Slashdot Mirror

"Who is "Android"? Do you mean Google?"

Clearly, you'd be confused even without the confusing statement. He means the Open Handset Alliance. Google is in charge of Google Apps. They are not the controlling and directing interest behind Android (though Android certainly started at Google)

"What would be stupid, and counter to the whole point of an open software ecosystem is to see a handset maker that really took ownership of the whole system. "

FTFY. To use a little word play with a popular a saying: "There's an Apple for that". You might as well say that what Linux needs is for a single company to have complete control over the entire OS.

And how exactly does one blame google for this??

Because they have the OHA, they control Android (more now than ever thanks to the proprietary Google Play Services) and they own the most popular must-have core Android apps. They have the power to force these OEMs to do right by the users.

Microsoft has been totalitarian, if you want to sell Windows systems you cannot modify the operating system to lock users out of updates and upgrades in order to force them to buy new systems. They can preload crapware that you can uninstall but they can't do things like replace the shell (though the users are free to do this) and add stupid dependencies to create a fragmented user experience across the supposedly same version of the OS.

...and yes we all know all the bad shit microsoft has done and it has been discussed at length more times than i can remember and no this isnt some thing to say microsoft is great or excuse their past behavior.

Not entirely true. Google initially created Android and released it as open source. But Android today is governed by the Open Handset Alliance. Several companies (including hardware ones) have a say in Android development, not just Google.

http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/android_overview.html

So you're saying the Open Handset Alliance isn't concerned with making a handset standard.

yes. they are concerned with developing open standards for mobile devices.

And that there's a significant difference between a "handset" and "mobile device" such that nit-picking about which term is used constitutes a valid argument.

you could use those interchangeably, the key is they are not developing one standard, they create open standards for mobile devices/handsets, there is no one standard, and android just like all other operating systems implements many standards. you realize the "s" at the end of "standards" means plural? no?

I never said Acer built it - I said Acer was using it.

"Aliyun, Acer's Android fork, did not implement the standard."
Aliyun is Alibaba's Android fork, not Acer's.

So, first you say the OHA is creating a standard for mobile devices, and now you say there is no standard. Can you at least stay consistent for the duration of a single post?

you fail at reading comprehension:
"creating open standards for mobile devices". there is no one standard, Android, Aliyun, iOS, Windows Phone, webOS, Blackberry, MeeGo, etc, all implement many mobile device standards.

Wow, great argument. "Tell me I'm right or you're a spastic".

you fail at reading comprehension again:
i said tell me something other than Android or you're a spastic because everybody knows Android is not a standard (except you evidently).

Android is the open platform that OHA is committed to developing. As such, it is OHA's standard, and the standard that Acer, as a member of the OHA, was committed to supporting. linky

Android is not a standard, yes the OHA is committed to developing it and Acer is committed to and continues to support it, that doesn't change if they ship Aliyun devices.

If Google were stomping all over these forks, then how did Aliyuh even get to the point where Acer was considering? Surely evil, nasty Google would have shut it down.

same as Ubuntu Phone, Google can't shut it down but they can prevent any major manufacturer from shipping devices with Aliyun by threatening to lock them out of the OHA.

Such a contract is in no way required to be an Android OEM.

are you really that naive? you really truly think that a non-OHA member can compete against an OHA member when the non-OHA member doesn't get access to the OS code until the OHA member is shipping their product? come on now, you cant be that stupid.

yeah, think I'm done here.

i think you were done here quite a while ago, now your posts are just based on failures at reading comprehension.

correct. creating open standards for mobile devices is certainly not the same thing as creating a handset standard.

So you're saying the Open Handset Alliance isn't concerned with making a handset standard. Uh-huh. And that there's a significant difference between a "handset" and "mobile device" such that nit-picking about which term is used constitutes a valid argument.

Seriously you have no clue what you're on about, Acer didn't fork anything, Aliyun was built by Alibaba, not Acer

I never said Acer built it - I said Acer was using it.

and also there is no standard

So, first you say the OHA is creating a standard for mobile devices, and now you say there is no standard. Can you at least stay consistent for the duration of a single post?

if there is a standard then tell me what it is and if you say "Android" then we all know you're a complete spastic.

