4 ms·

Ars' headline is not just inaccurate. It's part of what now seem like a clear design of FUD against android. I don't know their rationale for that but I'm star

by scotu 13y ago

Ars' headline is not just inaccurate. It's part of what now seem like a clear design of FUD against android. I don't know their rationale for that but I'm starting getting sick of it. Every. Damn. Article. They insinuate, more or less clearly, that you should be very careful with android, it's not open! The best thing being: they are always talking about Google play services instead of android. Even when they explicitly say AOSP, they make it sound like is a minor part, not enough to run an actual phone (which, for being any useful, requires google apps, is their thesis I guess)

forgottenpass 13y ago
It's part of what now seem like a clear design of FUD against android. Basically it comes down to if you're being pedant or a layperson. A pedant is very careful to consider "Android" the AOSP and noting else. To almost anyone that hasn't tried to install non-stock firmware on a device "Android" includes the proprietary addons. As someone who knows the difference, I find it my responsibility to translate in my head as necessary and not get bogged down in the weeds and only bring it up when it's significant. With all that in mind, I see what Ars is saying, think the title is appropriate for the audience and that the content of the article is clear in what the restrictions cover. I'm not into being pedantic just for the sake of pedantics and fail to see why people think bringing up the distinction meaningfully changes the article.
droopybuns 13y ago
>>when they explicitly say AOSP, they make it sound like is a minor part, not enough to run an actual phone (which, for being any useful, requires google apps, is their thesis I guess) It is 2014. Modern phones need to do more than just make phone calls. Mobile app developers want to build with the best APIs available. Location, in-app advertising & search features are best when they use the api's associated with google's custom services. The hair you're trying to split misses the point about modern mobile apps & modern smart phones. Google is clearly using API compatibility as a wedge against the OEMs. Samsung's Taizen project wouldn't exist if this pressure was not a real problem. Google is behaving like mid-90's microsoft. This deeper link paints a bleak picture of what's going on: http://www.benedelman.org/news/021314-1.html http://www.benedelman.org/news/021314-1.html
- DannyBee 13y ago
  Ben Edelman is literally paid by Microsoft (and admits as much), with his one goal being to target Google. So i'm not wildly surprised that he would paint a bleak picture of what is going on - that's what they pay him to do! Before this he used to paint a bleak picture of google advertising: http://techrights.org/2011/08/30/ben-edelman-works-for-monopolist/ http://techrights.org/2011/08/30/ben-edelman-works-for-monop...
  - droopybuns 13y ago
    So, I'm all for context and appreciate this color. I don't think Edelman's stooge status damages the argument. If Samsung is a comfortable success in android, why in the world would they invest in Taizen? You don't build your business on someone else's property. I work with many people in mobile. These complaints about Google are not anecdotal. The squeeze has been on for years. Google is ramping up the contractual requirements without investing in support infrastructure for the OEMs- only one of which is not dying. This is a real thing and not zeitgeist or blogger drama.
    - DannyBee 13y ago
      "If Samsung is a comfortable success in android, why in the world would they invest in Taizen?" In samsung's ideal world, they are Apple. That's why. Plus, you always need a plan b.
      - droopybuns 13y ago
        Bzt. The real reason is that the promise of "open source" in Android has always been wildly overstated. Over time, the OEMs have come to realize that Android is prone to vulnerabilities, they don't get the support for updated code that they do fully purchased OS's, and google is rapidly eliminating any opportunity for differentiation of experience. Google wants the OEMs to only focus on the plastic covers of the phones, which does not make a sustainable business model. That forceful negotiation over time has resulted in Samsung's investment in Taizen and a legitimate opportunity for FirefoxOS & Ubuntu for Phones. All it's going to take is for someone to create a VM on windows phone and the other OS's for executing android sdks- google is going to be in real trouble with their OEMs. The OEMs won't drown without lashing out for survival.
ufmace 13y ago
I don't know if I'd call it every article yet, but it seems to be getting more common. What I think makes this a strange thing to harp on is that, while you can make the argument that Android is getting less open, it's still way more open than any of the other major mobile OSes. Okay, Android isn't a perfect bastion of OSS, but what can you do with iOS without Apple's permission? IIRC, you can't even write apps in their own language and IDE on their hardware to use on your Apple devices without buying a membership to their developer program. Don't even try to put it on non-Apple hardware. It's at least possible for OEMs to install Windows Phone on their hardware, and I'm not sure what development is like there, but there sure isn't anything remotely free or open-source about it.

