Android 4.0 Source Code Coming "Soon"

itwbennett writes "Good news today for those of you who have been waiting for news about whether Google would be opening up the ICS source and for those of you who thought it was gone for good. Android engineer Dan Morrill revealed new information in the Android Building Google group yesterday evening, saying that Google plans 'to release the source for the recently-announced Ice Cream Sandwich soon, once it's available on devices.'"

Comments

I thought

[Anonymous Coward]

We already knew this? Except that there was the ridiculous "no comment" story on here yesterday, and this is now "refuting" that?

Re:I thought

[mwvdlee]

I can predict the next story already: "Android 4.0 Source Code Coming Any Day Now".
Followed by "Android 4.0 Source Code Coming Tomorrow".
After that there will be "Android 4.0 Source Code Coming Today".
Followed on the same day by "Android 4.0 Source Code Just Released".
And the next day "Android 4.0 Source Code Released Yesterday".
Closing with "Android 4.0 Source Code Release Confirmed".

So... please dump your comments to any of those below here and /. can skip posting them and post some actual news instead.

Re:I thought

[TuringTest]

I've been reviewing the source, and IceCream is the best thing ever since sliced bread!

There I've found the Coke's formula, a copy of the Kenedy's assasination papers, the address where Elvis is hiding, and the original Fermat's solution to the Last Theorem too!!!!1!1!!eleventyone!!

Re:I thought

[Anonymous Coward]

These articles are retarded. It's not like the GPL leaves Google any choice in this matter.

Re:I thought

[growse]

They've got plenty of choice for the stuff that isn't under the GPL.

They've already released the GPL components I believe.

Re:I thought

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you find Barack Obama's hope and change?

Re:I thought

[Anonymous Coward]

You will NEVER find that

Re:I thought

[pjfontillas]

Or real birth certificate?

News?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this what everyone pointed out in the comments on the previous (hysterical) article?

Re:News?

[Anonymous Coward]

Was that previous thing an article? I thought that was the last thing written by Steve Jobs and he wrote that esp for slashdot. Not that I hold slashdot very high on objectivity, but man... The apple love is showing.

Open Source vs. Open Development

[q.kontinuum]

Ok, basically this makes Android Open Source again. But still it keeps the companies quite dependent: If the source code is published months after the devices are already on the market, any company that wants to use it under the Open Source terms rather than abiding to Googles conditions to get the source for integration timely will be one year behind.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that the source code is being made available, and its in this regard better than most competitors. But still it means that Google can control which services companies can integrate in their phones, and prevent competition with their own services like they did with Motorola/Skyhook. It's not an open development model.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[EdZ]

Only if the companies do not wish to develop said features on their own.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[Anonymous Coward]

They do that already through trademark enforcement, and their Google-branded apps are not part of AOSP. I think it's pretty clear that Android isn't even open source. AOSP is, but it's only a slice of Android-proper, and isn't "open development", as you say.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[Anonymous Coward]

>Ok, basically this makes Android Open Source again.

You are confusing "open source" and "source code is available". Android is most definitely not open.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Android has really never been an open development model: the applications that make android "android"(from the consumer perspective) are closed, and the development of each successive release has been between Google and their Best Buddy of the moment until release.

The big question has been, since 'Ice Cream Sandwich', whether it would continue to be closed development/open source, or whether it would go closed entirely, except for a few GPL-obligated kernel bits...

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[amirulbahr]

If it was worthwhile forking it then we would have seen manufacturers attempt that already. Clearly Google is by far leading development and dealing with them is not too painful yet.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[amRadioHed]

The big question has been, since 'Ice Cream Sandwich', whether it would continue to be closed development/open source, or whether it would go closed entirely, except for a few GPL-obligated kernel bits...

