5 ms·

downvotes don't change the truth of the observation. Android is no longer meaningfully open, other than a years old core of basic functions. The problem is tha

by turing 13y ago

downvotes don't change the truth of the observation. Android is no longer meaningfully open, other than a years old core of basic functions. The problem is that your observation isn't true. Here are some of the under-the-hood changes in just the most recent releases of Android: -OpenGL ES 3.0 -Bluetooth low energy/Bluetooth AVRCP -restricted profiles -VP8 encoder -new DRM framework -SELinux -various other optimizations and APIs Yes Google is moving some functionality to Play services. Yes it is worth discussing how this may impact the future of Android as an open platform. No, that does not mean that Android is no longer "meaningfully open", especially not in the matter-of-fact way you are presenting it.

fleitz 13y ago
Like most things open source is a continuum of subtle differences rather than a category. In my opinion the following software is much more open than Android: Linux, Apache, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, GCC, clang, and generally most open source products developed by the community. In my opinion the following software is less open than Android: C#, OSX, iOS, and generally most software developed by major corporations. The real keys are that your Android device is locked down, fixing it voids your warranty, and development does not take place in the open, rather every few months a major patch is released and there is no way for the community to contribute to the project in any meaningful way.
- esolyt 13y ago
  > The real keys are that your Android device is locked down, fixing it voids your warranty That's not an issue about Android though, it's an issue with manufacturers.You are free to release an Android device that is not locked down.
  - jemeshsu 13y ago
    Just curious, what are the pros and cons to Android manufacturer to lock down a device? Are these Android manufacturer each trying to create its own platform based on an open OS?
    - venomsnake 13y ago
      Mostly carriers demand it. There is no reason to lock the bootloader otherwise. Of course a more cynical mind can see a reason in planned obsolescence - if you stop updating a device after an year you will buy your next sooner.
  - throwaway2048 13y ago
    thats effectively a distinction without a difference to consumers, to run android you still need an android device.
    - nordsieck 13y ago
      There is tons of open hardware you run Android on. It's just not phones. https://www.google.com/search?q=android+arm+computer https://www.google.com/search?q=android+arm+computer
  - fleitz 13y ago
    You mean manufactures like Google themselves? It seems to be an issue with 'Android' as no one, including Google, makes an Android phone on which you can install a modified version of Android without voiding the warranty.
    - ZeroGravitas 13y ago
      Geeksphone (the same folk that do a Mozilla phone) do.
      - cbr 13y ago
        Looking at www.geeksphone.com I don't see any phones available for purchase.
- andrewfong 13y ago
  > The real keys are that your Android device is locked down, fixing it voids your warranty As it should. There's nothing in open source that requires a warranty. Here's a snippet from the MIT license, generally considered open: "THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT." And from the GPL, also open: "THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW." When manufacturers go out of their way to lock down a device, I agree that's a jerk move. But I also don't think it's reasonable to expect them to agree to replace your device if it bricks after you've hacked the firmware. Obviously, the device may be bricked for reasons entirely unrelated to whatever you've hacked, but I don't begrudge manufacturers for drawing a line in the sand and not wanting to expend resources beyond it.
  - fleitz 13y ago
    Perhaps you shouldn't have to modify a firmware to install your own OS on an 'open' platform. IBM somehow figured out how to do it on an IBM 5150 back in the early 80s and my Raspberry Pi supports it on ARM systems. I'm happy to use my iPhone which doesn't allow firmware mods under warranty, however, I've never heard Apple talk about the iPhone being an open platform. Google's stance on the openness of Android strikes me as disingenuous.
    - ZeroGravitas 13y ago
