Google Delays General Release of Honeycomb Source

iluvcapra writes "BusinessWeek reports that Google will not be releasing the source code for Android Honeycomb 'for the foreseeable future.' Android lead Andy Rubin is quoted, stating that if Google were to release the source for Honeycomb, Google would be unable to prevent it from being installed on mobile phones and 'creating a really bad user experience.'"

Comments

So Android 3.0 ...

[WrongSizeGlass]

So Android 3.0 isn't exactly 'open source' for the foreseeable future?

Re:So Android 3.0 ...

[Microlith]

Which is the kernel, and only the kernel. Which is usually published as a tarball on some obscure page.

Re:So Android 3.0 ...

[StikyPad]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

"To make our schedule to ship the tablet, we made some design tradeoffs," says Andy Rubin, vice-president for engineering at Google and head of its Android group. "We didn't want to think about what it would take for the same software to run on phones. It would have required a lot of additional resources and extended our schedule beyond what we thought was reasonable. So we took a shortcut."

"Android is an open-source project," he adds. "We have not changed our strategy."

The "foreseeable future" quote is unfortunate, since it implies that they cannot foresee a time when they will release the code, which simply isn't the case.

Re:So Android 3.0 ...

[Daniel Phillips]

Which is the kernel, and only the kernel. Which is usually published as a tarball on some obscure page.

And Google has made much less than its best effort to merge their Android-specific hacks back into Linux mainline, which makes them not much better than a number of other fly by night OEMs relying on Linux to make their dreams come true. Even when playing with the community properly would help advance their own interests.

Re:So Android 3.0 ...

[Daniel Phillips]

I'm pretty sure the maintainers told them to fuck off with their patches. Whether that was deserved, I'm not sure.

Kernel maintainers did no such thing. Various seasoned contributors felt that the idea was valid, but the implementation was poor. This was not just maintainers, far from it. For Google to use that as an excuse to stomp off in a funk, or to claim that their patches are not wanted is... various bad things, ranging from puerile to disingenuous. On the face of it, Google would seem to be of the opinion that forking the kernel is no big deal. Perhaps Google also feels that repeatedly tweaking the collective noses of the community is no big deal.

Re:So Android 3.0 ...

[TehZorroness]

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

        a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
        b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
        c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

from the GPL 2 under terms and conditions for copying, distribution, and modification

Re:So Android 3.0 ...

[Anthony Mouse]

I'm sorry, ignore that. I misread what they were doing.

Well, you can still investigate the difference between the two licenses, but it won't be as relevant as I was expecting it to be.

Re:So Android 3.0 ...

[exomondo]

from the GPL 2 under terms and conditions for copying, distribution, and modification

which would be relevant if android were licensed under the GPLv2, which of course it isn't.

Re:So Android 3.0 ...

[Eric Smith]

well, you only have to "make it available"

You have to do more than "make it available". Since it is being commercially distributed, and isn't accompanied with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, they need to satisfy section 3b of the GPLv2:

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;

Can anyone who has a Xoom confirm whether it came with such a written offer?

As others have pointed out, this only applies to any GPL'd components of the software, which includes the Linux kernel but little else.

Re:So Android 3.0 ...

[Si]

Well, what really sucks is that Google used to be a champion of "we'll ship it when it's ready", and now they are bound (apparently) by the same "we'll ship it when the schedule determines, regardless of quality" rule as everyone else.

Re:So Android 3.0 ...

[grrrgrrr]

Basically almost everyone who bought a tablet bought an ipad so what is the problem really? Why would anybody even bother with an android tabled at this point?

iOS their reason?

[mlts]

I can see two reasons for Google being leery of a source release:

1: The patent drama going on in the cellphone world, with almost everyone suing each other. It is like watching The Departed, except with lawyers.

2: iOS. Google is nervous about the June iPhone release, so is hedging bets to see which way to go after the iPhone 5 comes out.

Re:iOS their reason?

[flowwolf]

People know what they're getting into when they flash a custom ROM. 9/10 times it will create a "really bad user experience" whatever that means. It's absurd that Google would hold back honeycomb code because of them. The author is way off base with his guess.

Re:iOS their reason?

