9 ms·

One of the things I love about Android is that you _can_ do this with it, if you so wish. You can't build a Truly Free Version of Windows Phone. You can't bui

One of the things I love about Android is that you _can_ do this with it, if you so wish. You can't build a Truly Free Version of Windows Phone. You can't build a Truly Free Version of iPhone. But if Android doesn't do what you want, then you can fork it, tweak it, and turn it into something that does!

brudgers 13y ago
I agree so long as we are using" Android" in a special sense, and not in the way the typical user does when they say, "I just replaced my iPhone with a Nexus 8 running Android."
maaaats 13y ago
That's true. However, as the article says, the "Android" you are forking is something completely different than what is running on phones.
eknkc 13y ago
If it happens that the music player, dialer, home screen, messaging app are all closed source Google apps (just like now, or will be in a while), then what? You can create a non-google experience aosp build (meh..) or tweak the filesystem caching parameters or something like that at best. I think Google is doing what's best for Android, but Android is not open source anymore. Firefox OS might be a better choice for open source comminity to spend time on. I haven't been following latest development, how's the hardware situation on FF OS?
- sethhochberg 13y ago
  To me, those type of functions (dialer, messaging, music player, etc) are more "app" than "OS" - obviously alternate music, messaging, home screen, etc apps are available, but what about dialers? Is that piece of the system replaceable? I think it would make a lot of sense if the base Android OS (AOSP, as I understand it?) were only as functional as it needed to be for useful apps to run, and then the "Google app stack" or "Cyanogen app stack" or whoever else's, open source or closed source or anything in between, could be dropped in to provide the user-facing functionality. The key seems to be getting to a point where important pieces of that underlying functionality aren't wrapped up in the "Google app stack".
  - AndrewDucker 13y ago
    Yup. I don't use the stock dialer.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- bad_user 13y ago
  The music player, the messaging app, the home screen ... these are not part of the operating system and are easily replaceable. I actually have an older phone (a first-gen Galaxy S) on which I installed Cyanogenmod without Google's services, which is basically stock Android. In spite of opinions to the contrary, the phone is quite usable without any of Google's services on it. I've got Firefox for web browsing, OsmAnd for maps, Apollo for playing music. All 3 are open-source apps. At some point I even installed Amazon's App Store on it, to be able to get some proprietary apps, like Facebook, installed. But then I realized I don't need all that bloatware, as the web versions work fine. You should try out this experiment if you've got an extra Android lying around. After you find apps suitable for whatever it is you want to do, it really is OK. The level of polish is not the same as with the Google-enabled Android, but it's still much, much better than the experience you get on low-budget non-Android smartphones. People forget that Amazon already forked Android and that without Android they wouldn't have been able to deliver Kindle Fire. That's the power of open-source, even if you choose to deny it.
  - hrjet 13y ago
    I agree with you as a fellow hacker. But I don't think this can be called a solution for end-users, who would just like things to work out of the box. And as an app developer, one needs to consider the problems of the end-user. That is where fully packaged open-source projects could make a difference. However, without a strong backer, it is only going to lead more fragmentation.
    - bad_user 13y ago
      I was addressing your comment, that Android is not open-source anymore, with which I disagree. Your argument above is in the same line as people claiming that end-users do not benefit from open-source. In some sense it is correct, as end-users do not have the technical know-how to assemble their own operating system, to make changes to source-code, etc... But practically speaking, end-users don't have to do it by themselves just like they don't have to fix their cars by themselves (e.g. I helped friends install Cyanogenmod on their phones, which is a PITA to deal with, but once done, it's done). The power of open-source is in the ability to fork it. Not all people or companies can do it, but if there's demand for it (e.g. Google's stewardship goes awry), then a successful fork will happen. Building an operating system from scratch is hard. Having stock Android available as a base for new operating systems is an incredible gift. In the meantime, yes, forks of Android are only for hackers wanting to play around. But if this leads to the rise of alternative marketplaces, like F-droid, then this will benefit everybody. Not sure if you notice it, but the biggest problem that Android has in terms of openness and lock-in is Google Play. Fortunately Android allows installing software from third-party sources, but unfortunately there aren't many alternative marketplaces out there.
- AndrewDucker 13y ago
  I don't use the stock music player, dialer, home screen _or_ messaging app. So I'm fine with that.
- mbq 13y ago
  Firefox OS's base, Gonk is pretty much the same as Android's foundation, so both can equally benefit from a fight with blob-drivers of mobile hardware.
- mcintyre1994 13y ago
  I don't think the issue is actually the music player, dialer, home screen, messaging app etc, because Google have done a great job making everything like that replacable. The actual missing piece which is worrying if you want to go this way is Play Services - that provides loads of the APIs apps need (probably including some for those replacements) and is closed source.
- notatoad 13y ago
  android includes an open source music player, dialer, home screen, and messaging app. just because google has replaced them with closed-source alternatives on the nexus devices, doesn't mean they don't exist.
UnoriginalGuy 13y ago
Ish. AOSP is missing a lot of key ingredients. See this article for a look into that: http://betanews.com/2013/01/02/building-android-from-aosp-goals-setbacks-and-achievements/ http://betanews.com/2013/01/02/building-android-from-aosp-go...
chubot 13y ago
Uh, the whole reason the Replicant project exists, and this article describing its challenges, is because of the difference between what you describe and reality.
