3 ms·

I have to call bullshit on this one. Google has open sourced a fully featured mobile operating system, with an already free kernel, an optimized and secure app

by DCKing 12y ago

I have to call bullshit on this one. Google has open sourced a fully featured mobile operating system, with an already free kernel, an optimized and secure app runtime for mobile applications that they keep on improving, a completely functional and usually well-liked user interface, open development tools and even a set of open source core applications needed for basic smartphone functionality. As this article demonstrates, Android is perfectly usable if you can get over the first world problem of no direct access to Google's services. People have been absolutely free to do whatever they want with this complete OS what they want for years, and Android comes with no obligation whatsoever to lock down phones. There is absolutely no reason why any alternative to Android, including Ubuntu and FirefoxOS, would be any different at all if or when they gain enough popularity. Phone vendors and carriers will continue to lock down the hardware they sell and be reluctant to share code. There is just nothing different about these alternatives compared to Android. The problems of locking down and shitty attitude towards open source is a problem with the market, not with Android. > all the man power being donated to the project is just going to line google's pockets and lock us further into closed hardware and barely opensource phones. Nobody except Google (and some minor contributions from phone vendors) contributes to core Android. It's an example of an extreme cathedral model[1], where only members of the Open Handset Alliance[2] have access during development. There are many open source forks/derivatives that only help you in increasing the freedom with what you can do with your phone. > Why push for developers to waste time porting between c++ and java? Because there are considerable advantages to running in Android's runtime when it comes to resource management, security, and because one consistent application framework is better than many competing libraries creating an inconsistent mess on desktop Linux. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Handset_Alliance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Handset_Alliance

ksk 12y ago
>Google has open sourced a fully featured mobile operating system, Its interesting how Google forces handset makers to ship Google's proprietary software if they wish to use the Android "brand". However, they don't care if handset makers ship device driver code thus crippling the ability of anyone wishing to create a fully working AOSP ROM. I suppose in Googles eyes, Android = more data for Google to mine/sell/profit-from. Not surprising or disappointing. The Advertising business is not pretty.
- DCKing 12y ago
  Android was originally developed with the intent that it could make the access of web services better on mobile phones. The intent was to create a market, not to take one. AOSP is still open source for that reason, presumably. Although the Android you find on devices branded as such is most definitely Google's flavour, they still develop Android for everyone to use. I find it somewhat of a cognitive dissonnance. People complain about Google's increasing grasp on common Android whereas the most compelling parts of the system are fully available for free unlimited use by everyone. Plug in your cloud provider of choice, or none at all, and you're ready to go. Yet people don't complain about the full propietary lock-in on other platforms. Also, please stop the tiresome meme that "Google/FB/MS/Cloud company X sells your data". These companies sell personalized advertisements, they do not sell your data.
  - ksk 12y ago
    > AOSP is still open source for that reason, presumably. Yeah..AOSP "works".. if you happen to have the driver binary blobs (which are not open source), which only work for some android builds on a handful of devices which are blessed by google. Open source indeed. Oh and those binary blobs.. those are LICENSED. You are not allowed to make an android build and distribute it, if it contains those blobs. And without those blobs the ROMS are useless because you need drivers for basic things like your camera, phone radio, etc. Google have taken the Open Source ideology and bastardized it to fit their commercial needs. And look, I have no problems with companies making money, but then you don't get to also say how "open source friendly" you are, when clearly you're just using open source as a marketing ploy. >These companies sell personalized advertisements, they do not sell your data. Feel free to explain this clause in Google's privacy policy. http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/ http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/ >We may share aggregated, non-personally identifiable information publicly and with our partners – like publishers, advertisers or connected sites.
    - DCKing 12y ago
      > Google have taken the Open Source ideology and bastardized it to fit their commercial needs. Ah you're one of the people that thinks open source also comes with a mandatory ideology. That it's not good enough if source is released for everyone unless there are also other strings attached. We can leave this in disagreement then. > Feel free to explain this clause in Google's privacy policy. You have to redefine a lot of words if "sharing aggregated non-personally identifiable information" (e.g. statistics of "how many people aged 18-25 are seeing my ad?") is to mean the same as "selling your data". https://www.google.com/policies/technologies/ https://www.google.com/policies/technologies/ > We don’t sell users’ personal information.

by DCKing 12y ago

ksk 12y ago

>Google has open sourced a fully featured mobile operating system, Its interesting how Google forces handset makers to ship Google's proprietary software if they wish to use the Android "brand". However, they don't care if handset makers ship device driver code thus crippling the ability of anyone wishing to create a fully working AOSP ROM. I suppose in Googles eyes, Android = more data for Google to mine/sell/profit-from. Not surprising or disappointing. The Advertising business is not pretty.

DCKing 12y ago
Android was originally developed with the intent that it could make the access of web services better on mobile phones. The intent was to create a market, not to take one. AOSP is still open source for that reason, presumably. Although the Android you find on devices branded as such is most definitely Google's flavour, they still develop Android for everyone to use. I find it somewhat of a cognitive dissonnance. People complain about Google's increasing grasp on common Android whereas the most compelling parts of the system are fully available for free unlimited use by everyone. Plug in your cloud provider of choice, or none at all, and you're ready to go. Yet people don't complain about the full propietary lock-in on other platforms. Also, please stop the tiresome meme that "Google/FB/MS/Cloud company X sells your data". These companies sell personalized advertisements, they do not sell your data.
- ksk 12y ago
  > AOSP is still open source for that reason, presumably. Yeah..AOSP "works".. if you happen to have the driver binary blobs (which are not open source), which only work for some android builds on a handful of devices which are blessed by google. Open source indeed. Oh and those binary blobs.. those are LICENSED. You are not allowed to make an android build and distribute it, if it contains those blobs. And without those blobs the ROMS are useless because you need drivers for basic things like your camera, phone radio, etc. Google have taken the Open Source ideology and bastardized it to fit their commercial needs. And look, I have no problems with companies making money, but then you don't get to also say how "open source friendly" you are, when clearly you're just using open source as a marketing ploy. >These companies sell personalized advertisements, they do not sell your data. Feel free to explain this clause in Google's privacy policy. http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/ http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/ >We may share aggregated, non-personally identifiable information publicly and with our partners – like publishers, advertisers or connected sites.
  - DCKing 12y ago
    > Google have taken the Open Source ideology and bastardized it to fit their commercial needs. Ah you're one of the people that thinks open source also comes with a mandatory ideology. That it's not good enough if source is released for everyone unless there are also other strings attached. We can leave this in disagreement then. > Feel free to explain this clause in Google's privacy policy. You have to redefine a lot of words if "sharing aggregated non-personally identifiable information" (e.g. statistics of "how many people aged 18-25 are seeing my ad?") is to mean the same as "selling your data". https://www.google.com/policies/technologies/ https://www.google.com/policies/technologies/ > We don’t sell users’ personal information.