4 ms·

Android ROM Modder gets Cease and Desist from Google

30 points by jamesk2 17y ago

The original site this article references times out for me.

davidw 17y ago
Like they say on LWN.net, this might just be an incentive to develop free alternatives to Google's apps. The problem is not Android itself, but the stuff they add on top of it; maps, gmail, etc...
- joeyo 17y ago
  Another alternative would be for Google to simply offer those apps for downloaded as they do for their software on any other platform. I wonder if there is some Google authentication glue that they have not yet modularized enough to allow this to happen. (That's not to say that there shouldn't be free alternatives developed.)
  - nuclear_eclipse 17y ago
    Those applications are Google's sole bargaining point with handset manufacturers and carriers to have them build Android devices meeting certain requirements in order to make sure the Google Experience is up to par. If carrier/manufacturers don't agree to Google's terms, then they aren't allowed to distribute those "killer" apps with their phones. Making those apps still available to end-users who potentially may or may not have a Google Experience-worthy phone would kill much of their bargaining factor... That said, as a user of CyanogenMod on my G1, I'd be absolutely heartbroken if his builds could no longer distribute these apps.
    - eli 17y ago
      They still have control over use of the "Google" branding, for whatever that's worth, but you're absolutely correct.
    - jrockway 17y ago
      Those applications are Google's sole bargaining point with handset manufacturers and carriers to have them build Android devices meeting certain requirements in order to make sure the Google Experience is up to par. Not sure that this is such a good idea. As soon as someone builds a phone that is otherwise up to spec but doesn't have a good enough camera, it loses Google Maps. Then the users say, "Android sucks, I can't even see maps" and buys an iPhone instead.
      - nuclear_eclipse 17y ago
        Well, considering the G1's camera is about as terrible as it can get on a smartphone, I can't imagine another phone missing out on the Google Experience for that, but I completely understand your point. But at the same time, if you consider the G1 as a "baseline" set of requirements, do you really want manufacturers putting out anything less? It's already more-or-less commodity hardware available or $100 or less from the carrier, so there's not much incentive to skimp any further without destroying the UX.
      - joezydeco 17y ago
        "Android" is used nowhere in the marketing of any of the Android-based phones. That's why it says "With Google!" instead. When it comes to the consumer, they're not going to even know what Android is. Go ask any Nokia owner if they like their Symbian phone.
    - utexaspunk 17y ago
      I'm not sure which Apps they are talking about as exclusives- in the Android Market, when I search for "Google, Inc.", I see Maps, Voice, Sky Map, My Maps Editor, Scoreboard, Listen, and Finance. What's left? GMail itself? It seems pretty dumb if they're saying they give away all that other stuff and not GMail... or maybe they're just asserting their rights, should they choose not to give away the apps at some point in the future. Doesn't seem to make much sense, given free, useful applications are their bread and butter on the web...
- nuclear_eclipse 17y ago
  And unlike Apple, Google won't reject your app from the Market for duplicating core functionality or competing with core apps.
- jrockway 17y ago
  These apps are very useful, and it's a shame that they're not open-source like the rest of Android. Google's attempt at open-source Android apps has been... weak... at best. (Hello, "Mail".) Google's "Google Experience" is also silly. There is a tablet/media player coming out soon that has Android. (Archos 5) But it won't play YouTube videos because the device does not meet the "Google Experience" criteria due to not having a camera. If you want YouTube, Gmail, and Google Maps, your device has to have a camera. WTF, Google? (Ironically, I think the iPod Touch has Google Maps but doesn't have a camera. So Google is actually encouraging users to use their competition's product instead of their own. WTF, Google?)
rabidsnail 17y ago
Why not just release a binary patch to an official android firmware image (which the phone owner already has), and a patching program? Then he wouldn't have to distribute any google code.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  Either that or do a clean-room re-implementation.
DTrejo 17y ago
The original article is more informative because it links to the response. Original: http://androidandme.com/2009/09/hacks/cyanogenmod-in-trouble/ http://androidandme.com/2009/09/hacks/cyanogenmod-in-trouble... Response: http://androidandme.com/2009/09/news/google-responds-to-cyanogenmod-controversy/ http://androidandme.com/2009/09/news/google-responds-to-cyan...
QE2 17y ago
I was actually considering an Android phone, the Instinct Q to be precise. I got a Palm Pre two weeks ago, which is also Linux-based, and now I feel that I made the right decision. With Windows Mobile, I was always running custom ROMs and tweaking. The Pre doesn't have any custom ROMs per se, but that's because the whole thing is so simple that you can easily apply patches (about 90% the user-visible system is created with plain text files--HTML, Javascript, JSON, et cetera). I work at a T-Mo call center, and there are a lot of reps here who say the myTouch is complete crap without custom ROMs. If Google really wants to build a loyal following--particularly in the tech community--this decision needs to be reversed and /never/ repeated.
mark_h 17y ago
Google's official response is here: http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2009/09/note-on-google-apps-for-android.html http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2009/09/note-on-googl... I still don't think they've adequately covered it. The key to me is in the penultimate paragraph, where they first say "With a high-quality open platform in hand, we then returned to our goal of making our services available on users' phones.", and then "We make some of these apps available to users of any Android-powered device via Android Market, and others are pre-installed on some phones through business deals." The key to me is that they're not making their services available on users' phones, they're making them available on distributors' phones (through "business deals"). As nuclear_eclipse points out this is basically their only bargaining point, but I really think they need to find another way around this. Count me as another who was just about to buy an Android phone, and is now seriously reconsidering.
- thwarted 17y ago
  That's an interesting interpretation of what really amounts to a position statement on software licensing, a position that I'm sure most of all already accept and live by. The base android code is open source. Google has not open sourced the apps they provide that integrate with their other service offerings. These apps are proprietary. Any carrier or handset maker is able to use the android platform, which is open source. I think it's reasonable to allow, and expect, the same entity, be it individual developers or companies, to provide software under multiple licenses. Proprietary software is available for open source operating systems run on desktop computers, and Android helps enable that same software ecosystem on cellphones also. This hardly seems like a reason to NOT get an Android phone, but rather the reason to get one. No one expects any app developer to open source their app just because it is sold or available in the Android Market. And app developers are welcome to get a carrier or include their app as part of a base install, which is effectively what Google has done as part of being an app developer. If the carrier pays the developer for that, or the developer pays the carrier for that, or if money doesn't change hands for that, maybe the developer just wants increased exposure and usage of their app that would come from it being in a default install, that's between those two parties. EDIT to add: It's unfortunate that Google is saying that they license their apps to distributors. What would it take for ROM creators to become licencors? Alternatively, since Google presumably has an interest in people actually using their apps, that they don't provide a way for users who are using a properly licensed phone/ROM who are using those apps to be installed other than through the base install seems kind of shortsighted. Some of their apps are available in the market (like the Finance, My Maps Editor, there was an update to the core Maps app that you installed from the Market), but an alternative of allowing the people who should be able to use the apps, because they've purchased a phone with a ROM that is licensed to, update them seems necessary and right.

