24 ms·

Android AOSP maintainer quits

328 points by av500 13y ago

samspenc 13y ago
Is he still working at Google? Just quit AOSP?
- durin42 13y ago
  AFAIK he's still at Google, just not doing the AOSP release guru thing anymore.
GuiA 13y ago
Not an Android user, but from what I understand the issue is that Google has released the new Nexus 7, but a) the GPU uses proprietary drivers (binary blobs) and b) the actual "factory image" (i.e. what runs on the device when you buy it) of the Nexus 7 is still unreleased and closed source. This means that the Nexus 7 is, practically, no more open than the iPad/MS Surface/etc.. That would definitely be upsetting to me if the gig had been sold as a way to strongly impact an open source piece of software, and Jean-Baptiste's decision seems very reasonable. Can android users/developers weigh in? I'm sure I'm getting some part of it wrong.
- shardling 13y ago
  I don't have knowledge about this particular case. But I can tell you that multiple, multiple times people have cried wolf on this. There's always a gap between when Google releases a device and when they release the accompanying source.
  - centizen 13y ago
    This is different though, as most of the components that are used in this device require you to sign an NDA to even get the datasheet. Most devices beforehand had at least a semblance of the open source movement.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- ajross 13y ago
  That's overstating the case. Google can't distribute a tree that can build for the new N7 because of one (or maybe a handful of) component licenses. The rest of the system remains open source though, and can be built (for the N7 and others) by community projects. There is value there. Certainly the new N7 isn't a "free" device in any meaningful sense. But Android as a whole remains vastly more open than iOS or Windows.
  - Gorbzel 13y ago
    It's not overstating the case though. When a huge component of the system isn't open source, that clouds the openness of the system as a whole. People make fun of Stallman for his ridiculous practices, but at least he's principled about this very issue. Here, the AOSP maintainer is making the same principled stand. If you can't boot the device (hence use it) because it doesn't have open GPU devices drivers, then it's not an open device, plain and simple. None of the other stuff you allude to matters if you can't use the device. As with many questions of openness, it's a question of pragmatism. It might be fair if some Kickstarted device did this or something, but this is Google's flagship tablet. Google uses the "Open" moniker as a marketing tool to both sell the devices to like-minded supporters as well as to bash others (Apple, MS, etc) pretty much whenever they can, as do many of their affiliates/partners. As such, it's completely fair to hold them accountable when that ends up not being the case.
    - ajross 13y ago
      Sorry, that's dumb. If it's really a question of "pragmatism", then in a practical sense there is no distinction between this device and, say, the HTC One which uses the same GPU and is subject to the same restrictions. Yet I can go to www.cyanogenmod.com and pull and build a tree for the One and boot it, with access to the source code for virtually all of the system (sans things like the GPU blob in question). That you would argue this is no more open than iOS or Windows is weird, and sounds more like a stand on vain principle and not "pragmatism". Is it bad? Yes. Is it equally bad? Hell no.
      - mpyne 13y ago
- bookwormAT 13y ago
  Android is usually considered open compared to iOS because developers can distribute software directly to consumers, without permission from a third party. Source code licensing is a different topic.
  - rhubarbquid 13y ago
    That's one of the big problems: "open" can mean vastly different things to different people and in different contexts.
  - dave1010uk 13y ago
    I don't think 3rd party software distribution is a main contributor to openness. Before Apple's app store most software was distributed directly to customers. For example, Symbian, J2ME phones, Windows Mobile, etc. None of these were considered open.
    - bookwormAT 13y ago
      "None of these were considered open." I would say they are now, because of this: "Before Apple's app store most software was distributed directly to customers." Most discussions I see on the net these days are about free markets vs privately regulated markets. Windows and Android and Mac OS X belong to the former, while iOS and the XBox to the latter. Should people provide products and services to other people, maybe with some government regulation? Or should a few private companies control and regulate the distribution? Would the world be a better or worse place when Microsoft had the power to prevent the distribution of Web Browsers?
aroch 13y ago
For those curious: As part of the Nexus device support, Google releases factory images. These images contain all the blobs and whatnot necessary to restore your device's OS even in the event of a soft-brick. In the case of the new Nexus 7, it appears Google won't be releasing factory images and the cause is almost certainly the fact that Qualcomm doesn't want to release it's proprietary blobs for the Adreno GPU. JBQ is pissed about this, this isn't the first time a vendor hasn't allowed release of certain blobs or the first time a vendor has refused to release the code necessary to even boot the device.
- tootie 13y ago
  Capitalism sucks sometimes.
  - algebr 13y ago
    What does Capitalism have to do with this?
    - hahainternet 13y ago
      The motive for profit drives the motive to keep secrets.
      - Aldo_MX 13y ago
        When the competition starts using your own improvements/innovations against your products, you are obliged to keep the secret.
        pessimizer 13y ago
        because capitalism.
        hahainternet 13y ago
        This is only the case when you have something to fear from superior competition. That is the capitalist system. Even in the FOSS world, which is largely affected by capitalism the spirit of sharing and collective advancement is incredibly common.
jwildeboer 13y ago
So AOSP is a lot of things but not really open and the geniuses at Google deliberately let the shit hit the fan despite 6 months of warnings by JBQ. Stay classy, Google.
- Macha 13y ago