      Apple talking point # 3124: we never claimed our platform was open so we can be more hardline than RMS when critiquing Android. Yeah, that one never gets boring.
      - fleitz 13y ago
        Apple requested Google call it GNU/Android? Must have missed that one.
        simias 13y ago
Knacktus 13y ago
Android is partly open source. It's neither open nor closed in the same way as gray isn't black or white. Google has all the right to change the openness of it's software, but generally should be truthfull in their marketing. I haven't lately found them promoting Android for being open source, so all we need to be aware of is that Android, iOS, WP, BB are not open and are of course made to create profit for their companies from their users.
klrr 13y ago
The key problem here is that it's open source. The meaning of that term has become very vague, not that OSI's definition is unclear but rather since many people apply the term to so many things. Open source is usually applied for marketing and convenience now days rather than actually showing that this software provides the essential freedoms for the user.
- FooBarWidget 13y ago
  "Open source" has always been about marketing and convenience. If you're looking for "freedom", you should join the "free software" movement instead, which is a distinct one. Back in the days, people argued that free software will not survive if they keep being idealistic. Instead, people argued that free software should market more, and compromise more with proprietary software. Well, here is the result.
  - levosmetalo 13y ago
    Please put "Free Software (c)(tm)(r) FSF" or some appropriate similar notice. Otherwise people not familiar with the overloaded meaning of "Free" used by FSF would get a wrong impression that they are actually free to do whatever they want with it.
    - FedRegister 13y ago
      You are free to do whatever you want with the software. The only real restriction under the GPL is that you are not allowed to distribute modified binaries of GPL software without releasing the corresponding source code.
      - engrenage 13y ago
        It's just as restrictive as any commercial license, except that instead of being prohibited from releasing the source, you are required to do so. That is not 'free to do whatever you want'.
bowlofpetunias 13y ago
Although "meaningful" is very subjective, one can use Google's rhetoric under which Android was initiated as a touchstone: http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/press_110507.html http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/press_110507.html Of course when you do that, the current level of openness is not just "no longer meaningful", it's bordering on parody.
- turing 13y ago
  Could you explain? Looking at the document you cited, I'm not sure what you mean. For example, the document says that Android would give "mobile operators and device manufacturers significant freedom and flexibility to design products" and that "Handset manufacturers and wireless operators will be free to customize Android in order to bring to market innovative new products faster and at a much lower cost." Both of those things seem to hold true, even with the changes being made to Google Play Services. Am I missing something?
makomk 13y ago
Well, the new DRM framework definitely isn't open, and essentially all the things you list are stuff that's too low-level to be implemented as part of Google Play Services. Basically, if they could put it in the closed source Google Play Services, they have - including relatively core functionality like improvements to the location APIs and push notifications.
sspiff 13y ago
I agree. I worked for a company that was building their own TV platform on top of Android. From their (and my) point of view, Android was meaningfully open. You don't need Google's closed services to have a working and meaningful platform. You also still benefit from the large developer mindshare and identical APIs compared to Google's Android. You don't have the added benefit of the content discovery & delivery platform Google provides, nor of any of the closed Google API's. Depending on your use case, that may make it "meaninglessly open", but I would definitely argue that this isn't a universal statement. I also have multiple Android devices that don't have access to Google Play (a set-top box and a system-on-a-stick) and I really don't mind that they don't have access to Play.