30 points by jamesk2 17y ago

The original site this article references times out for me.

Like they say on LWN.net, this might just be an incentive to develop free alternatives to Google's apps. The problem is not Android itself, but the stuff they add on top of it; maps, gmail, etc...

joeyo 17y ago
Another alternative would be for Google to simply offer those apps for downloaded as they do for their software on any other platform. I wonder if there is some Google authentication glue that they have not yet modularized enough to allow this to happen. (That's not to say that there shouldn't be free alternatives developed.)
- nuclear_eclipse 17y ago
  Those applications are Google's sole bargaining point with handset manufacturers and carriers to have them build Android devices meeting certain requirements in order to make sure the Google Experience is up to par. If carrier/manufacturers don't agree to Google's terms, then they aren't allowed to distribute those "killer" apps with their phones. Making those apps still available to end-users who potentially may or may not have a Google Experience-worthy phone would kill much of their bargaining factor... That said, as a user of CyanogenMod on my G1, I'd be absolutely heartbroken if his builds could no longer distribute these apps.
  - eli 17y ago
    They still have control over use of the "Google" branding, for whatever that's worth, but you're absolutely correct.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    Those applications are Google's sole bargaining point with handset manufacturers and carriers to have them build Android devices meeting certain requirements in order to make sure the Google Experience is up to par. Not sure that this is such a good idea. As soon as someone builds a phone that is otherwise up to spec but doesn't have a good enough camera, it loses Google Maps. Then the users say, "Android sucks, I can't even see maps" and buys an iPhone instead.
    - nuclear_eclipse 17y ago
      Well, considering the G1's camera is about as terrible as it can get on a smartphone, I can't imagine another phone missing out on the Google Experience for that, but I completely understand your point. But at the same time, if you consider the G1 as a "baseline" set of requirements, do you really want manufacturers putting out anything less? It's already more-or-less commodity hardware available or $100 or less from the carrier, so there's not much incentive to skimp any further without destroying the UX.
    - joezydeco 17y ago
      "Android" is used nowhere in the marketing of any of the Android-based phones. That's why it says "With Google!" instead. When it comes to the consumer, they're not going to even know what Android is. Go ask any Nokia owner if they like their Symbian phone.
  - utexaspunk 17y ago
    I'm not sure which Apps they are talking about as exclusives- in the Android Market, when I search for "Google, Inc.", I see Maps, Voice, Sky Map, My Maps Editor, Scoreboard, Listen, and Finance. What's left? GMail itself? It seems pretty dumb if they're saying they give away all that other stuff and not GMail... or maybe they're just asserting their rights, should they choose not to give away the apps at some point in the future. Doesn't seem to make much sense, given free, useful applications are their bread and butter on the web...
nuclear_eclipse 17y ago
And unlike Apple, Google won't reject your app from the Market for duplicating core functionality or competing with core apps.
jrockway 17y ago
These apps are very useful, and it's a shame that they're not open-source like the rest of Android. Google's attempt at open-source Android apps has been... weak... at best. (Hello, "Mail".) Google's "Google Experience" is also silly. There is a tablet/media player coming out soon that has Android. (Archos 5) But it won't play YouTube videos because the device does not meet the "Google Experience" criteria due to not having a camera. If you want YouTube, Gmail, and Google Maps, your device has to have a camera. WTF, Google? (Ironically, I think the iPod Touch has Google Maps but doesn't have a camera. So Google is actually encouraging users to use their competition's product instead of their own. WTF, Google?)