[mrjatsun]

> How about the real reason, stated right there in TFS. Can you read?

Because we don't believe them? If android were *really* open,
it would be developed in the open. An open drop of code after products
are already shipping it certainly not in the spirit of open source.

Personally, I think it's more about Google being threatened by amazon.com,
their app store, and their likely future tablet.. It's also been reported that google
has been threatening tablet/phone makers with using non google services. The
reason Google gave, seems the less likely reason to me.

I'm still hoping for a Ubuntu tablet. But Ubuntu doesn't seem to be that open these
days either... sigh....

Re:iOS their reason?

[shaitand]

They are doing this to give the xoom a sales boost. There are tons of tablets sold with 2.2 code using hardware that can run Honeycomb (which isn't for your phone and has nothing to do with iPhone). This is about burning everyone who bought one of those to boost the sales of tablets with 3.0. In many cases, for the same company that sold the tablet with 2.2 and wants to now sell the exact same hardware with 3.0 and a new model number.

Re:iOS their reason?

[shaitand]

I have an unsupported tablet. The community roms are the only ones that work properly. The problem is manufacturers not shipping working code. The problem is being exacerbated by this because me and everyone else who bought a decent tablet intended to upgrade when 3.0 came out is now fsck'd.

Re:iOS their reason?

[shaitand]

Someone else provided a link indicating they are planning to keep the open source releases a full version behind from now on which means Honeycomb would be completely obsolete by the time it was released.

Even if they aren't planning something so ridiculous indefinite definitely doesn't have a "month or two" ring to it. If they wait 3 months, after release it will be at least another 3 months before the unsupported upgrade rom is stable enough for realistic use. The realistic technical lifespan of the tablet is what, a year or two? We are talking about 25-50% of the usable lifespan of the device and that is if you bought it today.

Android as a platform has more bugs than ios, it lacks the corporate support of the blackberry, it has fewer apps and those apps are less polished. I invested in android as a platform for all my phones and my tablet precisely because it is an open hacker friendly platform that leaves me at the mercy of an innovative hacker community rather than the mercy of a for profit hardware manufacturer. That means having the option to wait until there is a HARDWARE improvement I care about before buying a new piece of hardware.

If they need to generate more revenue then require codes for $15-20 (or included with hardware that came pre-bundled with 3.0) to access the market or something like that. I'm sure most would be willing to slap down a $20 for a fancy new tablet OS. You could still have the OS be completely open, still hop from one custom rom to the next. Hell, technically, an end user would even still be able to use the system for free if they didn't want to use googles market resources. Maybe add a common drm platform ala netflix requirements to the mix for extra incentive.

The definition of open?

[mveloso]

mkdir android
cd android
repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git
repo sync
make

Very disappointed with Google

[Daniel Phillips]

This is very much in violation of the spirit of Open Source, on which Google relies for its entire existence.

Actually, even holding back the development repository and just doing periodic code drops is a violation of community spirit at the very least, and probably harmful to the pace of ongoing development as well. It is clear that Google still does not "get" open source.

Re:Very disappointed with Google

[naasking]

They can make branding something as Android subject to terms they see fit so it doesn't tarnish their reputation. Trademarks are enough to solve that problem, they don't have to go and close up the source code. That's incredibly short-sighted IMO.

Re:Very disappointed with Google

[Drakino]

Google really needs to decide then how they want to proceed, instead of sending mixed signals. They enjoy beating their competitors over the head with "Open", and decide not to be open. This to me wouldn't be such a big deal had Google not made it such a big deal in the past.

Honeycomb, aka Android 3.0 is shipping, and has been for over a month now. There is no excuse in the proper "Open" spirit for this at all. If Google wants to start closing down Android and taking more control, then they should say as much and do so. I'll take this move as the first step down that path, and hopefully Google stops using "Open" as a description of Android in the future to reflect the change.

This move also shows how Honeycomb was indeed rushed to production just to try and beat the new iPad. Competition is good, up until the point you harm your own product in a clear money grab attempt. The long term damage to the Android image isn't worth that initial rush, but they went for it anyhow. Every review I read about the Xoom mentioned numerous app crashes and hangs.