iamshs 13y ago
"Android is open—except for all the good parts." http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/ http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-...
- Oletros 13y ago
  The "good parts" never have been part of Android so, yes, Android is open, Google Services never have been open
  - giovannibajo1 13y ago
    Not correct. Google has begun releasing new version of old things directly into Play Services or as separate new apps, letting the open source version bit rot. One example is the location stack. They have moved into it play services and added a few features, but the open source one is now going to bitrot. 4.4 has now a new closed source launcher, and I'm sure the old GoogleHome.apk will go bitrot in a couple years. If you get AOSP today is quite far from an Android device. Surely it's better than nothing but the distance is widening every month as Google keeps going down to this closed source way. In another couple of years AOSP would probably be irrelevant if you also don't subscribe for the Google apps when you build your device.
    - mtgx 13y ago
      Not true. Google updated a lot of stuff for AOSP 4.4, such as the e-mail app (which I also thought would never be updated again), the Download app, the Gallery, the photo editor, and a few others. The point is that Ars author's theory hasn't come true yet, and it's actually be contradicted by the KitKat version in many ways. Look just what a big upgrade the photo editor in the open source gallery received: http://www.engadget.com/2013/11/03/android-4-4-kitkat-comes-with-deep-photo-editor/ http://www.engadget.com/2013/11/03/android-4-4-kitkat-comes-...
    - rst 13y ago
      The KitKat version of GoogleHome.apk is already beyond bitrot; it's "an empty shell that forwards all requests to the [proprietary Google] search app" (which manages the home screen in KitKat), per ArsTechnica: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/11/google-just-pulled-a-facebook-home-kitkats-primary-interface-is-google-search/ http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/11/google-just-pulled-a-... This leaves it unclear what you get for a launcher with an AOSP build of KitKat, but it certainly is drifting farther from the official Android experience.
muyuu 13y ago
On the other hand, for all practical purposes most people can't, and they may be deluded into thinking they are covered in regards to freedom, openness and privacy. Or to basically know what is going on with their data and their communications. It is a serious concern. In theory you can, in practice 99.99% of the people won't be in a reasonable position to even try it.
- gbog 13y ago
  This 99.99% thing is a dangerous fallacy, dangerous against freedom. See the law: you have the possibility to sue the government, in free countries. Only one person in hundred of thousands will ever need to sue for real, but having this open door is what defines freedom. By the way 99.99% of all android users is quite a crowd, it could fill a few cities, so if they do check the code it can and will influence other android user, if only by adding pressure on Google. You see, adding a backdoor to android is really much harder for Google than it would have been with closed source, maybe 99 times harder?
  - muyuu 13y ago
    I'm talking about real possibilities not the choice of executing them or not. Most people is for all intents and purposes unable to execute his theoretical open source rights with android. The barrier is insurmountable.
gibwell 13y ago
This falls pray to a reductio ad absurdum. The android you can do this with is nothing like the android that ships on consumer's phones. So no, you absolutely cannot do this with what almost everyone thinks of as 'Android'. You can do it with a different thing that also has the name 'Android', but isn't the same. I assume you haven't noticed this, because otherwise you would be deliberately trying to spread a misleading view.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  Do you not think this will happen to Firefox OS (as a random example). Regardless of what Mozilla does, the manufacturers are not going to sell non-differentiated phones for very long. They are going to keep that differentiation closed source, as they do now. If one of them becomes very popular (say, Samsung), the Firefox OS you can do things with will be nothing like the Firefox OS on consumer's phones. This is the way of the world, not just the way of Android.
  - gibwell 13y ago
    Sure, but this isn't just the manufacturers working somehow against Google's goal to have android be truly open. Google is actively participating in this process rather than resisting it. Android is, for example not licensed with copyleft or some other construction designed to keep it open, and Google itself builds its most significant end-user functionality as closed components. I note that you are implicitly conceding that what is commonly considered to be Android is indeed not open.
    - DannyBee 13y ago
      "Android is, for example not licensed with copyleft or some other construction designed to keep it open" No, instead it's licensed in a way that lets the rest of the world decide what they want to do with it, and the complaint is "we don't like what the world is doing with it". You must also realize if android was GPL'd, nobody would have used it, right[1] ? " and Google itself builds its most significant end-user functionality as closed components." I don't agree this is true, but even if i did, if you want to compete, compete. If you don't, don't. Essentially this whole complaint boils down to "i have to do my own work in order to compete seriously, i don't get to freeride anymore after x number of years". I'll point out the mariadb folks did this, rather than simply complain. In any case, the fact that someone may build closed source stuff on top of an open platform does not make that open platform less open. It may make that platform less useful as time goes on, but not less open. "I note that you are implicitly conceding that what is commonly considered to be Android is indeed not open." I haven't conceded anything, actually. It's just not a point worth arguing with someone who holds a position that clearly conflicts with mine and is highly unlikely to change it. [1] I wouldn't try arguing with this, this is a case where i was there, and I literally know the answers and positions of the phone makers, which was essentially 'never ever ever'.

