Slashdot Mirror
Google Fights Back Against Android Fragmentation
bonch writes "Google is tightening its control over Android in an attempt to standardize the platform. Licensees must agree to a 'non-fragmentation clause' that gives Google final approval over operating system changes, allegedly sparking complaints to the Justice Department. This follows Google's recent decision to withhold the source to Honeycomb from non-privileged partners, a move that has drawn criticism from openness advocates. Google says that Honeycomb will be open sourced when it's ready for other devices."
Well, mostly open. Except when it isn't.
Motorola's "enhancements" to Android make the Atrix nearly unusable. My wife moved from the iPhone to the Atrix, and it is only because Android does allow customization that I was able to download enough skins and fixes to make the phone usable.
AT&T wants to push their useless buggy navigation to the Atrix, despite the fact that Google's navigation works just fine.
All in all, the fresh and clean Android I have on my Nexus One is almost completely corrupted by Motorola and AT&T on the Atrix, and this isn't done because it is in the interest of the customer. This a push of crapware onto the customer serving interests at Motorola and AT&T
Google wants to close android in order to keep the manufacturers from closing android further.
Openness advocates are fighting to protect the rights of the manufacturers (that of closing Android)
I'm not sure who to root for here, so I'll just say GO LOCAL SPORTS TEAM
ADVENTURERS! - ANTIHERO FOR HIRE - CARDMASTER CONFLICT
As much as I love Open Source I can see their point and I can't counter it. If we continue this fragmentation is it really going to benefit android or will it cause harm? If the goal is usage, which it is, then this is one way to enforce some standards and drive that goal. If the goal was software freedom it would be another story. But we knew this going in, it was never the goal.
Tiger Blooded Bi-Winning Machine
Allow the manufacturer to customize the hell out of it, but write into the license agreement that all functionality must work a vanilla install that is made available OTA. That way a user can go into the update menu and select "update to latest Google version of Android supported by your phone's hardware WARNING: ALL MANUFACTURER CUSTOMIZATION WILL BE LOST". When on vanilla, make the latest manufacturer switchover available. If they did this, how many of us would still be on 2.1 or 2.2? That would be the best of both the worlds.
So? Isn't the point of open source that other people can take it and modify it to try out ideas?
The problem comes when all three carriers force bad ideas on their customers.
That would be a good point if I could take my phone and modify it. Motorola also has a pretty firm stance on locking down the system so I can't get at it.
Google could reserve the Android trademark for non-fragmented distributions. This would make handset manufactures make the choice between keeping the brand recognition of the Android OS or going it on their own and losing that right and any support that may go with it. The attitude could hurt Google, but it would probably hurt handset manufacturers more as people decide they want the security of a platform with less surprises.
Technically no one can really stop Android from being forked, but at the same time there is nothing stopping Google preventing you from being able to use their trademark.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
unless you can't, since the openness applies to the manufacture, and they choose if they pass that onto you, or sign the firmware and lock the boot loader.
I smell Microsoft.
Go here to download the Android source code. Then read the license here:
The preferred license for the Android Open Source Project is the Apache Software License, 2.0 ("Apache 2.0"), and the majority of the Android software is licensed with Apache 2.0. While the project will strive to adhere to the preferred license, there may be exceptions which will be handled on a case-by-case basis. For example, the Linux kernel patches are under the GPLv2 license with system exceptions, which can be found on kernel.org.
As others have already suggested, the FSF friendly way to "gain control of and final say over customization" is through the trademark, not the software license. There is no evidence in this article that this is not the path Google is taking, yet we got a plethora of posts saying "On noes! Google has become evil!".
You know the funny thing? This is yet another example when Google does something very good (standing against software patents in this case) and then gets slamed with make-believe charges that they are doing something evil. It is clear, to me at least, that is is just another foray in Microsoft's attacks on Google because they know they can't complete technically. It's like this decade's version of what was reported in the Halloween documents
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
See, I remember all the Android arguments, "ITS FREEEEEEE!1!1!" when I mentioned having an iPhone. I love my phone, its slick, built like a piece of jewellery, very fast, takes gorgeous photos, it works great.
The supposed argument for "open" would be that "all the bad carriers will get kicked out, people will get fed up with their bullshit products, and go to another vendor. Consumer choice!"
Erm, no. The US market is already among the worlds worst for carriers, seriously, here in New Zealand - basically any other developed nation - I take my Micro SIM out, flip in a new one from any of the three major carriers, and it Just Works. I bought my phone outright, but even "on contract" phones are sold "unlocked" in NZ.
The reality is, "The Free Market" involves crooked deals among The Big Boys, ie Google giving out favours to Manufacturer X, so they get "The Best Phone", often with an exclusive new version of the OS, while the others - including other very big companies, some of which were the FORMER poster child - have to quietly whine, and wait for the new update, if it comes at all.
Think about the number of "Android device makers", how many are actually worth shit? I'd think about five, max! HTC, Motorola, perhaps Samsung (very high end tech in some ways, utterly crap quality in others).... hell, off the top of my head I only got three that I'd consider decent. The rest seem to be "clone phone" makers, the same crap, competing on price, "gotta make if five dollars cheaper than the other guy".
And they all come loaded with BS! Except for the "stock" phone, which is what I'd go for. Oh, but theres not currently a "stock" phone with the larger screen? With a dual core CPU? So, people might be lured away from The Righteous Path, into crapware oblivion.
The majority of people seem to put up with the awful ads, the programs you cannot delete (without superpowers), they take it as a given.
Its the new version of "intel inside", everyone wants their little medals to show up, to build brand recognition, to profit from the consumer.
I'd rather have a "free market with rules", with a Google who sets limits, ie no trial apps that work for 15 days, then ask you for ten dollars, that will otherwise remain on your phone undelete-able for eternity.
If you're an Android user, speak up about this! Send a polite complaint email to the manufacturer, I dont think they will care about "your phone is the sux coause the motorolas has the sweet as screen...", and lets get people INTERESTED about how their devices SHOULD work!
---