Re:Very disappointed with Google

[exomondo]

I thought Android was supposed to be flexible? is this not the case?

Clearly it is, they have been able to build different experience for a different device on that one OS.

I thought Android was resolution independent, is this also not the case?

Really are you just trolling or do you know nothing about the market? Have you seen how many android phones with different resolutions there are?

if it's not and the UI API aren't up to snuff, then what's the change between 2.3 and 3.0 that's so different at the kernel and API level?

No, the difference is that Google are taking a different approach to Apple. Apple are essentially using the same OS and the same experience on their phone and tablet so the only real difference is the size, Google are looking at the phone and tablet as separate experiences.

Educate me.

[Caerdwyn]

Educate me, please. I'm not in the loop on this.

How much of Android is GPL-licensed? Does Google have a choice? I'm pretty sure they have no choice on the kernel itself and anything GNU-derived. What portions of Android are not subject to GPL disclosures?

Re:Educate me.

[Enderandrew]

I believe most of the Android stack itself has been released GPL previously. But as the copyright holder, they can release future versions under another license. The existing GPL tools they built upon, like the kernel, have to remain GPL.

The real issue is that they're making a poor decision. Supposedly Honeycomb has APIs for handling display on a phone as well as a tablet. Google bragged about this new column API. There may be specific aspects of the UI that need to be redesigned for a phone, but they don't need to keep it closed source.

Release the source and allow carriers to start working on customizations, but tell them they can't ship with the Google Apps (no mail, no calendar, no Android Market). That will prevent any meaningful phone release until it is ready, while still keeping the code in the open.

Re:Educate me.

[thegrassyknowl]

See here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2046324&cid=35567912

28 components use GPL, 5 use LGPL, etc.

But, Android is more than just those components. The glue that holds them together is not licensed under a GPL-style license. That glue is called "Android".

Re:Educate me.

[wcoenen]

Android is licensed under the Apache Software License 2.0.. Only the kernel (i.e. linux) is GPL.

Not that it matters, because the copyright holder can do whatever he wants with the code, even after he has given it to others under an open source license (like the Apache license or GPL). Accepting contributions dilutes the copyright ownership, but to deal with that contributions to Android are only accepted after a Contributor License Agreement is signed.

From TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Over the past few weeks, Google has notified device makers of its change in plans with Honeycomb. Android executives have also been telling companies that Google will likely wait to make another open-source distribution of Android software until it completes the next version, called Ice Cream.

So unlike what the summary suggests, and more in line with the title, it really is a delay, not an indefinite cutoff.

Re:From TFA

[iluvcapra]

Yeah, the OSS platform will always be one version behind the version they give to their top-tier partners, thus Motorola and Samsung get a head start selling the best devices, and then vendors who Google doesn't license Ice Cream to are stuck selling last year's commodity, in a market that is by then saturated.

Pretty cool, huh? Almost as if Google has created a perpetual motion machine that allows them to release their platform as open software, while simultaneously maintaining the power to decide which handset vendors will thrive.

Re:From TFA

[tlhIngan]

Yeah, the OSS platform will always be one version behind the version they give to their top-tier partners, thus Motorola and Samsung get a head start selling the best devices, and then vendors who Google doesn't license Ice Cream to are stuck selling last year's commodity, in a market that is by then saturated.

Pretty cool, huh? Almost as if Google has created a perpetual motion machine that allows them to release their platform as open software, while simultaneously maintaining the power to decide which handset vendors will thrive.

There are two projects called Android. One is Android, which is distributed to all OHA partners. And since you have to be an OHA partner anyhow to get the "with Google" stuff (e.g,, Market, YouTube, Gmail, etc.), all the OHA members can get access to Honeycomb right now.

The other Android project is AOSP, which is the open-source version fo Android and distributed to the world. If you're not a member of the OHA (requirements include being sponsored by an OHA member, and some annual fee), you can only use AOSP. This is the rise of the cheap handsets and tablets that don't ship with the Google stuff (lots of handsets in China are built using AOSP and officially don't have "with Google", plus a lot of the cheap tablets you can find).

I think this policy came about because the OHA members were complaining they had to compete with the cheap tablets out there.