rabidsnail 17y ago

Why not just release a binary patch to an official android firmware image (which the phone owner already has), and a patching program? Then he wouldn't have to distribute any google code.

jacquesm 17y ago
Either that or do a clean-room re-implementation.

DTrejo 17y ago

The original article is more informative because it links to the response. Original: http://androidandme.com/2009/09/hacks/cyanogenmod-in-trouble/ http://androidandme.com/2009/09/hacks/cyanogenmod-in-trouble... Response: http://androidandme.com/2009/09/news/google-responds-to-cyanogenmod-controversy/ http://androidandme.com/2009/09/news/google-responds-to-cyan...

QE2 17y ago

I was actually considering an Android phone, the Instinct Q to be precise. I got a Palm Pre two weeks ago, which is also Linux-based, and now I feel that I made the right decision. With Windows Mobile, I was always running custom ROMs and tweaking. The Pre doesn't have any custom ROMs per se, but that's because the whole thing is so simple that you can easily apply patches (about 90% the user-visible system is created with plain text files--HTML, Javascript, JSON, et cetera). I work at a T-Mo call center, and there are a lot of reps here who say the myTouch is complete crap without custom ROMs. If Google really wants to build a loyal following--particularly in the tech community--this decision needs to be reversed and /never/ repeated.

mark_h 17y ago

Google's official response is here: http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2009/09/note-on-google-apps-for-android.html http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2009/09/note-on-googl... I still don't think they've adequately covered it. The key to me is in the penultimate paragraph, where they first say "With a high-quality open platform in hand, we then returned to our goal of making our services available on users' phones.", and then "We make some of these apps available to users of any Android-powered device via Android Market, and others are pre-installed on some phones through business deals." The key to me is that they're not making their services available on users' phones, they're making them available on distributors' phones (through "business deals"). As nuclear_eclipse points out this is basically their only bargaining point, but I really think they need to find another way around this. Count me as another who was just about to buy an Android phone, and is now seriously reconsidering.

thwarted 17y ago
That's an interesting interpretation of what really amounts to a position statement on software licensing, a position that I'm sure most of all already accept and live by. The base android code is open source. Google has not open sourced the apps they provide that integrate with their other service offerings. These apps are proprietary. Any carrier or handset maker is able to use the android platform, which is open source. I think it's reasonable to allow, and expect, the same entity, be it individual developers or companies, to provide software under multiple licenses. Proprietary software is available for open source operating systems run on desktop computers, and Android helps enable that same software ecosystem on cellphones also. This hardly seems like a reason to NOT get an Android phone, but rather the reason to get one. No one expects any app developer to open source their app just because it is sold or available in the Android Market. And app developers are welcome to get a carrier or include their app as part of a base install, which is effectively what Google has done as part of being an app developer. If the carrier pays the developer for that, or the developer pays the carrier for that, or if money doesn't change hands for that, maybe the developer just wants increased exposure and usage of their app that would come from it being in a default install, that's between those two parties. EDIT to add: It's unfortunate that Google is saying that they license their apps to distributors. What would it take for ROM creators to become licencors? Alternatively, since Google presumably has an interest in people actually using their apps, that they don't provide a way for users who are using a properly licensed phone/ROM who are using those apps to be installed other than through the base install seems kind of shortsighted. Some of their apps are available in the market (like the Finance, My Maps Editor, there was an update to the core Maps app that you installed from the Market), but an alternative of allowing the people who should be able to use the apps, because they've purchased a phone with a ROM that is licensed to, update them seems necessary and right.