4 ms·

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/2

by 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.
- mark_h 17y ago
  You are right of course, and I think I was mostly -- mostly -- over-reacting. I always thought they were entirely within their rights, just that they handled it in a rather unfortunate fashion. The main point I was trying to make was that they were justifying opening android in order to be able to have a consistent platform to provide their services on, but are now effectively saying that they want to restrict who uses them. Again, quite within their rights, but if all they cared about was people being able to access their services it would seem to be a non-issue. I'm pretty sure nuclear_eclipse is on the money. I do agree with your update, and that seems to be effectively the compromise cyanogen has worked out (http://www.cyanogenmod.com/home/the-current-state http://www.cyanogenmod.com/home/the-current-state); we'll have to see what sort of experience that provides.
  - thwarted 17y ago
    Well, "provide" in the sentence "justifying opening android in order to be able to have a consistent platform to provide their services on" has a meaning from the standpoint of the provider. They own the proprietary code of the individual apps (gtalk, mail, voice search, youtube, etc), and in order to be able to _provide_ these specific apps written in this specific code, they needed to open source the platform to encourage other vendors to buy in. It's actually kind of similar to their stance on the Chrome browser: the web browser itself is open source, and they are providing that in order to enable a consistent platform for their apps (mail, gtalk, youtube, whatever). Just because the browser is open source doesn't mean they need to, or anyone expects them to, open source the code to gmail. If you consider the line between the user and the service to be at the device/UI level, and not at the network level, then this makes sense. They are enabling a better experience by providing functionality that can run more locally to you. This is, however, a huge risk on their part. They know that their software is easier to reverse engineer once it is not running just on their servers -- which, considering the complexity of the gmail android app, makes me wonder why no one has done enough reverse engineering to be able to recreate the UI and still use their backend -- the desktop browser gmail service doesn't require SSL, so it's easy to take a look at the protocol (much easier than trying to network-sniff an SSL session on the android platform itself, if the gmail app uses SSL) and recreate it. And now that they've created and released an app that runs locally they are more tied to a consistent API than they were with just a browser based app, so the rationale of "they'll just change the API and we'll always be playing catch up" against reverse engineering is moot. It's most likely against the gmail TOS though. Incidentally, I'd like a thirdparty gmail app because I want to access a gmail account that isn't tied to my phone from my phone (like my work account, we use google mail service for company email), however the web based interface is pretty strong. While it's interesting from a UX standpoint to have EVERYTHING tied to one google account, it's not pragmatic and doesn't work with the goal people accessing using/their services.

by mark_h 17y ago

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.

mark_h 17y ago
You are right of course, and I think I was mostly -- mostly -- over-reacting. I always thought they were entirely within their rights, just that they handled it in a rather unfortunate fashion. The main point I was trying to make was that they were justifying opening android in order to be able to have a consistent platform to provide their services on, but are now effectively saying that they want to restrict who uses them. Again, quite within their rights, but if all they cared about was people being able to access their services it would seem to be a non-issue. I'm pretty sure nuclear_eclipse is on the money. I do agree with your update, and that seems to be effectively the compromise cyanogen has worked out (http://www.cyanogenmod.com/home/the-current-state http://www.cyanogenmod.com/home/the-current-state); we'll have to see what sort of experience that provides.
- thwarted 17y ago
  Well, "provide" in the sentence "justifying opening android in order to be able to have a consistent platform to provide their services on" has a meaning from the standpoint of the provider. They own the proprietary code of the individual apps (gtalk, mail, voice search, youtube, etc), and in order to be able to _provide_ these specific apps written in this specific code, they needed to open source the platform to encourage other vendors to buy in. It's actually kind of similar to their stance on the Chrome browser: the web browser itself is open source, and they are providing that in order to enable a consistent platform for their apps (mail, gtalk, youtube, whatever). Just because the browser is open source doesn't mean they need to, or anyone expects them to, open source the code to gmail. If you consider the line between the user and the service to be at the device/UI level, and not at the network level, then this makes sense. They are enabling a better experience by providing functionality that can run more locally to you. This is, however, a huge risk on their part. They know that their software is easier to reverse engineer once it is not running just on their servers -- which, considering the complexity of the gmail android app, makes me wonder why no one has done enough reverse engineering to be able to recreate the UI and still use their backend -- the desktop browser gmail service doesn't require SSL, so it's easy to take a look at the protocol (much easier than trying to network-sniff an SSL session on the android platform itself, if the gmail app uses SSL) and recreate it. And now that they've created and released an app that runs locally they are more tied to a consistent API than they were with just a browser based app, so the rationale of "they'll just change the API and we'll always be playing catch up" against reverse engineering is moot. It's most likely against the gmail TOS though. Incidentally, I'd like a thirdparty gmail app because I want to access a gmail account that isn't tied to my phone from my phone (like my work account, we use google mail service for company email), however the web based interface is pretty strong. While it's interesting from a UX standpoint to have EVERYTHING tied to one google account, it's not pragmatic and doesn't work with the goal people accessing using/their services.