brudgers 13y ago

I agree so long as we are using" Android" in a special sense, and not in the way the typical user does when they say, "I just replaced my iPhone with a Nexus 8 running Android."

maaaats 13y ago

That's true. However, as the article says, the "Android" you are forking is something completely different than what is running on phones.

eknkc 13y ago

If it happens that the music player, dialer, home screen, messaging app are all closed source Google apps (just like now, or will be in a while), then what? You can create a non-google experience aosp build (meh..) or tweak the filesystem caching parameters or something like that at best. I think Google is doing what's best for Android, but Android is not open source anymore. Firefox OS might be a better choice for open source comminity to spend time on. I haven't been following latest development, how's the hardware situation on FF OS?

sethhochberg 13y ago
To me, those type of functions (dialer, messaging, music player, etc) are more "app" than "OS" - obviously alternate music, messaging, home screen, etc apps are available, but what about dialers? Is that piece of the system replaceable? I think it would make a lot of sense if the base Android OS (AOSP, as I understand it?) were only as functional as it needed to be for useful apps to run, and then the "Google app stack" or "Cyanogen app stack" or whoever else's, open source or closed source or anything in between, could be dropped in to provide the user-facing functionality. The key seems to be getting to a point where important pieces of that underlying functionality aren't wrapped up in the "Google app stack".
- AndrewDucker 13y ago
  Yup. I don't use the stock dialer.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
bad_user 13y ago
The music player, the messaging app, the home screen ... these are not part of the operating system and are easily replaceable. I actually have an older phone (a first-gen Galaxy S) on which I installed Cyanogenmod without Google's services, which is basically stock Android. In spite of opinions to the contrary, the phone is quite usable without any of Google's services on it. I've got Firefox for web browsing, OsmAnd for maps, Apollo for playing music. All 3 are open-source apps. At some point I even installed Amazon's App Store on it, to be able to get some proprietary apps, like Facebook, installed. But then I realized I don't need all that bloatware, as the web versions work fine. You should try out this experiment if you've got an extra Android lying around. After you find apps suitable for whatever it is you want to do, it really is OK. The level of polish is not the same as with the Google-enabled Android, but it's still much, much better than the experience you get on low-budget non-Android smartphones. People forget that Amazon already forked Android and that without Android they wouldn't have been able to deliver Kindle Fire. That's the power of open-source, even if you choose to deny it.
- hrjet 13y ago
  I agree with you as a fellow hacker. But I don't think this can be called a solution for end-users, who would just like things to work out of the box. And as an app developer, one needs to consider the problems of the end-user. That is where fully packaged open-source projects could make a difference. However, without a strong backer, it is only going to lead more fragmentation.
  - bad_user 13y ago
    I was addressing your comment, that Android is not open-source anymore, with which I disagree. Your argument above is in the same line as people claiming that end-users do not benefit from open-source. In some sense it is correct, as end-users do not have the technical know-how to assemble their own operating system, to make changes to source-code, etc... But practically speaking, end-users don't have to do it by themselves just like they don't have to fix their cars by themselves (e.g. I helped friends install Cyanogenmod on their phones, which is a PITA to deal with, but once done, it's done). The power of open-source is in the ability to fork it. Not all people or companies can do it, but if there's demand for it (e.g. Google's stewardship goes awry), then a successful fork will happen. Building an operating system from scratch is hard. Having stock Android available as a base for new operating systems is an incredible gift. In the meantime, yes, forks of Android are only for hackers wanting to play around. But if this leads to the rise of alternative marketplaces, like F-droid, then this will benefit everybody. Not sure if you notice it, but the biggest problem that Android has in terms of openness and lock-in is Google Play. Fortunately Android allows installing software from third-party sources, but unfortunately there aren't many alternative marketplaces out there.