Wow, great argument. "Tell me I'm right or you're a spastic". Android is the open platform that OHA is committed to developing. As such, it is OHA's standard, and the standard that Acer, as a member of the OHA, was committed to supporting. linky

they use open source to create an incompatible fork of linux and then actively prevent anybody else from doing the same to Android

If Google were stomping all over these forks, then how did Aliyuh even get to the point where Acer was considering? Surely evil, nasty Google would have shut it down.

threatening OEMs to stop them from supporting competing incompatible Android forks.

Er, they haven't. They've "threatened" to kick someone out of the OHA who violated the principles of the OHA. If you sign a contract agreeing to make the official Android platform a commercial success, and then go and support in incompatible version, you're violating your contract. Such a contract is in no way required to be an Android OEM.

you're the one desperately defending google's unethical behavior, i'm just pointing it out, the only one shilling here is you. google and microsoft are as evil as eachother but shills like you ignorantly lap up the koolaid.

Blah blah, unsupported accusations, insults, poor grammar. Yeah, think I'm done here.

Needs one kind of elite to innovate, and another kind of elite to monopolize, shut down, put trivial patents around that innovations or other "innovative" measures to avoid them to succeed.

Heh, I got some laughs out of reading this article as well:

Yet Apple has also repeatedly displayed its openness to new ideas and influences as exemplified by the visit that Mr. Jobs made to the Palo Alto research center of Xerox in 1979. He saw an experimental computer with a point-and-click mouse and graphical on-screen icons, which he adopted at Apple. It later became the standard for the personal computer industry.

Is "adopted" the right word here? It's funny how some people consider that same "influence" to be stealing.

In 2010, Apple bought Siri, a personal assistant application for smartphones. At the time, it was a small start-up in Silicon Valley that originated as a program funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency of the Pentagon. Last year, Siri became the talking question-answering application on iPhones.

So those are you examples for 'repeatedly displayed its openness to new ideas and influences'? They "borrow" and idea and then they buy up and assimilate a start-up? Well, if that's your frame of reference, Microsoft excels at openness too! I know this article is not even trying to be exhaustive but Android isn't even mentioned once. I don't understand how Apple can even be called "open" when compared with Google's offerings to everyone.

How about the OHA members?

After all, the organisation was put together to promote and support the platform.
Why not protect it too?

I'm sure NTT Docomo, Acer, Alcatel, Garmin, Kyocera, LG, Motorola, NEC, Qualcomm, Synaptics and others can find the odd patent down the back of the couch.

Broadcom, TI, Marvell, Freescale are already OHA members. Or at least it's what the website says. The only big silicon vendor missing there is Intel, and I expect that they would be able to join if they bothered to.

Agreed. I'm sure the Open Handset Alliance members can scare up a few patents between them.

That is close to what I was thinking about relative to IBM, etc., but I should have probably related it more to the patent stores held by Motorola, Hitachi, Samsung, and others.

What I think you miss about GP is that Google has, in fact, already assured that Android, instead of being owned by Google, is owned by an "alliance" of companies that include people with, collectively, lots more patents than Google.

People talk a lot about Android as if it were something Google owns in-house, but when Google bought it one of the first things they did was organize the Open Handset Alliance and transfer ownership of Android to the OHA.

If Oracle sued Red Hat claiming Linux violates their patents, would you say that Red Hat was acting in a "low" fashion for pointing out the fact that Linux is not Red Hat's OS? Of course not. So why would you expect Google to take the hit when Android is not their OS? (Hint: It is FOSS, and is an Open Handset Alliance OS)

...or appeal to the OHA members to put any relevant software patents into an arsenal to hit Oracle with. They exist to improve (and perhaps protect) the platform.
 

Augen included proprietary Google software in their product via an unauthorized vendor. Google only licenses its software to partners and OHA [Open Handset Alliance] members directly.