  AOSP itself is open, and has no issues on the Nexus 10, Galaxy Nexus or old Nexus 7. However, the Nexus 4 and new Nexus 7 are not capable of booting from just the AOSP source alone. In practice this is the same as most non-Nexus devices, except the bootloader still ships unlocked. However, the Nexus 4 and new Nexus 7 are the flagships for AOSP, and the maintainer was upset at the fact that the open bit is useless on newer devices without parts that can't be distributed.
  - brigade 13y ago
    Well, no issues unless you want to use AOSP 4.3 on the Nexus 10, in which case it has the exact same issue [1] as being discussed [1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/android-building/OvPkVsjp63Y/Zjrpmxsq_AwJ https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/android-building/OvPkV...
  - jdiez17 13y ago
    I don't know about the Nexus 10 or the GNex, but I do know that you need the binary blobs to boot the Nexus 4 from source. However you can get the factory image (which contains the blobs and doesn't require you to extract them from the device) from here: https://developers.google.com/android/nexus/images https://developers.google.com/android/nexus/images The controversy is that there is no factory image available for the new Nexus 7, and therefore, the only way to boot a new Nexus 7 from AOSP source is to pull the blobs from the device, incurring in a legal gray area.
binarycrusader 13y ago
But, but, Android is the very definition of open! Andy Rubin said so: the definition of open: "mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform /manifest.git ; repo sync ; make" https://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429 https://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429 Well, I suppose if you define "open" as being able to build the software, but don't promise you can actually use the result, that makes it acceptable. The other important thing to note here is that Jean-Baptiste Quéru is not just some random Android developer. He is the the point person for what everyone previously believed was "open" development on Android.
- tonfa 13y ago
  > Well, I suppose if you define "open" as being able to build the software, but don't promise you can actually use the result, that makes it acceptable. You can still use the result, but not with all devices (same thing as any linux distro, despite being open source, you need driver supports for your particular hardware). There are still many devices who can boot aosp (from the nexus line, from sony, etc.).
  - binarycrusader 13y ago
    Did you read Jean-Baptiste's post? In this particular case, there's no video device support for Google flagship devices! ...can't boot to the home screen on its flagship device for lack of GPU support... That sort of makes it useless. I'd only be willing to buy the device argument if we were talking about a microphone or webcam, but when you lack the most basic of support (video), I think that's not a useful argument to have.
- Macha 13y ago
  I can't use Linux on my laptop without some closed source blobs - does that make Linux not open? No, because you can get other laptops without this problem. Likewise, you can get other Android devices such as the Nexus 10 or Galaxy Nexus which are capable of using the result. This sucks as it means you now need to choose between a device that's sufficiently open or a device that's up to date, and it's certainly worth criticising Google for, but it's not enough to claim that Android is as closed as iOS or Windows (yet - if they do the same to the next Nexus 10 and continue releasing Nexus devices that can't boot AOSP, then it's concerning, or if they drop support for the devices that are currently able to use the open source code)
dm2 13y ago
The fact is that Google tries to make their devices as open as possible. That philosophy is beneficial to the community, for the software, for their brand, and for the tech industry. If legal issues or unforeseen problems appear while they are launching a product that prevent stock images on a particular device, then oh well, shit happens. There will be a dozen other Nexus devices within the next year and hopefully Google will learn from their mistakes, and will partner with suppliers who won't prevent source code from being published. Does Google benefit monetarily from not releasing source code? Nope, it likely decreases their profit and tarnishes their reputation, so I would like to believe that they are doing everything in their power to keep Android and the Nexus brand as open as possible. http://androidandme.com/2013/08/devices/new-nexus-7-may-not-get-factory-images-due-to-legal-issues-jbq-leaves-aosp-over-it/ http://androidandme.com/2013/08/devices/new-nexus-7-may-not-...
- pornel 13y ago
  > Does Google benefit monetarily from not releasing source code? Indirectly, yes — choice of Qualcomm as a supplier (under condition of not releasing source code) must have been beneficial for Google.
  - dm2 13y ago
    I think their options were either to delay the launch of the new Nexus 7 and possibly break a contract with Qualcomm or release it, let some non-devs enjoy the nice new hardware, and focus on the next new products. Makes sense to me, but I don't think Google benefited as much as they would have if Qualcomm would have allowed the source code to be published. http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/32057-why-google-went-qualcomm-for-new-nexus-7 http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/32057-why-google-went-qual...
    - av500 13y ago
      there was also the choice not to commit to this SoC unless Qualcomm agrees in writing that Google is allowed to publish factory images and binaries
    - 13y ago
jlund 13y ago
I hope that Mozilla and Ubuntu are more successful in keeping binary blobs under control on their hardware. It will probably mean avoiding Nvidia and Qualcomm hardware though. Whether or not this is even realistic or possible is an interesting question.
- av500 13y ago
  One can always go with the Chinese SoC vendors :)
  - randallu 13y ago
    Who incorporate SGX and Mali GPUs with closed drivers.
- fdr_cs 13y ago
  They would not have more leverage then Google does . Actually, it's worse, as Android is way bigger them both of them (together). I guess one of the only hopes is that intel can get up with an option for arm socs, as they are pretty good opensource citizens.
- Narishma 13y ago
  The only way they can do that is by using an Intel chip with Intel graphics. Everything else needs binary blobs.
henderson101 13y ago
JBQ is a great guy, and well loved from his days working for Be Inc. His wife cool too, if notoriously opinionated :-) Wish him all the best! Stand by your convictions.
iyulaev 13y ago
