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 ...

[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 ...

[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.

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?

[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.

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

[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.

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

[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.

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: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: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...

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: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.