And Augen's CEO responded saying it was unintentional:

the Google Mobile Service and Android Apps were pre installed during the development process on our tablets for testing purposes, and were not removed unintentionally before releasing the products in the market place. Google and Augen came to a mutual understanding that the Google Mobile Services Application Suite pre-installed on the GENTOUCH/ GENBOOK Series; could not be removed due to technological constraints for the products that were sold, shipped, or already produced. For future production runs and deliveries, Augen will block and remove the Google Mobile Services Application Suite from the current devices until further notice.

Augen is not listed as a member of the Open Handset Alliance. Augen's website still says:

The GENTOUCH78 is a sleek Android powered tablet with a 7” touch screen that connects you with hundreds of your favorite applications from the App Store.

But does not indicate which "App Store."

"Google does own the rights to Android do they not? They can also set the terms for it's license."

This is a common and unfortunate misconception shared by many people. Android is not owned by Google. It is Open Source and there are 71 companies involved in the Open Handset Alliance. Google is but one of those companies. What is confusing people it that they think Open Source always means GPL, when in fact the Apache2 license is what is used by the Android project. Unfortunately, due to abuse of the mod system combined with Slashdot's complete inability to folllow it's own policy against said abuse, I'm posting at -1 these days, so this post won't even be seen by most of the people who need to see it :-(

"Google does own the rights to Android do they not? They can also set the terms for it's license."

This is a common and unfortunate misconception shared by many people. Android is not owned by Google. It is Open Source and there are 71 companies involved in the Open Handset Alliance. Google is but one of those companies. What is confusing people it that they think Open Source always means GPL, when in fact the Apache2 license is what is used by the Android project. Unfortunately, due to abuse of the mod system combined with Slashdot's complete inability to folllow it's own policy against said abuse, I'm posting at -1 these days, so this post won't even be seen by most of the people who need to see it :-(

I'd say that a patent war on the Android platform wouldn't please the OHA.
And their combined patent portfolio dwarfs Apple's.

And I'm guessing that the members are sitting on one hell of an IP portfolio...
Could be interesting if the platform needs defending.

they are a founding member of the OHA, and claim to have 10% market share ("one out of ten phones in the market today") with their Jbed Java Mobile platform.

So, it's not like it's some startup with no experience in that market, trying to make a name for itself. In fact, they would seem to have more to lose than gain by making overzealous claims.

The BSD crowd shouldn't care about that, Apple can do almost what they want with the code. But for Linux not getting the drivers for 3D accelerators, SOC models or other kind of hardware, just because Google have to reinvent the wheel, is really sad.

You're confused.

This isn't a licensing issue. Google has released the code. What's being said here is that it can't be mainlined because it a) hasn't been updated with fixes requested by the Linux mainline developers and b) it relies on userland components that will cause it to fail to build without them and needs to be stubbed out appropriately so that that isn't a concern. Both the former and latter could be resolved by anyone who wants to resolve them. There is no licensing angle here.

Now, I should be clear. I believe that it's actually not Google but the Open Handset Alliance that controls Android, and that includes developers from Google and 64 other companies. So technically, this isn't something that Google alone could address.

OHA has companies *like* Nokia on board: http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/oha_members.html

but it does not *have* Nokia on board.

Sadly, while your statement is technically correct English, it's almost certainly misleading to your Slashdot audience.

If the corporation's products are pervasive to the point of being ubiquitous and market pressure shows no sign of changing(which naturally occurs) you're stuck with the same system you'd imagine a dis-utopian gov't providing.

Well shit, I hope Apple gets some competitors for its mobile platform, then, so they can apply some market pressure.

The iPod's been a "crippled Apple product" for over eight years now. It's the market leader (because a lot of people value user experience over idealism), but, more importantly, you can still buy competing products that you would, I assume consider "open."

You don't like Apple's products. Good for you. Given Apple's financial results, while you're clearly not their target market, they do indeed have customers.

Move on and purchase something else instead of demanding that the market accommodate your desires.

Analysts still don't get that Android is no longer owned by Google. It is now owned by the Open Handset Alliance.