No, that's never been a question for anyone other then the conspiracy minded. Google has been extremely clear and consistent about their reason for not releasing Honeycomb's source and about continuing with the open sourcing of Android as soon as the code base is fixed in ICS.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care if it open source, neckbeard. It's made by Google, so it is cool.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[q.kontinuum]

Depends. Nokia was considering Android and dumped it, because it was too painful. (Nokia provides a lot of services, especially in the area of location bases services they are competing with Google, and due to their offline navigation software they might pull people away from Google Maps.) Samsung is putting more effort in their Windows Phone devices.

The problem is, branching would be pointless: Android without Android App-store is not competitive. In case of Nokia, a great system was available already and they canceled it because of the lacking ecosystem. For others it will be the same problem.

DISCLAIMER: I work for Nokia, but here I state my personal opinion only. Statements are only made based on public available information.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[ozmanjusri]

Tell that to Cyanogen.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[somersault]

Mod parent under-rated.. they've said this from the start, but the trolls have been having a field day with how Android is now closed source, Google are so Evil, blah blah..

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad this is the case.

Like most here, I'm unofficial tech support for family and friends.

So they download a fork of gmail, which has been "improved" with cute avatars. And also scans for passwords and credit card numbers to transmit back to base.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[tepples]

Tell that to Cyanogen.

Who got cease and desisted. The Google Apps that come with Android are most definitely not open, and as I understand it, people who install CyanogenMod generally get an illegal copy of the Google Apps separately, and the provider of this separate package remains open to a potential cease-and-desist. Without Android Market, which is among these apps, one can't download applications exclusive to Android Market, such as the application to deposit checks to a bank account.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[tepples]

Android without Android App-store is not competitive.

By "Android App-store" did you mean Android Market? If so, then Amazon seems to be doing just fine with its own store. The only thing I haven't been able to get on it is, unfortunately, my bank's check deposit application.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[shellbeach]

Android has really never been an open development model: the applications that make android "android"(from the consumer perspective) are closed

Um ... the phone, messaging, browser, music apps -- in fact, pretty much everything in a consumer's "Android" except Gmail, the Market, and some mostly unknown odds-and-ends -- are open sourced. And groups like Cyanogenmod are developing these constantly. Sounds pretty damn open to me ...

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[shellbeach]

Nokia was considering Android and dumped it, because it was too painful.

Surely the $1 billion MS paid them to take on WP7 had something to do with it? I think Nokia was a bit silly in eschewing Android, personally ... but then, their previous decisions on phone OSes haven't really inspired confidence in their ability to pick the market.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[q.kontinuum]

Nokia owns Navteq (they sell map data). With focus on Android this asset would be wasted. They provide an offline navigation software. Incidentally I'm working on the location where this software is implemented. This would have been wasted as well. Nokia has a business unit around location based services. This is direct competition to Google and would have been wasted. OTOH, Bing maps is already using Navteq data for some time, MS and Nokia are both cooperating with Yahoo for quite some time, etc. All this is public available information, and I think it is enough reason to turn down Android. So I think it was rather a decision of building the own ecosystem for MeeGo faster or going for WP.

Of course the 1Billion did not hurt either, and I can imagine that Elop did have some good contacts to MS which helped building up the trust for negotiations. But I don't think this was the decisive issue.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[scdeimos]

Nokia was considering Android and dumped it, because it was too painful.

I think you're missing something about Microsoft and their bank balance - this article says it best:

Wall Street had favored the popular Android system as the quick and more crowd-pleasing option. Instead, Nokia's alignment with Microsoft ties it to a partner that has deep pockets but very limited success with its Windows phones.

And also over here:

[Nokia CEO Stephen] Elop said one of the key topics in the talks on doing a deal with Microsoft was convincing Nokia that it could reach "a very low price point."

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you know that Google allows competition on Android with their own services?

Example, did you know that Google allows hardware manufacturer or carrier to remove all Google services and apps from Android?

Example, did you know that Google does not pay anyone using Android or choosing Google services and apps in Android? Google does pay for device manufacturer and carrier part of the feed what it gains when user clicks an Ad when doing a search trough Google search widget when it is located to Android launch screen. But so does Google pay to Mozilla and every other who set Google search to search panel. It is same payment to every one.