The other downside of this, that will bite the OHA's members in the ass is that silicon venders like Broadcom, TI, Marvell, Freescale, etc., rely on AOSP to provide Android packages so they can test their chips with Android. If they can't access the latest and greatest, then the chips that OHA members use may not have the Android support they need. Note that I excluded Samsung, and Qualcomm because they are OHA members.

Re:From TFA

[exomondo]

I think this policy came about because the OHA members were complaining they had to compete with the cheap tablets out there.

Exactly: Oh no, they had to COMPETE! The OHA is a cartel, they compete where they want to compete, mainly in securing the most lucrative marketing and subsidy agreements with networks, splitting the rents in the system. In the areas they don't want to compete, they use open source to crush the competition, plain and simple.

I wouldn't be taking that as gospel - particularly with no basis - given that it stands to reason that Google wouldn't want to tarnish their name and reputation by having 'with Google' on sub-par devices. Which is an entirely logical and business-conscious reason for such a decision.

Re:From TFA

[Anthony Mouse]

I thought we got rid of that kind of shit.

It is kind of silly. I almost want to like it because it's a huge incentive for internal innovation -- the developers have to make sure every version is better than the last because otherwise no one will pay for the latest version when the GPL version is just as good.

The problem is that making it "open source" but only with the previous version pretty much eliminates any hope of there being any kind of external developer community, since the external developers would be out of sync with the internal ones and you'd get horrible merge problems at every new release.

Re:From TFA

[kdemetter]

I wouldn't be taking that as gospel - particularly with no basis - given that it stands to reason that Google wouldn't want to tarnish their name and reputation by having 'with Google' on sub-par devices. Which is an entirely logical and business-conscious reason for such a decision.

And also a good excuse for continuing with the GP mentioned.
It's a kind of monopoly , no matter how you dress it.

And regarding the 'creating a bad user experience' , due to 'sub-par' devices , I'll decide that for myself , thank you very much : i don't need anyone to 'protect' me from 'bad user experience'

Page 2?

[pgn674]

Linking to page 1 of the article would probably be nice. Better yet, the print version.

But, but...

[Jugalator]

http://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429

What is the definition of "open" today, Google...?

Re:But, but...

[agent_vee]

the definition of open: "sign licensing agreement with google; mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make"

Re:GPL violation?

[Rastor]

Because Android isn't GPL licensed, only the kernel is.

For the record, the kernel is available at android.git.kernel.org

Re:I don't understand their justification

[naasking]

Who are they trying to protect from this bad user experience?

The Android brand.

Re:I don't understand their justification

[presidenteloco]

Their probably afraid that the hobbyist will let a mainstream media journalist try their cool Google phone and, because the journalist doesn't understand the finer points of google recommending it not be used on phones, they write a scathing review of Google's new phone OS.

If there's one thing I've learned in my tech career, is that customers don't understand or care who exactly in the chain of production was responsible for their problem or lousy experience. It's always you. And if you're the big name part of the equation, its DEFINITELY you.

Saw a great sign on the side of a truck: "Joe's Natural Gardening: Where the Customer is Occasionally Right"

Re:Delayed until next release?

[h4rr4r]

The real answer is the code sucks. They rushed Honeycomb and want to be able to clean it up with the ice cream sandwich release.

Re:Easy fix?

[Haedrian]

I'm pretty sure the 'someone wants to remove it from code' would be some cheap chinese company, and the people who would complain would be the consumers...

Its not much of a solution is it...

Re:Delayed until next release?

[Local ID10T]

Isn't Google just delaying the source release until the release after Honeycomb which will combine the tablet version with the handset version? What's the big deal?

The big deal, in case you're correct, is that they would skip an OS version for a supposedly open OS.

According to TFA, that is their stated intention..

As for the supposedly open OS, it is open because the author (Google) chooses to license it as open source, not because they are required to do so. Just as I can choose to use whatever license I choose for any software (even an OS) that I create.

Re:I don't understand their justification

[Trufagus]

Here's an alternate theory.

They don't want Amazon using it to build a competing tablet with very little Google on it.