This kind of stuff is run-of-the-mill when working with the large chipset/SoC vendors. I've worked on projects that have crashed and burned because at the last minute the chip vendor decided they're not going to provide the SDK for the chips we've bought and designed in. Vendors suck (some more than others) and it's not Google's fault that they can't convince the vendor to open source their device drivers. This sort of thing is extremely common in the embedded world and when you're making a device to a price point often times you have to put up with this sort of nonsense because only one vendor makes a chip with your feature set at a given price point.
- krelian 13y ago
  What's the actual risk for the vendor when releasing the drivers? Isn't all the magic in the chip itself and driver only serves as an interface?
  - joezydeco 13y ago
    What if the driver is only unlocking part of the GPU's capabilities? A vendor can spin one chip for n customers, all paying different royalty and licensing fees based on need.
    - kbenson 13y ago
      But isn't the problem they aren't allowing the binary blob to be released? There's little reason to believe someone is going to reverse engineer and open up capabilities of a chip in a binary blob (at least little reason to believe that will be more likely because it's released rather than pulled directly from a device).
  - Osiris 13y ago
    I have no experience with GPUs, but I once read something that indicated that the driver, in fact, has a lot of proprietary code in it. For example, nVidia often releases driver updates after a new game is released that can give 10-25% performance boosts in those games. That's not because it's running the GPU faster, that's because of optimizations within the driver on how GPU commands get processed by the GPU. Someone with more knowledge about this please correct me if I'm wrong.
voodoo123 13y ago
Well, I see that people have figured out why I'm quitting AOSP. There's no point being the maintainer of an Operating System that can't boot to the home screen on its flagship device for lack of GPU support, especially when I'm getting the blame for something that I don't have authority to fix myself and that I had anticipated and escalated more than 6 months ahead. So much for all that noise from Google about 'openness'. The detractors were right.
- Oletros 13y ago
  And exactly with AOSP is not open?
- DannyBee 13y ago
  Even other open devices (Firefox phone, Ubuntu Edge) will suffer this fate - they all, AFAIK, will require proprietary blob drivers for the GPU.
  - wedesoft 13y ago
    Intel provides FOSS graphics drivers [1]. I'm not sure though whether they do mobile graphics cards with free software drivers, too. [1] https://01.org/linuxgraphics/ https://01.org/linuxgraphics/
    - rincebrain 13y ago
      Depends what you mean by "mobile". The non-Atom chips usually have real Open GPU drivers that work the same as the desktop ones; the Atom chips [AFAIK] are the ones that primarily suffer from being PowerVR-licensed things with badly half-working "open" drivers.
      - Narishma 13y ago
        Not all Atom chips have PowerVR graphics, though AFAIK all the phone and tablet Atoms do.
  - zhemao 13y ago
wonderyak 13y ago
So we can now lump all Qualcomm devices along with Verizon (CDMA) devices into the 'may never be properly updated' pile. You'd think that Google would have the foresight to listen to the maintainer of the project; perhaps they did and this is just the way it is now?
- gergles 13y ago
  You know who owns all the patents related to CDMA devices (and makes literally the only CDMA radio chipsets you can buy)? I'll give you a hint, it starts with Q and rhymes with "Wallcomm".
  - randallu 13y ago
    They own many of the 3G and 4G ones too, and can give you a great deal on bundling if you go with them.
  - mrpippy 13y ago
    > and makes literally the only CDMA radio chipsets you can buy Actually, this is not true. The CDMA/LTE Galaxy Nexus, Droid Charge, and Stratosphere (all made by Samsung) actually used VIA Telecom's CBP 7.1 baseband for EVDO/1XRTT (and a Samsung LTE radio for that). I'm not sure how/why VIA Telecom was able to license QCOM's patents covering CDMA2000, but they did. http://www.anandtech.com/show/4465/samsung-droid-charge-review-droid-goes-lte/5 http://www.anandtech.com/show/4465/samsung-droid-charge-revi... To my knowledge, these are the first non-QCOM CDMA2000 phones shipped (at least in the US) since Nokia's ill-fated CDMA S30 phones made for Verizon/Sprint from ~2003-2005, the 3589i, 6235i, and maybe others. I believe TI/ST/Nokia teamed up to make that baseband, but it all ended in lawsuits from Qualcomm a few years later. It's too bad, the 3589i was a great phone.
- nuclear_eclipse 13y ago
  Google is still able to release updates to the affected Nexus devices, and they have a good track record of doing so; they just can't put those blobs into AOSP.
mnbc98 13y ago
Does anyone else find it highly suspicious how every Android device feels the need to ship a binary blob? Given Google's close relationship with the NSA, the reason seems fairly obvious...
- BitMastro 13y ago
  Not suspicious at all. Are you being paranoid? Binary blobs are so widespread unfortunately that you will find it difficult to have something that doesn't ship them. Graphic card drivers? Wireless chips? Even a computer BIOS is mostly a binary blob.
- onedev 13y ago
  Please don't post this kind of garbage here. Take that back to reddit where it belongs.
einarfd 13y ago
This is a worrying development for Android as an open source project. That Google doesn't care enough about keeping ASOP relevant, to even make sure their new Nexus 7 is supported in it, is rather depressing. Some here are blaming Qualcomm and I'm sure they are part of the reason this happened. But the new Nexus 7 is probably going to bring in a sizeable chunk of money, and Google could have used this to force Qualcomm's hand. That Google didn't, sends a clear message about their priorities.
- Zigurd 13y ago
  It is depressing because if AOSP becomes irrelevant, it hurts community involvement in android, and, in a way even worse than that, they miss the opportunity to refine AOSP for fast porting so that OEMs can keep up with Android releases and update their product in the field.
static_typed 13y ago
We are all to blame! All of us that buy, or let relatives buy Android devices that use restrictive and closed blobs. Customers and only customers have the power to make the change. Every time we encourage someone else to buy a non-Android device make sure to publicise the fact on open social media like Farcebook or Twatter on the corporate tags and pages to raise awareness in the less technology literate and make some voices heard. It is one thing for companies to see bottom-lines get affected, but they also need to understand why. Don't just boycott, let the world know why too!
