ago
Wow, I'm impressed even though it is just a demo video. One thing that doesn't feel intuitive to me is the left/right edge choices. It's the same problem with Windows 8, I feel like if I pull an app in from one side, I should be able to switch to the previous app by pulling in from the other side.
polshaw 14y ago
>What does it bring new to developers that isn't there in Android? Firefox OS's USP is web apps with native bindings Connect a display and you have full ubuntu. With today's smartphones already computationally competitive with your standard netbook, that alone is a massive value proposition to me. Add something like motorola's lapdock and there is 95% of all my computing needs met, all with a single, central data storage. Hopefully porting from linux will be fairly straightforward too.. just a new UI support?, giving apps that work from desktop to mobile. Not to mention that is has most of the FFOS advantage too.
- maratd 14y ago
  > Connect a display and you have full ubuntu. I didn't see this mentioned in the keynote. I was specifically looking for it and there were zero mentions?
  - r3m6 14y ago
    Mark S. mentions it in the Engadget interview: "If I dock this, I can get the full Ubuntu desktop".
    - lttlrck 14y ago
      So is it going to have two WMs and two versions of every desktop app? One touch optimized and one for the desktop? It doesn't sound all that wonderful. Desktop/mobile crossover might be better served with cloud-sync.
      - lotyrin 14y ago
        > cloud-sync Except if I'm in a developing nation where I'm not guaranteed connectivity. (Don't scoff yet, because I'd say the US is in this category.)
      - Shorel 14y ago
        No. I think it will have a native GUI toolkit that can adapt to both with some hints by the developer.
shmerl 14y ago
I wonder if they use libhybris or something similar to pull that trick and to use bionic drivers. I hope they'll push for regular glibc drivers as well though.
Aardwolf 14y ago
I still don't understand why desktop users have to suffer with a crappier desktop UI (Unity) due to this.

justincormack 14y ago

I think having anti-fork rules on the Android kernel would violate the GPL, so that couldn't happen...

Andrex 14y ago
The anti-fork rules concern Google's support and applications for devices, not the source code of the OS itself. Amazon has forked Android, but by doing so they aren't allowed to use any of Google's apps in their devices.
fluidcruft 14y ago
The golden handcuffs are your ability to ship Android's userland (including access to use of trademarks and Play Store). If Google shuts you out, you're out. Ship all the linux kernels you want. Technically, you can probably ship something based on pure AOSP, but your competitors will have had pre-AOSP access to the code for multiple months and there are no guarantees that AOSP even works without Google's magic proprietary mojo. CyanogenMod had to develop the missing pieces when Google sent their C&D over the proprietary bits. I would suspect defensive things designed to make it more difficult for Amazon to leech AOSP are either present or coming soon particularly with the rumors that Amazon is working toward introducing a phone.
- css771 14y ago
  > there are no guarantees that AOSP even works without Google's magic proprietary mojo What do you mean by this? If you mean in the market, it can work. Amazon's devices are proof. If a manufacturer is shipping just AOSP, it needs to have a working complement to Google's suite of apps or it needs to have a different value proposition altogether. > CyanogenMod had to develop the missing pieces when Google sent their C&D over the proprietary bits What "missing bits"? They were shipping Google's suite of proprietary apps on top of their AOSP-based ROM and they stopped after the C&D.
  - fluidcruft 14y ago
    Once Google's proprietary stuff was deleted, it was not possible to provision a phone (until the FOSS alternates for things like Provision.apk were developed). I can't remember if you got bootloops or what. There were other problems, too. I think AOSP has been friendly toward patches for that sort of thing... ensuring AOSP without gapps works just wasn't one of Google's requirements (at least early on--it may be now for all I know). Not that you can really fault them for having different priorities.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
Zigurd 14y ago
The "anti fork" agreements Google has with OEMs are not public, but some terms of these agreements were made public in a lawsuit involving Skyhook: http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-lawsuit-motorola-samsung/ http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-la... What it boils down to is that Google has a final approval over any Google-logo Android device. For phone OEMs, this looks like absolute and arbitrary control by Google, but, in reality, it's a three-way negotiation between the OEM, Google, and, in the US, the carrier controlling the channel for the product, with any one of them able to sink a product before it reaches the market. Google has never seen fit to make licensing terms for Google's ecosystem apps (Maps, Play, etc.) transparent. That's a pretty sharp contrast with Android as an open source project, and even with the way Windows Mobile (not Windows Phone) was licensed. So Android is open, on the one (AOSP) hand, and un-transparently proprietary on the other hand. That leaves an obvious market opening for a truly open OS. But, so far, Tizen, Open WebOS, or any other possible contenders have been insufficient and/or under-developed. Maybe Canonical will get it right.