by turing 13y ago

fleitz 13y ago

Like most things open source is a continuum of subtle differences rather than a category. In my opinion the following software is much more open than Android: Linux, Apache, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, GCC, clang, and generally most open source products developed by the community. In my opinion the following software is less open than Android: C#, OSX, iOS, and generally most software developed by major corporations. The real keys are that your Android device is locked down, fixing it voids your warranty, and development does not take place in the open, rather every few months a major patch is released and there is no way for the community to contribute to the project in any meaningful way.

esolyt 13y ago
> The real keys are that your Android device is locked down, fixing it voids your warranty That's not an issue about Android though, it's an issue with manufacturers.You are free to release an Android device that is not locked down.
- jemeshsu 13y ago
  Just curious, what are the pros and cons to Android manufacturer to lock down a device? Are these Android manufacturer each trying to create its own platform based on an open OS?
  - venomsnake 13y ago
    Mostly carriers demand it. There is no reason to lock the bootloader otherwise. Of course a more cynical mind can see a reason in planned obsolescence - if you stop updating a device after an year you will buy your next sooner.
- throwaway2048 13y ago
  thats effectively a distinction without a difference to consumers, to run android you still need an android device.
  - nordsieck 13y ago
    There is tons of open hardware you run Android on. It's just not phones. https://www.google.com/search?q=android+arm+computer https://www.google.com/search?q=android+arm+computer
- fleitz 13y ago
  You mean manufactures like Google themselves? It seems to be an issue with 'Android' as no one, including Google, makes an Android phone on which you can install a modified version of Android without voiding the warranty.
  - ZeroGravitas 13y ago
    Geeksphone (the same folk that do a Mozilla phone) do.
    - cbr 13y ago
      Looking at www.geeksphone.com I don't see any phones available for purchase.
andrewfong 13y ago
> The real keys are that your Android device is locked down, fixing it voids your warranty As it should. There's nothing in open source that requires a warranty. Here's a snippet from the MIT license, generally considered open: "THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT." And from the GPL, also open: "THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW." When manufacturers go out of their way to lock down a device, I agree that's a jerk move. But I also don't think it's reasonable to expect them to agree to replace your device if it bricks after you've hacked the firmware. Obviously, the device may be bricked for reasons entirely unrelated to whatever you've hacked, but I don't begrudge manufacturers for drawing a line in the sand and not wanting to expend resources beyond it.
- fleitz 13y ago
  Perhaps you shouldn't have to modify a firmware to install your own OS on an 'open' platform. IBM somehow figured out how to do it on an IBM 5150 back in the early 80s and my Raspberry Pi supports it on ARM systems. I'm happy to use my iPhone which doesn't allow firmware mods under warranty, however, I've never heard Apple talk about the iPhone being an open platform. Google's stance on the openness of Android strikes me as disingenuous.
  - ZeroGravitas 13y ago
    Apple talking point # 3124: we never claimed our platform was open so we can be more hardline than RMS when critiquing Android. Yeah, that one never gets boring.
    - fleitz 13y ago
      Apple requested Google call it GNU/Android? Must have missed that one.
      - simias 13y ago

Knacktus 13y ago

Android is partly open source. It's neither open nor closed in the same way as gray isn't black or white. Google has all the right to change the openness of it's software, but generally should be truthfull in their marketing. I haven't lately found them promoting Android for being open source, so all we need to be aware of is that Android, iOS, WP, BB are not open and are of course made to create profit for their companies from their users.

klrr 13y ago

The key problem here is that it's open source. The meaning of that term has become very vague, not that OSI's definition is unclear but rather since many people apply the term to so many things. Open source is usually applied for marketing and convenience now days rather than actually showing that this software provides the essential freedoms for the user.

FooBarWidget 13y ago
"Open source" has always been about marketing and convenience. If you're looking for "freedom", you should join the "free software" movement instead, which is a distinct one. Back in the days, people argued that free software will not survive if they keep being idealistic. Instead, people argued that free software should market more, and compromise more with proprietary software. Well, here is the result.
- levosmetalo 13y ago
  Please put "Free Software (c)(tm)(r) FSF" or some appropriate similar notice. Otherwise people not familiar with the overloaded meaning of "Free" used by FSF would get a wrong impression that they are actually free to do whatever they want with it.
  - FedRegister 13y ago
    You are free to do whatever you want with the software. The only real restriction under the GPL is that you are not allowed to distribute modified binaries of GPL software without releasing the corresponding source code.
    - engrenage 13y ago
      It's just as restrictive as any commercial license, except that instead of being prohibited from releasing the source, you are required to do so. That is not 'free to do whatever you want'.

bowlofpetunias 13y ago

Although "meaningful" is very subjective, one can use Google's rhetoric under which Android was initiated as a touchstone: http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/press_110507.html http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/press_110507.html Of course when you do that, the current level of openness is not just "no longer meaningful", it's bordering on parody.

turing 13y ago
Could you explain? Looking at the document you cited, I'm not sure what you mean. For example, the document says that Android would give "mobile operators and device manufacturers significant freedom and flexibility to design products" and that "Handset manufacturers and wireless operators will be free to customize Android in order to bring to market innovative new products faster and at a much lower cost." Both of those things seem to hold true, even with the changes being made to Google Play Services. Am I missing something?

makomk 13y ago

Well, the new DRM framework definitely isn't open, and essentially all the things you list are stuff that's too low-level to be implemented as part of Google Play Services. Basically, if they could put it in the closed source Google Play Services, they have - including relatively core functionality like improvements to the location APIs and push notifications.

sspiff 13y ago

I agree. I worked for a company that was building their own TV platform on top of Android. From their (and my) point of view, Android was meaningfully open. You don't need Google's closed services to have a working and meaningful platform. You also still benefit from the large developer mindshare and identical APIs compared to Google's Android. You don't have the added benefit of the content discovery & delivery platform Google provides, nor of any of the closed Google API's. Depending on your use case, that may make it "meaninglessly open", but I would definitely argue that this isn't a universal statement. I also have multiple Android devices that don't have access to Google Play (a set-top box and a system-on-a-stick) and I really don't mind that they don't have access to Play.