AndrewDucker 13y ago
I don't use the stock music player, dialer, home screen _or_ messaging app. So I'm fine with that.
mbq 13y ago
Firefox OS's base, Gonk is pretty much the same as Android's foundation, so both can equally benefit from a fight with blob-drivers of mobile hardware.
mcintyre1994 13y ago
I don't think the issue is actually the music player, dialer, home screen, messaging app etc, because Google have done a great job making everything like that replacable. The actual missing piece which is worrying if you want to go this way is Play Services - that provides loads of the APIs apps need (probably including some for those replacements) and is closed source.
notatoad 13y ago
android includes an open source music player, dialer, home screen, and messaging app. just because google has replaced them with closed-source alternatives on the nexus devices, doesn't mean they don't exist.

UnoriginalGuy 13y ago

Ish. AOSP is missing a lot of key ingredients. See this article for a look into that: http://betanews.com/2013/01/02/building-android-from-aosp-goals-setbacks-and-achievements/ http://betanews.com/2013/01/02/building-android-from-aosp-go...

chubot 13y ago

Uh, the whole reason the Replicant project exists, and this article describing its challenges, is because of the difference between what you describe and reality.

iamshs 13y ago

"Android is open—except for all the good parts." http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/ http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-...

Oletros 13y ago
The "good parts" never have been part of Android so, yes, Android is open, Google Services never have been open
- giovannibajo1 13y ago
  Not correct. Google has begun releasing new version of old things directly into Play Services or as separate new apps, letting the open source version bit rot. One example is the location stack. They have moved into it play services and added a few features, but the open source one is now going to bitrot. 4.4 has now a new closed source launcher, and I'm sure the old GoogleHome.apk will go bitrot in a couple years. If you get AOSP today is quite far from an Android device. Surely it's better than nothing but the distance is widening every month as Google keeps going down to this closed source way. In another couple of years AOSP would probably be irrelevant if you also don't subscribe for the Google apps when you build your device.
  - mtgx 13y ago
    Not true. Google updated a lot of stuff for AOSP 4.4, such as the e-mail app (which I also thought would never be updated again), the Download app, the Gallery, the photo editor, and a few others. The point is that Ars author's theory hasn't come true yet, and it's actually be contradicted by the KitKat version in many ways. Look just what a big upgrade the photo editor in the open source gallery received: http://www.engadget.com/2013/11/03/android-4-4-kitkat-comes-with-deep-photo-editor/ http://www.engadget.com/2013/11/03/android-4-4-kitkat-comes-...
  - rst 13y ago
    The KitKat version of GoogleHome.apk is already beyond bitrot; it's "an empty shell that forwards all requests to the [proprietary Google] search app" (which manages the home screen in KitKat), per ArsTechnica: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/11/google-just-pulled-a-facebook-home-kitkats-primary-interface-is-google-search/ http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/11/google-just-pulled-a-... This leaves it unclear what you get for a launcher with an AOSP build of KitKat, but it certainly is drifting farther from the official Android experience.