- Macha 13y ago
  How about Google actually sells Nexus devices in my country and then I'll recommend them to people. As it is, a few places sell the old Nexus 7, and that's it. The only Nexus phone ever to get sold here was the Nexus One, and there's no Nexus 10 either, no new Nexus 7.
- charleslmunger 13y ago
  Exactly which non android devices would you recommend? Not iOS, that's so closed down you can't even run unapproved apps. Not Windows Phone, that's the same problem as iOS. What would you recommend?
- kalleboo 13y ago
  Is there someone/somewhere you can read ranking of manufacturer openness? For instance, Sony seem pretty active in the AOSP[0] but you never even hear them mentioned. [0] http://developer.sonymobile.com/2013/07/25/android-open-source-project-aosp-4-3-now-running-on-xperia-tablet-z/ http://developer.sonymobile.com/2013/07/25/android-open-sour...
jordanthoms 13y ago
I'm guessing Google got caught between a rock and a hard place here, with the qualcomm processor being the best choice (and the performance of the Nexus 7 is great), but being ridiculously locked down (you can easily extract binary blobs, so why restrict google from hosting them, they will be hosting them for the OTA updates anyway!). Should they have put out a worse device in order to stand up to this stuff though? Difficult choice. This is a pain - It's nice being able to download the factory images direct from Google for quickly restoring the device to stock or applying an update before the OTA is out, having to try to find them on XDA is annoying for a Nexus device. Kudos to JBQ for standing up to this, hopefully the fallout will cause something to change.
zobzu 13y ago
+karma for the balls to disclose the reason to quit, and it being a reason like that.
chetanahuja 13y ago
JBQ's quitting is devastating to the AOSP ecosystem. In so many different ways that I'm having a hard time putting my thoughts together on this topic. Having had the benefit of following his posts and rants both from inside as well as outside google, I find it difficult to overstate the impact of this event on real and perceived openness of the platform.
zmmmmm 13y ago
It's puzzling to me that Qualcomm has managed to get to the position now where it is virtually a monopoly provider for ARM chipsets that support LTE. A lot of discussion happens about standards essential patents wrt Motorola and Samsung - surely that equally applies to Qualcomm and the other chip makers (not least of all Samsung) should be able to readily license these patents and build competitive chipsets?
- wmf 13y ago
  It may be more that Verizon and Sprint require CDMA and Qualcomm has a monopoly on that, so if you want to support Verizon you need Qualcomm and once you've designed that version it's easier to also use Qualcomm for the AT&T version as well.
cpeterso 13y ago
Google could acquire MIPS and forget ARM and Qualcomm. Imagination Tech bought MIPS for just $100M just 9 months ago.
artagnon 13y ago
The situation is somewhat similar to what was happening on desktop Linux some years ago. On the desktop, the kernel _and_ most of the core userland is GPL (mostly v2), an extremely powerful license. nVidia got away with being able to distribute proprietary GPU kernel modules for some time, because distributions weren't moving fast enough. Why did they do it? Some vague illusion of their "Intellectual Property" being stolen, and competitors destroying them. All in all, they suffered (because they had to keep up with a fast-moving linux.git), and users suffered (because they had to get the precise version for their kernel). After many years of work, the cards were eventually reverse-engineered, and the noveau drivers are technically superior today. All in all, nVidia gained nothing and lost a huge amount of trust: if they'd upstreamed their driver, it would have been maintained for free (and improved upon); they could have concentrated on their core competency: making chips. Today, AOSP (contrary to what its name suggests) is mostly just a code-dump project. They've forked Linux and have stripped out the GNU (GPL) userland. Broadly speaking, there are two ways to stay in power. 1. release minimal source code, and don't let other parties get in (aka. the Apple/Microsoft strategy). 2. simply assign all copyright to a neckbeard foundation with no money and nothing to lose (aka. FSF/GNU). Provided there's a big enough market (unlike nVidia being virtually the only manufacturer of decent GPUs back in the day), people will simply stop buying your hardware because their software doesn't run on it. Google is pretty much on its own here, because there is no "open source project": various vendors fork the code and make their own modifications on top and distribute it happily. I run a CM nightly myself, because I get updates in the form of commit SHA-1s every night: _that_ is how you involve users and build a community. Can anyone threaten CM? Now, Qualcomm is attacking Google: Google can't give them the finger because they're powerless. Fragmentation (aka. forks) are part and parcel of any uncontrolled development. GNOME is one very famous example: not everyone is happy with the same thing (GNOME Shell, Cinnamon, Unity etc.). For another example, look at mplayer: mplayer, mplayer2, and (now) mpv. The forks compete against each other, and the competent communities eventually achieve dominance. Contrast that with how many times Torvalds' tree has been forked: the forks don't survive because the community and leadership is strong and won't bend to anyone's demands (you're probably seen the media reporting how Linus gives nVidia the finger, or bashes patches that further Microsoft's UEFI agenda). Emacs has also had various forks in the past (remember XEmacs?), but all of them died off because of weak leadership. AOSP should think about these issues seriously, and figure out how to keep the project running. I don't know what they should specifically change, because nobody has any idea about what problems they are facing.
JonSkeptic 13y ago
This does not bode well for the Security Enhanced Android project; it was already in poor shape and I fear this could be it's demise.
Splendor 13y ago
This really shows poor planning on Google's part. If their goal with the Nexus line it to be able to release builds to ASOP, they need to source their parts accordingly.