The way that Amazon is approaching their app store is pretty much an assault on Android. Creating a new app store that competes on price, features, service, etc. would be great, but Amazon is approaching competition the same way the carriers do: exclusives. So now, if you want the latest Angry Birds then you must get the Amazon app store, and if you are an Android user outside the U.S. then you can't get it at all. In other words, rather then sinking more money into building their app store they paid off Rovio to deny the new app to Google.

This is a good strategy for Amazon but it is bad for Google and for Android in general.

I've always thought that Android's openness was a great thing for users, partially because there was competition on the platform that would keep Google in check. But this is different. This sort of competition could really hurt Android.

So, it's not "honeycomb on phones" that could harm the Android user experience, it's App Store's competing 'carrier' style. And while I'm sad to hear that Honeycomb is now less open-source then it was before, I don't want Google to let Amazon undermine Android.

Too bad really, cause I was looking forward to an Amazon Honeycomb tablet until I heard about the whole Angry Birds thing.

Re:I don't understand their justification

[ZombieBraintrust]

Do they think a phone manufacturer is going to ship a honeycomb based phone that gives a really bad user experience?

Yes

Re:Here comes the Google bashing

[Drakino]

Your comments do pretty much sum it up. There is nothing wrong with a corporation looking out for their best interests. But when they enjoy bashing their competitors over the head with "open" frequently, they better back those insults up with actions on their side. Keeping Honeycomb closed well over a month after the first tier tablets shipped with it isn't "open".

WebOS is also "open", and 2.1.0 was released on March 14th. The source code is also available, not sure when it's posted, but already thats sooner then people have their hands on shipping Honeycomb code.

Re:I don't understand their justification

[iluvcapra]

You're right, but it's worth pointing out that this is the App Store argument. If Google may withhold source from certain hardware vendors in order to "protect" end users or the platform, to protect the platform's reputation of stability and performance, mutatis mutandis Apple is justified to withhold apps and functionality from their platform for the same reasons. If Andy Rubin thinks he's entitled to prevent people from running Honeycomb because of UX, then Jobs is completely free to make such decisions about iOS.

It works and it's completely reasonable, but it's not "free." Free means people being grownups and understanding what minimum specs are, and the distinction between an application, an OS and hardware.

Everybody calm down...

[Daneurysm]

It's almost comical seeing the conspiracy theories in some of these comments.

While on one hand they are totally stretching their good will with the open source community which they benefit from, the most obvious reason is detailed in the submitters comments. Occam's razor, etc etc etc.

As someone who spends much time hanging out on the XDA developer forums I can promise that the second that source gets released within hours every popular Android handset out there will have a ROM ready for flashing...There are rips from different model/brand/language/era/device type/etc available for deconstruction and flashing for nearly every Android device out there. Being the curious geek that I am I try nearly all of them (before going back to CM every time)...and most of them have just as wonky a user experience as can be expected.

Seeing as how Honeycomb is intended primarily (or even exclusively) for tablets I'd imagine it's UI elements (among other things) are absolutely not going to be the best implementation available for 3-4" screens.

While this is clearly not the best sign of good will towards the open source community, I'm sure the source will be out once something newer is out for the modders and developers to play with...Having the absolutely latest version (no matter how many points are in the version number) is like crack to some of these people. They forget all about Honeycomb with Ice Cream available...

Seems more like a whole lot of people at Google never considered this until it was too late...hopefully this lights a fire under their asses to get Ice Cream out quicker to unify the platform.

Re:Delayed until next release?

[shutdown -p now]

Judging by the number of force closes I get with Xoom with routine use (browser, media player, market), this may actually be true to a certain extent.

Re:I don't understand their justification

[duranaki]

I have it on my Nook Color and have been anxiously waiting for google to make good on the source release so it can actually get better. I'm very disappointed by this. You can't control the what people do with open source releases.. that's just how it is. I can't decide which is more annoying, them delaying the gingerbread release to my Nexus One for months so the Nexus S could look extra shiny, or them delaying honeycomb source so the Xoom and other pending tablets look extra shiny. I'm losing faith in google here. I can't decide if they are just too afraid manufacturers will jump ship if they don't get easier sales channels or if they are taking Apples rants against android a little too close to heart.