by scotu 13y ago

forgottenpass 13y ago

It's part of what now seem like a clear design of FUD against android. Basically it comes down to if you're being pedant or a layperson. A pedant is very careful to consider "Android" the AOSP and noting else. To almost anyone that hasn't tried to install non-stock firmware on a device "Android" includes the proprietary addons. As someone who knows the difference, I find it my responsibility to translate in my head as necessary and not get bogged down in the weeds and only bring it up when it's significant. With all that in mind, I see what Ars is saying, think the title is appropriate for the audience and that the content of the article is clear in what the restrictions cover. I'm not into being pedantic just for the sake of pedantics and fail to see why people think bringing up the distinction meaningfully changes the article.

droopybuns 13y ago

>>when they explicitly say AOSP, they make it sound like is a minor part, not enough to run an actual phone (which, for being any useful, requires google apps, is their thesis I guess) It is 2014. Modern phones need to do more than just make phone calls. Mobile app developers want to build with the best APIs available. Location, in-app advertising & search features are best when they use the api's associated with google's custom services. The hair you're trying to split misses the point about modern mobile apps & modern smart phones. Google is clearly using API compatibility as a wedge against the OEMs. Samsung's Taizen project wouldn't exist if this pressure was not a real problem. Google is behaving like mid-90's microsoft. This deeper link paints a bleak picture of what's going on: http://www.benedelman.org/news/021314-1.html http://www.benedelman.org/news/021314-1.html

DannyBee 13y ago
Ben Edelman is literally paid by Microsoft (and admits as much), with his one goal being to target Google. So i'm not wildly surprised that he would paint a bleak picture of what is going on - that's what they pay him to do! Before this he used to paint a bleak picture of google advertising: http://techrights.org/2011/08/30/ben-edelman-works-for-monopolist/ http://techrights.org/2011/08/30/ben-edelman-works-for-monop...
- droopybuns 13y ago
  So, I'm all for context and appreciate this color. I don't think Edelman's stooge status damages the argument. If Samsung is a comfortable success in android, why in the world would they invest in Taizen? You don't build your business on someone else's property. I work with many people in mobile. These complaints about Google are not anecdotal. The squeeze has been on for years. Google is ramping up the contractual requirements without investing in support infrastructure for the OEMs- only one of which is not dying. This is a real thing and not zeitgeist or blogger drama.
  - DannyBee 13y ago
    "If Samsung is a comfortable success in android, why in the world would they invest in Taizen?" In samsung's ideal world, they are Apple. That's why. Plus, you always need a plan b.
    - droopybuns 13y ago
      Bzt. The real reason is that the promise of "open source" in Android has always been wildly overstated. Over time, the OEMs have come to realize that Android is prone to vulnerabilities, they don't get the support for updated code that they do fully purchased OS's, and google is rapidly eliminating any opportunity for differentiation of experience. Google wants the OEMs to only focus on the plastic covers of the phones, which does not make a sustainable business model. That forceful negotiation over time has resulted in Samsung's investment in Taizen and a legitimate opportunity for FirefoxOS & Ubuntu for Phones. All it's going to take is for someone to create a VM on windows phone and the other OS's for executing android sdks- google is going to be in real trouble with their OEMs. The OEMs won't drown without lashing out for survival.

ufmace 13y ago

I don't know if I'd call it every article yet, but it seems to be getting more common. What I think makes this a strange thing to harp on is that, while you can make the argument that Android is getting less open, it's still way more open than any of the other major mobile OSes. Okay, Android isn't a perfect bastion of OSS, but what can you do with iOS without Apple's permission? IIRC, you can't even write apps in their own language and IDE on their hardware to use on your Apple devices without buying a membership to their developer program. Don't even try to put it on non-Apple hardware. It's at least possible for OEMs to install Windows Phone on their hardware, and I'm not sure what development is like there, but there sure isn't anything remotely free or open-source about it.