328 points by av500 13y ago

samspenc 13y ago

Is he still working at Google? Just quit AOSP?

durin42 13y ago
AFAIK he's still at Google, just not doing the AOSP release guru thing anymore.

GuiA 13y ago

Not an Android user, but from what I understand the issue is that Google has released the new Nexus 7, but a) the GPU uses proprietary drivers (binary blobs) and b) the actual "factory image" (i.e. what runs on the device when you buy it) of the Nexus 7 is still unreleased and closed source. This means that the Nexus 7 is, practically, no more open than the iPad/MS Surface/etc.. That would definitely be upsetting to me if the gig had been sold as a way to strongly impact an open source piece of software, and Jean-Baptiste's decision seems very reasonable. Can android users/developers weigh in? I'm sure I'm getting some part of it wrong.

shardling 13y ago
I don't have knowledge about this particular case. But I can tell you that multiple, multiple times people have cried wolf on this. There's always a gap between when Google releases a device and when they release the accompanying source.
- centizen 13y ago
  This is different though, as most of the components that are used in this device require you to sign an NDA to even get the datasheet. Most devices beforehand had at least a semblance of the open source movement.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
ajross 13y ago
That's overstating the case. Google can't distribute a tree that can build for the new N7 because of one (or maybe a handful of) component licenses. The rest of the system remains open source though, and can be built (for the N7 and others) by community projects. There is value there. Certainly the new N7 isn't a "free" device in any meaningful sense. But Android as a whole remains vastly more open than iOS or Windows.
- Gorbzel 13y ago
  It's not overstating the case though. When a huge component of the system isn't open source, that clouds the openness of the system as a whole. People make fun of Stallman for his ridiculous practices, but at least he's principled about this very issue. Here, the AOSP maintainer is making the same principled stand. If you can't boot the device (hence use it) because it doesn't have open GPU devices drivers, then it's not an open device, plain and simple. None of the other stuff you allude to matters if you can't use the device. As with many questions of openness, it's a question of pragmatism. It might be fair if some Kickstarted device did this or something, but this is Google's flagship tablet. Google uses the "Open" moniker as a marketing tool to both sell the devices to like-minded supporters as well as to bash others (Apple, MS, etc) pretty much whenever they can, as do many of their affiliates/partners. As such, it's completely fair to hold them accountable when that ends up not being the case.
  - ajross 13y ago
    Sorry, that's dumb. If it's really a question of "pragmatism", then in a practical sense there is no distinction between this device and, say, the HTC One which uses the same GPU and is subject to the same restrictions. Yet I can go to www.cyanogenmod.com and pull and build a tree for the One and boot it, with access to the source code for virtually all of the system (sans things like the GPU blob in question). That you would argue this is no more open than iOS or Windows is weird, and sounds more like a stand on vain principle and not "pragmatism". Is it bad? Yes. Is it equally bad? Hell no.
    - mpyne 13y ago
bookwormAT 13y ago
Android is usually considered open compared to iOS because developers can distribute software directly to consumers, without permission from a third party. Source code licensing is a different topic.
- rhubarbquid 13y ago
  That's one of the big problems: "open" can mean vastly different things to different people and in different contexts.
- dave1010uk 13y ago
  I don't think 3rd party software distribution is a main contributor to openness. Before Apple's app store most software was distributed directly to customers. For example, Symbian, J2ME phones, Windows Mobile, etc. None of these were considered open.
  - bookwormAT 13y ago
    "None of these were considered open." I would say they are now, because of this: "Before Apple's app store most software was distributed directly to customers." Most discussions I see on the net these days are about free markets vs privately regulated markets. Windows and Android and Mac OS X belong to the former, while iOS and the XBox to the latter. Should people provide products and services to other people, maybe with some government regulation? Or should a few private companies control and regulate the distribution? Would the world be a better or worse place when Microsoft had the power to prevent the distribution of Web Browsers?

aroch 13y ago

For those curious: As part of the Nexus device support, Google releases factory images. These images contain all the blobs and whatnot necessary to restore your device's OS even in the event of a soft-brick. In the case of the new Nexus 7, it appears Google won't be releasing factory images and the cause is almost certainly the fact that Qualcomm doesn't want to release it's proprietary blobs for the Adreno GPU. JBQ is pissed about this, this isn't the first time a vendor hasn't allowed release of certain blobs or the first time a vendor has refused to release the code necessary to even boot the device.

tootie 13y ago
Capitalism sucks sometimes.
- algebr 13y ago
  What does Capitalism have to do with this?
  - hahainternet 13y ago
    The motive for profit drives the motive to keep secrets.
    - Aldo_MX 13y ago
      When the competition starts using your own improvements/innovations against your products, you are obliged to keep the secret.
      - pessimizer 13y ago
        because capitalism.
      - hahainternet 13y ago
        This is only the case when you have something to fear from superior competition. That is the capitalist system. Even in the FOSS world, which is largely affected by capitalism the spirit of sharing and collective advancement is incredibly common.

jwildeboer 13y ago

So AOSP is a lot of things but not really open and the geniuses at Google deliberately let the shit hit the fan despite 6 months of warnings by JBQ. Stay classy, Google.