mtgx 14y ago

> It says it uses the Android kernel and drivers to be compatible with the hardware Where did you see that? Are you sure you're not confusing it with the "Ubuntu for Android" project? That is a different project from this. I don't think an Ubuntu phone will have anything to do with Android. It's its own OS, and you won't see it on all phones or anything like that - just on the "Ubuntu phones" that will be shipping starting with 2014. They might port it to some existing hardware like Galaxy Nexus for demo purposes, though, the way Mozilla did with Firefox OS on Galaxy S2.

recoiledsnake 14y ago
I got it from The Verge. "As already teased and promised, today Canonical is taking the wraps off the mobile version of Ubuntu, which is built around the existing Android kernel and drivers, but doesn't use a Java Virtual Machine and promises to use "the full power of the phone."" http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/2/3827922/ubuntu-phone-os-announcement http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/2/3827922/ubuntu-phone-os-ann... I got confused with all the simultaneous news articles so sorry about the "it says" part.
gregr401 14y ago
> Where did you see that? Are you sure you're not confusing it with the "Ubuntu for Android" project? That is a different project from this. It was mentioned in the keynote video, towards the very end ~21:00.
JoshTriplett 14y ago
Quoting http://www.ubuntu.com/devices/phone/operators-and-oems http://www.ubuntu.com/devices/phone/operators-and-oems : > Ubuntu has already been adapted to run on chipsets using the ARM and Intel x86 architectures relevant for mobile devices, with the core system based around a typical Android Board Support Package (BSP). So chipset vendors and hardware manufacturers do not need to invest in or maintain new hardware support packages for Ubuntu on smartphones. In short, if you already make handsets that run Android, the work needed to adopt Ubuntu will be trivial.
- mtgx 14y ago

firefoxman1 14y ago

Wow, I'm impressed even though it is just a demo video. One thing that doesn't feel intuitive to me is the left/right edge choices. It's the same problem with Windows 8, I feel like if I pull an app in from one side, I should be able to switch to the previous app by pulling in from the other side.

polshaw 14y ago

>What does it bring new to developers that isn't there in Android? Firefox OS's USP is web apps with native bindings Connect a display and you have full ubuntu. With today's smartphones already computationally competitive with your standard netbook, that alone is a massive value proposition to me. Add something like motorola's lapdock and there is 95% of all my computing needs met, all with a single, central data storage. Hopefully porting from linux will be fairly straightforward too.. just a new UI support?, giving apps that work from desktop to mobile. Not to mention that is has most of the FFOS advantage too.

maratd 14y ago
> Connect a display and you have full ubuntu. I didn't see this mentioned in the keynote. I was specifically looking for it and there were zero mentions?
- r3m6 14y ago
  Mark S. mentions it in the Engadget interview: "If I dock this, I can get the full Ubuntu desktop".
  - lttlrck 14y ago
    So is it going to have two WMs and two versions of every desktop app? One touch optimized and one for the desktop? It doesn't sound all that wonderful. Desktop/mobile crossover might be better served with cloud-sync.
    - lotyrin 14y ago
      > cloud-sync Except if I'm in a developing nation where I'm not guaranteed connectivity. (Don't scoff yet, because I'd say the US is in this category.)
    - Shorel 14y ago
      No. I think it will have a native GUI toolkit that can adapt to both with some hints by the developer.

shmerl 14y ago

I wonder if they use libhybris or something similar to pull that trick and to use bionic drivers. I hope they'll push for regular glibc drivers as well though.

Aardwolf 14y ago

I still don't understand why desktop users have to suffer with a crappier desktop UI (Unity) due to this.