Google doesn't care about Android the way Apple cares about the iPhone, because the iPhone is a hardware platform owned by Apple which runs proprietary code and Apple makes money when it sells, while Android is NOT a Google platform and Google doesn't sell any handsets. Google shouldn't care about Android as much as Apple, but I assure you that they don't need to since they are but one member of The Open Handset Alliance. The OHA member companies care very much about the software platform Android, which again, is not a Google platform despite overwhelming misinformation suggesting it is here on Slashdot.

The iPod runs a closed source OS that doesn't even support multitasking , while Android is Open Source, multi-tasking, and exposes a much richer API to the developer with access to much more under the hood, including ways to extend and replace core functionality. My guess is that people with Androids are getting real use from their devices, while iPhone users are getting less real use. In either case, when trying to impress their peers and people around them in the nightclub, iPhone users have to do it with a single application rather than showcasing the way 7 different apps work together, so iPhone users want games and Android owners see games as a much less impressive way of impressing people than real world use, and that games merely squander their platforms true capabilities. I doubt iPhone users buy games to make much real use of them, since anyone who can afford an iPhone and really wants to play games on such a limited form factor could surely buy a handheld gaming platform.

"Open source had 0 to do with finding this bug... the (paid Google employees) who wrote the bug found the bug."

Open Source had everything to do with finding the bug. Either you mistakenly believe that Android is a Google platform, or that paid employees don't work on Open Source software. If a Red Hat employee finds a bug in the Linux kernel, does it mean "Open Source had 0 (sic) to do with finding the bug"? Paid Google employees aren't finding bugs in Apples code, now are they?

It won't be available until December 11th! OMFG! (feigns disgust)

You mean they already have a roll-out plan in place, and they already informed you with details of that plan ???? You either don't know how software is developed (closed and/or FOSS), or you didn't eat your Wheaties this morning. If this was closed source you would neither know about the bug, or any roll-out plan, most likely because the bug would remain hidden or there would be no desire to share that information with you.

um... i really don't think their membership was motivated by "pure desperation" considering how many major industry players are a part of the Open Handset Alliance:

• China Mobile - the world's largest mobile phone operator.
• KDDI - formed in 2000 in a 3-way merger and is already Japan's second-largest cellular operator with 20% market share and growing.
• NTT DoCoMo - the number one mobile phone operator in Japan.
• HTC - a premier Taiwanese ODM who designs a large number of popular handsets which are sold rebranded by major carriers like: Orange, T-Mobile, Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel, O2, Vodafone, AT&T, Alltel, Bell Mobility and Telus Mobility. (the T-Mobile G1 was originally conceived as the HTC Dream.)
• Telecom Italia - the largest Italian phone company and cellular operator.
• Telefonica - the dominant phone operator in Spain, and the 3rd largest carrier in the world. (behind China Mobile and Vodafone)
• Broadcom - one of the top 20 semiconductor/IC suppliers in the world (after companies such as Panasonic, Qualcomm, NEC, etc.)
• Qualcomm - another top 20 worldwide semiconductor sales leader. they also developed EV-DO and other CDMA-based wireless transmission standards.
• Marvell Technology Group - producer of storage, communications, and semiconductor products. they designed the first Gigabit all-CMOS read channel, the first Gigabit-capable system-on-a-chip (embedded system), and the first SATA interface solution. their wireless devices are used in the OLPC program.
• Synaptics - a touchpad OEM provider for most laptop manufacturers, like Asus, Acer, Dell, HP, Sony, Toshiba, Gateway, IBM, Lenovo, Samsung, Packard Bell, etc.

not to mention the more well-known members, such as: Spring Nextel, T-Mobile, Intel, Nvidia, Texas Instruments, Google, eBay, LG, and Samsung. given the purpose of the Open Handset Alliance, it wouldn't make sense for Motorola not to be a member. Microsoft and Apple are pretty much the only industry leaders for it not to make sense for them to join the OHA.

if you want to remain a relevant player in the mobile industry, wouldn't it make sense for you to be a part of the organization that is developing the open standards that are going to be used? unless you have an exclusive contract with Microsoft to only use Windows Mobile, or have your own mobile platform like the iPhone, and thus do not require interoperability with any other technologies.