Macha 13y ago
AOSP itself is open, and has no issues on the Nexus 10, Galaxy Nexus or old Nexus 7. However, the Nexus 4 and new Nexus 7 are not capable of booting from just the AOSP source alone. In practice this is the same as most non-Nexus devices, except the bootloader still ships unlocked. However, the Nexus 4 and new Nexus 7 are the flagships for AOSP, and the maintainer was upset at the fact that the open bit is useless on newer devices without parts that can't be distributed.
- brigade 13y ago
  Well, no issues unless you want to use AOSP 4.3 on the Nexus 10, in which case it has the exact same issue [1] as being discussed [1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/android-building/OvPkVsjp63Y/Zjrpmxsq_AwJ https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/android-building/OvPkV...
- jdiez17 13y ago
  I don't know about the Nexus 10 or the GNex, but I do know that you need the binary blobs to boot the Nexus 4 from source. However you can get the factory image (which contains the blobs and doesn't require you to extract them from the device) from here: https://developers.google.com/android/nexus/images https://developers.google.com/android/nexus/images The controversy is that there is no factory image available for the new Nexus 7, and therefore, the only way to boot a new Nexus 7 from AOSP source is to pull the blobs from the device, incurring in a legal gray area.

binarycrusader 13y ago

But, but, Android is the very definition of open! Andy Rubin said so: the definition of open: "mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform /manifest.git ; repo sync ; make" https://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429 https://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429 Well, I suppose if you define "open" as being able to build the software, but don't promise you can actually use the result, that makes it acceptable. The other important thing to note here is that Jean-Baptiste Quéru is not just some random Android developer. He is the the point person for what everyone previously believed was "open" development on Android.

tonfa 13y ago
> Well, I suppose if you define "open" as being able to build the software, but don't promise you can actually use the result, that makes it acceptable. You can still use the result, but not with all devices (same thing as any linux distro, despite being open source, you need driver supports for your particular hardware). There are still many devices who can boot aosp (from the nexus line, from sony, etc.).
- binarycrusader 13y ago
  Did you read Jean-Baptiste's post? In this particular case, there's no video device support for Google flagship devices! ...can't boot to the home screen on its flagship device for lack of GPU support... That sort of makes it useless. I'd only be willing to buy the device argument if we were talking about a microphone or webcam, but when you lack the most basic of support (video), I think that's not a useful argument to have.
Macha 13y ago
I can't use Linux on my laptop without some closed source blobs - does that make Linux not open? No, because you can get other laptops without this problem. Likewise, you can get other Android devices such as the Nexus 10 or Galaxy Nexus which are capable of using the result. This sucks as it means you now need to choose between a device that's sufficiently open or a device that's up to date, and it's certainly worth criticising Google for, but it's not enough to claim that Android is as closed as iOS or Windows (yet - if they do the same to the next Nexus 10 and continue releasing Nexus devices that can't boot AOSP, then it's concerning, or if they drop support for the devices that are currently able to use the open source code)

dm2 13y ago

The fact is that Google tries to make their devices as open as possible. That philosophy is beneficial to the community, for the software, for their brand, and for the tech industry. If legal issues or unforeseen problems appear while they are launching a product that prevent stock images on a particular device, then oh well, shit happens. There will be a dozen other Nexus devices within the next year and hopefully Google will learn from their mistakes, and will partner with suppliers who won't prevent source code from being published. Does Google benefit monetarily from not releasing source code? Nope, it likely decreases their profit and tarnishes their reputation, so I would like to believe that they are doing everything in their power to keep Android and the Nexus brand as open as possible. http://androidandme.com/2013/08/devices/new-nexus-7-may-not-get-factory-images-due-to-legal-issues-jbq-leaves-aosp-over-it/ http://androidandme.com/2013/08/devices/new-nexus-7-may-not-...

pornel 13y ago
> Does Google benefit monetarily from not releasing source code? Indirectly, yes — choice of Qualcomm as a supplier (under condition of not releasing source code) must have been beneficial for Google.
- dm2 13y ago
  I think their options were either to delay the launch of the new Nexus 7 and possibly break a contract with Qualcomm or release it, let some non-devs enjoy the nice new hardware, and focus on the next new products. Makes sense to me, but I don't think Google benefited as much as they would have if Qualcomm would have allowed the source code to be published. http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/32057-why-google-went-qualcomm-for-new-nexus-7 http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/32057-why-google-went-qual...
  - av500 13y ago
    there was also the choice not to commit to this SoC unless Qualcomm agrees in writing that Google is allowed to publish factory images and binaries
  - 13y ago

jlund 13y ago

I hope that Mozilla and Ubuntu are more successful in keeping binary blobs under control on their hardware. It will probably mean avoiding Nvidia and Qualcomm hardware though. Whether or not this is even realistic or possible is an interesting question.

av500 13y ago
One can always go with the Chinese SoC vendors :)
- randallu 13y ago
  Who incorporate SGX and Mali GPUs with closed drivers.
fdr_cs 13y ago
They would not have more leverage then Google does . Actually, it's worse, as Android is way bigger them both of them (together). I guess one of the only hopes is that intel can get up with an option for arm socs, as they are pretty good opensource citizens.
Narishma 13y ago
The only way they can do that is by using an Intel chip with Intel graphics. Everything else needs binary blobs.

henderson101 13y ago

JBQ is a great guy, and well loved from his days working for Be Inc. His wife cool too, if notoriously opinionated :-) Wish him all the best! Stand by your convictions.

iyulaev 13y ago

This kind of stuff is run-of-the-mill when working with the large chipset/SoC vendors. I've worked on projects that have crashed and burned because at the last minute the chip vendor decided they're not going to provide the SDK for the chips we've bought and designed in. Vendors suck (some more than others) and it's not Google's fault that they can't convince the vendor to open source their device drivers. This sort of thing is extremely common in the embedded world and when you're making a device to a price point often times you have to put up with this sort of nonsense because only one vendor makes a chip with your feature set at a given price point.

