4 ms·
What openness exactly are you talking about? This is all closed source code being shared between some of the worlds largest corporations under secretly negotia
by gress 12y ago
What openness exactly are you talking about? This is all closed source code being shared between some of the worlds largest corporations under secretly negotiated contracts.
Also you make it sound as though they somehow made peace rather than Google just defeating Samsung in the negotiation. It's hardly as if Tizen was a viable alternative.
- ufmace 12y agoAndroid, of course. It isn't perfectly open to the satisfaction of open-source ideologues, but what viable smartphone OS is even a tenth as open as Android? I can't think of any other smartphone OS that's open enough for, say, Amazon to fork it and create their own OS. It sounds to me much closer to them making peace than a straight defeat. Tizen may not be viable today, but Android wasn't all that great when it first came out either. If Samsung made it top priority for years, things might be very different. Although, it is interesting that all of the modern smartphone OSes are made by companies whose primary business is software - makes you wonder how well any hardware company could do.
- gress 12y agoWhat Amazon forked is not the Android the licencees like Samsung use. That Android, the one that most people use, is exactly as 'open' as Windows.
- product50 12y agoBless Hacker News for having discovered souls like you. You really have no idea what Android is.
- gress 12y agoAndroid is AOSP + GMS. AOSP is open source, and GMS is not. What do you 'know' about Android, that people 'like me' don't?
- Oletros 12y agoAndroid is AOSP, AOSP + GMS is AOSP + GMS.
- gress 12y agoCertainly false. Google consistently refers to features of Android that are only in GMS, therefore Android must include GMS. AOSP is just a component of Android.
- Oletros 12y agoTell Google. Perhaps you know more about Android than them https://source.android.com/source/index.html https://source.android.com/source/index.html Or perhaps you're just spreading wrong things
- gress 12y agoPerhaps you should tell them since you are so attached to this definition. That isn't the definition they used at Google I/O so it would seem that you are out of date.
- dang 12y agoThis is not a good HN comment because it's rude and uninformative. It would be much better if (a) the personal language were dropped, and (b) it taught us something about what Android is.
- kumarm 12y ago>>That Android, the one that most people use, is exactly as 'open' as Windows. Wow. I can't believe even one person in this world believe that. To Start with, we all have access to Android Source code. If you know where latest version of Windows is available, please let us know. Because Android source is available, we build several extensions and customizations (Starting from original source code) for android and make money of it. Where does this hate for Android come from?
- nly 12y ago> Where does this hate for Android come from? It's not a contributory community for one thing, and not developed in the open. Google drive development of the platform and then code dump their work every release. FOSS communities end up having to build around the edges of what Google have accomplished, and you get a general sense that the code only gets put out in the best interests of business with the likes of Samsung, not the little guy. Google aren't even very good at giving straight answers to wider community concerns. Then there's bitterness in the end because you're always going to be dependent on charity from the device manufacturers in letting you unlock your device and provide proprietary driver BLOBs. Also, the parts of Android that are open aren't really the most interesting ones, but the most mediocre. Much of the guts of Android is merely adequate, technically unimpressive, and deliberately selected over better alternatives because using a truly FOSS base would risk commercial isolation. Android is a platform hobbled together well enough to get manufacturers to put it on their phones and ensure people are using Googles data services. Bottom line: as long as its slightly better to work with than Apple, and slightly more open, it will win the hearts of developers. But that's a pretty miserable threshold.
- mdwrigh2 12y ago>Also, the parts of Android that are open aren't really the most interesting ones, but the most mediocre. Much of the guts of Android is merely adequate, technically unimpressive, and deliberately selected over better alternatives because using a truly FOSS base would risk commercial isolation. Yeah, that's why FireFox OS (HALs, RIL, mediaserver, input system, portions of the graphic system, init, kernel) and Ubuntu Touch (HALs, kernel, RIL, stagefright, input system, etc.) both borrow large pieces from Android. Even Mir uses the Android input system as its base.
- mdwrigh2 12y ago> What Amazon forked is not the Android the licencees like Samsung use. Of course it is. It doesn't come with the Play suite of apps and services, but the code you see in the open source repository is exactly the same as what Samsung gets.
- gress 12y agoAOSP is open source. GMS is not. Samsung required GMS to make a commercially viable Android handset that consumers recognize as Android. Therefore the Android that Samsung (and the other Android makers outside china) licenses is obviously not open-source. This is why Pichai and Google have leverage.