5 ms·

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

by 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
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    Oh of course they would have been better off in a world where Qualcomm was friendlier, but that's not the question. Let's look at the cost/benefit to Google's decision if we assume there isn't a huge outcry. If Google insisted on shipping stock images it would have cost them. Either by picking an inferior chip, or by upsetting Qualcomm, or by Qualcomm charging them a higher price. Therefore they chose a position of some benefit to them when they decided not to ship stock images. The best way to counter this benefit is a public shaming, so that in the end it's costlier than the other options would have been. But Google's not stupid; they wouldn't have made such an anti-openness move if they expected it to cost them.
    - dm2 13y ago
      I personally see the lack of a Factory Image for a single device as being very minor. An overwhelming majority of Nexus users still choose to use stock Android and have no use for the source code. So what if there are a couple of devices missing from https://developers.google.com/android/nexus/images https://developers.google.com/android/nexus/images , it's really not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things, especially considering how rapidly Google is pushing out new devices. Android is still open-source and the AOSP is still very alive and will live on.
      - eropple 13y ago
        > I personally see the lack of a Factory Image for a single device as being very minor. It's not the lack of a factory image for a single device. It's the lack of a factory image for Google's flagship device when they've made so much hay about it in the mists of time (oh, about three months ago). I'm not particularly sympathetic to most "open" argumentation when it comes to devices, but Google should walk their talk.
voodoo123 13y ago
This sounds like an apology. Openness is just not a high enough priority for them. It's just not their goal to release an open device otherwise they wouldn't have released this. It's their goal to do whatever it takes to compete aggressively and if openness can win them PR, they'll do it, but it isn't a goal in itself.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
Zigurd 13y ago
> The fact is that Google tries to make their devices as open as possible. Well, sort of. Keeping GPU drivers closed is a charade. There is no secret sauce of any great value in these drivers. There might be embarrassing coding horrors. But there is no good reason to keep these drivers closed. In this case, not even the binary blobs are available. That's gratuitous pig-headedness from the GPU licensor and SoC maker. Google could have extracted at least that concession. When someone with as much integrity as JBQ quits, it's not just the run of the mill SoC vendor crap that caused it.
- rys 13y ago
  I work for a GPU vendor so my viewpoint might be clouded, but there is a lot of competitive information to be gleaned from the source code of modern drivers.
  - dman 13y ago
    I am praying for the emergence of a graphics vendor who can design decent hardware and have a liberal open source policy.
    - rjsw 13y ago
      What is wrong with Intel ?
      - dman 13y ago
        Opengl drivers. Have not played with the haswell generation yet.
    - ionforce 13y ago
      Maybe the market is predicated on imperfect/occluded information. Therefore, ripe for disruption and collapse.
    - voltagex_ 13y ago
      Strangely, you're describing (sort of) Intel!
throwaway2048 13y ago
If Google was "doing everything in their power to keep Android and the Nexus brand as open as possible", they would have gave a shit about qualcomm's ridiculous conditions on source and redistribution before release. Clearly they did not.
- _delirium 13y ago
  Especially considering that they managed it with the old Nexus 7. This is clearly not impossible, though I can buy that there are difficulties and tradeoffs.
  - andrewpi 13y ago
    The old Nexus 7 wasn't Qualcomm.
    - _delirium 13y ago
      Yes, but nobody was forcing them to choose Qualcomm, if it didn't meet their requirements.
PeterisP 13y ago
Licencing of components is done before you, well, put those components inside a million phones. Someone who "tries to make their devices as open as possible" chooses components that can be made open. Someone who intentionally chooses a component and does not ask/licence it's driver to be open - hasn't even tried.

by dm2 13y ago

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
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  Oh of course they would have been better off in a world where Qualcomm was friendlier, but that's not the question. Let's look at the cost/benefit to Google's decision if we assume there isn't a huge outcry. If Google insisted on shipping stock images it would have cost them. Either by picking an inferior chip, or by upsetting Qualcomm, or by Qualcomm charging them a higher price. Therefore they chose a position of some benefit to them when they decided not to ship stock images. The best way to counter this benefit is a public shaming, so that in the end it's costlier than the other options would have been. But Google's not stupid; they wouldn't have made such an anti-openness move if they expected it to cost them.
  - dm2 13y ago
    I personally see the lack of a Factory Image for a single device as being very minor. An overwhelming majority of Nexus users still choose to use stock Android and have no use for the source code. So what if there are a couple of devices missing from https://developers.google.com/android/nexus/images https://developers.google.com/android/nexus/images , it's really not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things, especially considering how rapidly Google is pushing out new devices. Android is still open-source and the AOSP is still very alive and will live on.
    - eropple 13y ago
      > I personally see the lack of a Factory Image for a single device as being very minor. It's not the lack of a factory image for a single device. It's the lack of a factory image for Google's flagship device when they've made so much hay about it in the mists of time (oh, about three months ago). I'm not particularly sympathetic to most "open" argumentation when it comes to devices, but Google should walk their talk.

voodoo123 13y ago

This sounds like an apology. Openness is just not a high enough priority for them. It's just not their goal to release an open device otherwise they wouldn't have released this. It's their goal to do whatever it takes to compete aggressively and if openness can win them PR, they'll do it, but it isn't a goal in itself.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

Zigurd 13y ago

> The fact is that Google tries to make their devices as open as possible. Well, sort of. Keeping GPU drivers closed is a charade. There is no secret sauce of any great value in these drivers. There might be embarrassing coding horrors. But there is no good reason to keep these drivers closed. In this case, not even the binary blobs are available. That's gratuitous pig-headedness from the GPU licensor and SoC maker. Google could have extracted at least that concession. When someone with as much integrity as JBQ quits, it's not just the run of the mill SoC vendor crap that caused it.

rys 13y ago
I work for a GPU vendor so my viewpoint might be clouded, but there is a lot of competitive information to be gleaned from the source code of modern drivers.
- dman 13y ago
  I am praying for the emergence of a graphics vendor who can design decent hardware and have a liberal open source policy.
  - rjsw 13y ago
    What is wrong with Intel ?
    - dman 13y ago
      Opengl drivers. Have not played with the haswell generation yet.
  - ionforce 13y ago
    Maybe the market is predicated on imperfect/occluded information. Therefore, ripe for disruption and collapse.
  - voltagex_ 13y ago
    Strangely, you're describing (sort of) Intel!

throwaway2048 13y ago

If Google was "doing everything in their power to keep Android and the Nexus brand as open as possible", they would have gave a shit about qualcomm's ridiculous conditions on source and redistribution before release. Clearly they did not.

_delirium 13y ago
Especially considering that they managed it with the old Nexus 7. This is clearly not impossible, though I can buy that there are difficulties and tradeoffs.
- andrewpi 13y ago
  The old Nexus 7 wasn't Qualcomm.
  - _delirium 13y ago
    Yes, but nobody was forcing them to choose Qualcomm, if it didn't meet their requirements.

PeterisP 13y ago

Licencing of components is done before you, well, put those components inside a million phones. Someone who "tries to make their devices as open as possible" chooses components that can be made open. Someone who intentionally chooses a component and does not ask/licence it's driver to be open - hasn't even tried.