krelian 13y ago
What's the actual risk for the vendor when releasing the drivers? Isn't all the magic in the chip itself and driver only serves as an interface?
- joezydeco 13y ago
  What if the driver is only unlocking part of the GPU's capabilities? A vendor can spin one chip for n customers, all paying different royalty and licensing fees based on need.
  - kbenson 13y ago
    But isn't the problem they aren't allowing the binary blob to be released? There's little reason to believe someone is going to reverse engineer and open up capabilities of a chip in a binary blob (at least little reason to believe that will be more likely because it's released rather than pulled directly from a device).
- Osiris 13y ago
  I have no experience with GPUs, but I once read something that indicated that the driver, in fact, has a lot of proprietary code in it. For example, nVidia often releases driver updates after a new game is released that can give 10-25% performance boosts in those games. That's not because it's running the GPU faster, that's because of optimizations within the driver on how GPU commands get processed by the GPU. Someone with more knowledge about this please correct me if I'm wrong.

voodoo123 13y ago

Well, I see that people have figured out why I'm quitting AOSP. There's no point being the maintainer of an Operating System that can't boot to the home screen on its flagship device for lack of GPU support, especially when I'm getting the blame for something that I don't have authority to fix myself and that I had anticipated and escalated more than 6 months ahead. So much for all that noise from Google about 'openness'. The detractors were right.

Oletros 13y ago
And exactly with AOSP is not open?
DannyBee 13y ago
Even other open devices (Firefox phone, Ubuntu Edge) will suffer this fate - they all, AFAIK, will require proprietary blob drivers for the GPU.
- wedesoft 13y ago
  Intel provides FOSS graphics drivers [1]. I'm not sure though whether they do mobile graphics cards with free software drivers, too. [1] https://01.org/linuxgraphics/ https://01.org/linuxgraphics/
  - rincebrain 13y ago
    Depends what you mean by "mobile". The non-Atom chips usually have real Open GPU drivers that work the same as the desktop ones; the Atom chips [AFAIK] are the ones that primarily suffer from being PowerVR-licensed things with badly half-working "open" drivers.
    - Narishma 13y ago
      Not all Atom chips have PowerVR graphics, though AFAIK all the phone and tablet Atoms do.
- zhemao 13y ago

wonderyak 13y ago

So we can now lump all Qualcomm devices along with Verizon (CDMA) devices into the 'may never be properly updated' pile. You'd think that Google would have the foresight to listen to the maintainer of the project; perhaps they did and this is just the way it is now?

gergles 13y ago
You know who owns all the patents related to CDMA devices (and makes literally the only CDMA radio chipsets you can buy)? I'll give you a hint, it starts with Q and rhymes with "Wallcomm".
- randallu 13y ago
  They own many of the 3G and 4G ones too, and can give you a great deal on bundling if you go with them.
- mrpippy 13y ago
  > and makes literally the only CDMA radio chipsets you can buy Actually, this is not true. The CDMA/LTE Galaxy Nexus, Droid Charge, and Stratosphere (all made by Samsung) actually used VIA Telecom's CBP 7.1 baseband for EVDO/1XRTT (and a Samsung LTE radio for that). I'm not sure how/why VIA Telecom was able to license QCOM's patents covering CDMA2000, but they did. http://www.anandtech.com/show/4465/samsung-droid-charge-review-droid-goes-lte/5 http://www.anandtech.com/show/4465/samsung-droid-charge-revi... To my knowledge, these are the first non-QCOM CDMA2000 phones shipped (at least in the US) since Nokia's ill-fated CDMA S30 phones made for Verizon/Sprint from ~2003-2005, the 3589i, 6235i, and maybe others. I believe TI/ST/Nokia teamed up to make that baseband, but it all ended in lawsuits from Qualcomm a few years later. It's too bad, the 3589i was a great phone.
nuclear_eclipse 13y ago
Google is still able to release updates to the affected Nexus devices, and they have a good track record of doing so; they just can't put those blobs into AOSP.

mnbc98 13y ago

Does anyone else find it highly suspicious how every Android device feels the need to ship a binary blob? Given Google's close relationship with the NSA, the reason seems fairly obvious...

BitMastro 13y ago
Not suspicious at all. Are you being paranoid? Binary blobs are so widespread unfortunately that you will find it difficult to have something that doesn't ship them. Graphic card drivers? Wireless chips? Even a computer BIOS is mostly a binary blob.
onedev 13y ago
Please don't post this kind of garbage here. Take that back to reddit where it belongs.

einarfd 13y ago

This is a worrying development for Android as an open source project. That Google doesn't care enough about keeping ASOP relevant, to even make sure their new Nexus 7 is supported in it, is rather depressing. Some here are blaming Qualcomm and I'm sure they are part of the reason this happened. But the new Nexus 7 is probably going to bring in a sizeable chunk of money, and Google could have used this to force Qualcomm's hand. That Google didn't, sends a clear message about their priorities.

Zigurd 13y ago
It is depressing because if AOSP becomes irrelevant, it hurts community involvement in android, and, in a way even worse than that, they miss the opportunity to refine AOSP for fast porting so that OEMs can keep up with Android releases and update their product in the field.

static_typed 13y ago

We are all to blame! All of us that buy, or let relatives buy Android devices that use restrictive and closed blobs. Customers and only customers have the power to make the change. Every time we encourage someone else to buy a non-Android device make sure to publicise the fact on open social media like Farcebook or Twatter on the corporate tags and pages to raise awareness in the less technology literate and make some voices heard. It is one thing for companies to see bottom-lines get affected, but they also need to understand why. Don't just boycott, let the world know why too!