Dude. Android. Maybe you've heard of it?

The Open Handset Alliance, a group of more than 30 technology and mobile companies, is developing Android: the first complete, open, and free mobile platform. Member list

Given the list of players (US major carriers, everyone except AT&T, in handset vendors, LG, Motorola, and Samsung, your choices may well come down to Apple/AT&T or something running an Android UI from everyone else for anything above the most basic mobile phones.

The difference between Linux WMs and the Android UI is that it's very possible that your choice about Android may be buy an Android phone or pay several times as much for an iPhone with an AT&T plan. Or Nokia may continue to supprt Symbian. We'll see. All I can say is I hope Android phones don't suck.

IOW, the difference is that Android has much more backing within the specific context of the mobile phone vendor world than Linux does.

On thing can't be overlooked, if Apple becomes too much strong with a closed platform, that might push even more support for Android and if all those players were to release cellphones based on Android, all compatible with the same software, that becomes an enemy way bigger than even the Jesus phone can take.

Why should they? How much of the software on the device did Apple actually originally write? The "they made it, they control it" argument is a weak cop-out. Legally, they can do what they want with it, but any appeal to artistic moral rights is pure bullshit. There is no iPhone without the contributions of thousands who have come before it, who forged the smartphone market, who invented the technologies Apple merely licensed, who wrote the BSD kernel, WebKit, and several other FOSS libraries that are part of the SDK. They are standing on the shoulders of giants, and they have a responsibility to let this revolutionary device live up to its full potential.

Nothing beautiful ever grows out of ham-fisted control.

(Thankfully, Google seems to understand this: there is another...)

Just use Google!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=android%20open%20source

Then you find:

http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/android_overview.html

"Android will be open source; it can be liberally extended to incorporate new cutting edge technologies as they emerge. The platform will continue to evolve as the developer community works together to build innovative mobile applications."

Yeah, google would never partner with anyone when it deals with cellphones...

They are

Fight Android

While I feel you may be right, has anyone considered that 2008 may be the year of Linux on the mobile?

Reviewing the member list at the Linux Phone Standards Forum (LiPS) web site I noticed that none of the major handset companies joined this organization. The Open Handset Alliance on the other hand has HTC, LG, Motorola and Samsung as members.

Having a standard is all well and good, but it only matters if someone puts it into a phone.

Also, how many development platforms can survive in the cell phone market anyway? Besides Android and LiPS (we'll ignore Microsoft for now), there are Symbian, the LiMo Foundation and a la Mobile - all Linux-based. The first two or three to get accepted will attract the developers and dominate the market (unless they *really* bring something new to the game).


Never let reality temper imagination

I have more faith in android than in openmoko. Just because Google is pushing it

"The Apache license allows manufacturers and mobile operators to innovate . . . without the requirement to contribute these innovations back to the open source community. . . . [they] are protected from the 'viral infection' problem often associated with other licenses."

This leads to a sort of "suspicions confirmed" moment about Google's view of its relationship to the FOSS community: it is a one-way street, in which Google gets benefits, but does not make serious contributions in return. During the run-up to the roll-out of v3 of the GPL, there was argument over the activities of ASPs such as Google, which use open source code as a mainspring of their activities but avoid making public their significant improvements because they do not distribute code. Under GPLv2, only distribution triggers a disclosure obligation.

Many FOSS members regard this as a serious loophole, and wanted it closed in GPLv3, but Google and other ASPs resisted, and v3 was unchanged on this point. See IT Business Edge.

At the Open Source Business Conference last May, Free Software Foundation guru Even Moglen acknowledged the problem, and said he would be working with Google to improve its contributions to the FOSS community.

Judging by Android, his efforts do not seem to be working. Android is based on Linux. The code Google adds to create Android will be open as per the Apache license, but that code can then be taken and turned back into locked programs by phone makers or wireless providers.

This is explained in an ArsTechnica post (characterized by Google as "one of the best explanations for the reasoning behind releasing code under Apache2"):

[A] copyleft license could potentially limit the evolution of the mobile software ecosystem by discouraging commercial development on top of the platform. Proprietary mobile software development companies that integrate Android into their technologies would have to dramatically change their business models if they aren't given the ability to keep their enhancements proprietary.