muyuu 13y ago

On the other hand, for all practical purposes most people can't, and they may be deluded into thinking they are covered in regards to freedom, openness and privacy. Or to basically know what is going on with their data and their communications. It is a serious concern. In theory you can, in practice 99.99% of the people won't be in a reasonable position to even try it.

gbog 13y ago
This 99.99% thing is a dangerous fallacy, dangerous against freedom. See the law: you have the possibility to sue the government, in free countries. Only one person in hundred of thousands will ever need to sue for real, but having this open door is what defines freedom. By the way 99.99% of all android users is quite a crowd, it could fill a few cities, so if they do check the code it can and will influence other android user, if only by adding pressure on Google. You see, adding a backdoor to android is really much harder for Google than it would have been with closed source, maybe 99 times harder?
- muyuu 13y ago
  I'm talking about real possibilities not the choice of executing them or not. Most people is for all intents and purposes unable to execute his theoretical open source rights with android. The barrier is insurmountable.

gibwell 13y ago

This falls pray to a reductio ad absurdum. The android you can do this with is nothing like the android that ships on consumer's phones. So no, you absolutely cannot do this with what almost everyone thinks of as 'Android'. You can do it with a different thing that also has the name 'Android', but isn't the same. I assume you haven't noticed this, because otherwise you would be deliberately trying to spread a misleading view.

DannyBee 13y ago
Do you not think this will happen to Firefox OS (as a random example). Regardless of what Mozilla does, the manufacturers are not going to sell non-differentiated phones for very long. They are going to keep that differentiation closed source, as they do now. If one of them becomes very popular (say, Samsung), the Firefox OS you can do things with will be nothing like the Firefox OS on consumer's phones. This is the way of the world, not just the way of Android.
- gibwell 13y ago
  Sure, but this isn't just the manufacturers working somehow against Google's goal to have android be truly open. Google is actively participating in this process rather than resisting it. Android is, for example not licensed with copyleft or some other construction designed to keep it open, and Google itself builds its most significant end-user functionality as closed components. I note that you are implicitly conceding that what is commonly considered to be Android is indeed not open.
  - DannyBee 13y ago
    "Android is, for example not licensed with copyleft or some other construction designed to keep it open" No, instead it's licensed in a way that lets the rest of the world decide what they want to do with it, and the complaint is "we don't like what the world is doing with it". You must also realize if android was GPL'd, nobody would have used it, right[1] ? " and Google itself builds its most significant end-user functionality as closed components." I don't agree this is true, but even if i did, if you want to compete, compete. If you don't, don't. Essentially this whole complaint boils down to "i have to do my own work in order to compete seriously, i don't get to freeride anymore after x number of years". I'll point out the mariadb folks did this, rather than simply complain. In any case, the fact that someone may build closed source stuff on top of an open platform does not make that open platform less open. It may make that platform less useful as time goes on, but not less open. "I note that you are implicitly conceding that what is commonly considered to be Android is indeed not open." I haven't conceded anything, actually. It's just not a point worth arguing with someone who holds a position that clearly conflicts with mine and is highly unlikely to change it. [1] I wouldn't try arguing with this, this is a case where i was there, and I literally know the answers and positions of the phone makers, which was essentially 'never ever ever'.