Macha 13y ago
How about Google actually sells Nexus devices in my country and then I'll recommend them to people. As it is, a few places sell the old Nexus 7, and that's it. The only Nexus phone ever to get sold here was the Nexus One, and there's no Nexus 10 either, no new Nexus 7.
charleslmunger 13y ago
Exactly which non android devices would you recommend? Not iOS, that's so closed down you can't even run unapproved apps. Not Windows Phone, that's the same problem as iOS. What would you recommend?
kalleboo 13y ago
Is there someone/somewhere you can read ranking of manufacturer openness? For instance, Sony seem pretty active in the AOSP[0] but you never even hear them mentioned. [0] http://developer.sonymobile.com/2013/07/25/android-open-source-project-aosp-4-3-now-running-on-xperia-tablet-z/ http://developer.sonymobile.com/2013/07/25/android-open-sour...

jordanthoms 13y ago

I'm guessing Google got caught between a rock and a hard place here, with the qualcomm processor being the best choice (and the performance of the Nexus 7 is great), but being ridiculously locked down (you can easily extract binary blobs, so why restrict google from hosting them, they will be hosting them for the OTA updates anyway!). Should they have put out a worse device in order to stand up to this stuff though? Difficult choice. This is a pain - It's nice being able to download the factory images direct from Google for quickly restoring the device to stock or applying an update before the OTA is out, having to try to find them on XDA is annoying for a Nexus device. Kudos to JBQ for standing up to this, hopefully the fallout will cause something to change.

zobzu 13y ago

+karma for the balls to disclose the reason to quit, and it being a reason like that.

chetanahuja 13y ago

JBQ's quitting is devastating to the AOSP ecosystem. In so many different ways that I'm having a hard time putting my thoughts together on this topic. Having had the benefit of following his posts and rants both from inside as well as outside google, I find it difficult to overstate the impact of this event on real and perceived openness of the platform.

zmmmmm 13y ago

It's puzzling to me that Qualcomm has managed to get to the position now where it is virtually a monopoly provider for ARM chipsets that support LTE. A lot of discussion happens about standards essential patents wrt Motorola and Samsung - surely that equally applies to Qualcomm and the other chip makers (not least of all Samsung) should be able to readily license these patents and build competitive chipsets?

wmf 13y ago
It may be more that Verizon and Sprint require CDMA and Qualcomm has a monopoly on that, so if you want to support Verizon you need Qualcomm and once you've designed that version it's easier to also use Qualcomm for the AT&T version as well.

cpeterso 13y ago

Google could acquire MIPS and forget ARM and Qualcomm. Imagination Tech bought MIPS for just $100M just 9 months ago.

artagnon 13y ago

The situation is somewhat similar to what was happening on desktop Linux some years ago. On the desktop, the kernel _and_ most of the core userland is GPL (mostly v2), an extremely powerful license. nVidia got away with being able to distribute proprietary GPU kernel modules for some time, because distributions weren't moving fast enough. Why did they do it? Some vague illusion of their "Intellectual Property" being stolen, and competitors destroying them. All in all, they suffered (because they had to keep up with a fast-moving linux.git), and users suffered (because they had to get the precise version for their kernel). After many years of work, the cards were eventually reverse-engineered, and the noveau drivers are technically superior today. All in all, nVidia gained nothing and lost a huge amount of trust: if they'd upstreamed their driver, it would have been maintained for free (and improved upon); they could have concentrated on their core competency: making chips. Today, AOSP (contrary to what its name suggests) is mostly just a code-dump project. They've forked Linux and have stripped out the GNU (GPL) userland. Broadly speaking, there are two ways to stay in power. 1. release minimal source code, and don't let other parties get in (aka. the Apple/Microsoft strategy). 2. simply assign all copyright to a neckbeard foundation with no money and nothing to lose (aka. FSF/GNU). Provided there's a big enough market (unlike nVidia being virtually the only manufacturer of decent GPUs back in the day), people will simply stop buying your hardware because their software doesn't run on it. Google is pretty much on its own here, because there is no "open source project": various vendors fork the code and make their own modifications on top and distribute it happily. I run a CM nightly myself, because I get updates in the form of commit SHA-1s every night: _that_ is how you involve users and build a community. Can anyone threaten CM? Now, Qualcomm is attacking Google: Google can't give them the finger because they're powerless. Fragmentation (aka. forks) are part and parcel of any uncontrolled development. GNOME is one very famous example: not everyone is happy with the same thing (GNOME Shell, Cinnamon, Unity etc.). For another example, look at mplayer: mplayer, mplayer2, and (now) mpv. The forks compete against each other, and the competent communities eventually achieve dominance. Contrast that with how many times Torvalds' tree has been forked: the forks don't survive because the community and leadership is strong and won't bend to anyone's demands (you're probably seen the media reporting how Linus gives nVidia the finger, or bashes patches that further Microsoft's UEFI agenda). Emacs has also had various forks in the past (remember XEmacs?), but all of them died off because of weak leadership. AOSP should think about these issues seriously, and figure out how to keep the project running. I don't know what they should specifically change, because nobody has any idea about what problems they are facing.

JonSkeptic 13y ago

This does not bode well for the Security Enhanced Android project; it was already in poor shape and I fear this could be it's demise.

Splendor 13y ago

This really shows poor planning on Google's part. If their goal with the Nexus line it to be able to release builds to ASOP, they need to source their parts accordingly.