So the business plan seems to be that Google will persuade FOSS developers to write for Android, but under a system in which their code can be lifted by phone makers and service providers for the profit of others in the system without any reciprocity. (Of course, developers may also be hired by the commercial players to write proprietary programs, but this is not exactly the spirit of FOSS.)

As one Internet comment said: "[The licensing] does not inspire much confidence that this is really some sort of open phone for the users, rather than a potentially interesting, PR-savvy way of saving money for a bunch of manufacturers." Good call.

But Google will sell the advertising, riding on top of everyone else's work.

For those of us who have nothing against commercial software, all of this is just fine, especially the Ars Technica explanations of the advantages of going the commercial route, but if one is a dedicated member of the FOSS community, one might be feeling a little used.

You haven't heard of Android? Sorry mate, but you are out of the loop. Android

Some press reports say that Java is an essential component of Android. This is the only direct reference I've found the OHA site:"

"Thanks to the availability of our Jbed(TM) Java(TM) VM on the Android platform, we offer immediate compatibility to the standard Java ME world to enable Java ME-based mobile services with the Android platform." -- Jean-Claude Martinez, CEO of Esmertec

There are other Java-oriented companies involved.

Here's a good summary of the speculation: http://www.screaming-penguin.com/node/7316

And here: http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=6900

And besides, I doubt there is any fundamental reason why you couldn't port a native C/C++ based toolkit to the iPhone's OS X.

Guess what - those two companies are part of Google's OHA. (I can't remember, is Samsung involved? Microsoft is really screwed if they are.)

Yes. So is LG. http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/oha_members.html

I used to thing Google was awesome, "do no evil" they say . . . now with their android platform they are exloiting retarded children. Fucking sick google, fucking sick.
Googles powers Android off the dreams of retarded children.

Apparently, Microsoft cares more about the Gphone (i.e. Android) than about the Openmoko probably because Google is behind (not just some obscure company). It could happen that Android is just an announcement to impress future stockholders or clients. But it is more probable that it is a real threat to Microsoft phones' OS. Maybe there is some alpha code already? What I don't understand is the relation between Gphone/Android and Openmoko. I hope Openmoko will succeed still! Again, the fact that Microsoft reacted to Gphone/Android but not to Openmoko (AFAIK) is significant.

You think Monday's never going to come, then?

The Google SDK will be released by the Open Handset Alliance on November 12th. Bookmark the page.

OK, OK, I know we're only supposed to speculate here without actually knowing anything. But if you want to know about it, it's here. It does use a Linux kernel (how then can it be 'Apache Licence'?). Above the kernel it is running a custom virtual machine, which doesn't seem to be a JVM. 'Android', as well as being the name of the project, is the name of a company bought by Google last year which specialised in PDA operating systems; The SDK will be ready for download on 12th November.

Before they were Android, the people behind the product were Danger, and produced a phone/PDA called HipTop, which was largely Java based.

I don't think this deserves the "open source" moniker that we throw around here on /. At least, I haven't seen evidence of that yet.

Why did you pick the Apache v2 open source license? Apache is a commercial-friendly open-source license. The Apache license allows manufacturers and mobile operators to innovate using the platform without the requirement to contribute those innovations back to the open-source community. Because these innovations and differentiated features can be kept proprietary, manufacturers and mobile operators are protected from the "viral infection" problem often associated with other licenses.

There. You can dream all you want about an open platform, like your traditional Fedora or Ubuntu desktop, but that won't be it. Go for Openmoko instead.

All applications are created equal
Android does not differentiate between the phone's core applications and third-party applications. They can all be built to have equal access to a phone's capabilities providing users with a broad spectrum of applications and services. With devices built on the Android Platform, users will be able to fully tailor the phone to their interests. They can swap out the phone's homescreen, the style of the dialer, or any of the applications. They can even instruct their phones to use their favorite photo viewing application to handle the viewing of all photos.

Nor does it make any sense for them to open it.