And then third question. Did you know that Microsoft have paid tens of millions to Verizon and many other carrier in the world to sell Android phones where Google apps and services were replaced with Microsoft own services?

Example, Search is done with Bing, Emailing is done trough Hotmail, Calender and contacts are linked to Hotmail, news reader is pulling data from Microsoft news services.

Oh, and did you know that user who bought such Android device, can not remove those Microsoft services and Apps or install Google replacements? So user who bought such Android phone, is locked to Microsoft permamentally on that phone.

Google allows open development, you only need to join to that development alliance. Google does manage the Android project as someone needs to do it. But before Google release the Android source codes for everyone, it has released it to Android alliance partners. They can modify the code as they want for their handsets and prepare them to release.

The open development does not mean that every person out there is allowed to download sources and push changes to Android project.
If it would, then not even any GNU project is open development as upstream (what Android Alliance is) do not need to accept modifications or patches if not wanted.
And even GPLv2 how Linux operating system in Android is licensed, denies the other people having the source code than those who have the binary.
Even the one of the most puriest open source licenses do not force source code to be published to everyone, only for those who has the binary.

Google does not need to release Android source code (GPLv2 + Apache etc) for everyone until binaries are released and still they are following open development idea.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[drinkypoo]

They've said this from the start, but Open Source means you can get the source, and they're not giving the source, which means that an entire release is not Open Source. Maybe every other version of Android is, but those with those devices are running a non-Open-Source version of Android, period, the end. Clear and consistent? Clearly, consistently, not Open Source, until they release the source, at least to their customers.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[andydread]

Do you have an Android phone?
Do you have an Android phone with Cyanogen Mod?
Have you even installed Cyanogen Mod before?

The Google Apps are just that APPS, otherwise known as applications.
The Google apps can be freely downloaded once CM is installed.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[mcvos]

Android without Android App-store is not competitive.

By "Android App-store" did you mean Android Market? If so, then Amazon seems to be doing just fine with its own store.

Are they? My impression is that the Amazon app store is really awful in comparison to the Android Market.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[Anonymous Coward]

Trolls, or Apple's paid sycophants that are shit scared about a decent competitor giving consumers lots of choice?

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[DrgnDancer]

Assuming you can download the app which allows app downloads, or so GP appears to saying. If, as he indicates, there is a legal problem with loading the Android Market on a CM device than in theory CM (as a usable system, since the applications are what make the OS do anything useful) is also illegal. Now granted that doesn't mean much in a practical sense, Google doesn't seem to be the type of company to hunt down individual modders and sue them; but it's still somewhat philosophically unfortunate given that Google touts Android as an "Open" system.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[Anonymous Coward]

apparently there are some forks out here : Baidu Yi OS ( http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/05/baidu-announces-android-os-alternative-confirming-its-mobile-as/ )
(haven't checked but amazon forked for their 'next' kindle) : http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-20101223-92/amazons-kindle-tablet-an-android-fork-with-disruptive-pricing/

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[Anonymous Coward]

Out of curiosity, why did you feel the need to comment on something you obviously lack any real knowledge about?

You can download GAPPS with a browser. So long as your device was sold to you with Google Apps, you are violating no licenses.

http://www.cyanogenmod.com/blog/the-current-state

This still has absolutely *zero* bearing on Android being open source.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[q.kontinuum]

Nokia was considering Android and dumped it, because it was too painful.

I think you're missing something about Microsoft and their bank balance - this article says it best:

Wall Street had favored the popular Android system as the quick and more crowd-pleasing option. Instead, Nokia's alignment with Microsoft ties it to a partner that has deep pockets but very limited success with its Windows phones.

yes, that was their view; wall street analysts can't have deep insight in every company they write about, and here they are also missing some obvious points. As replied to the other post:

Nokia owns Navteq (they sell map data). With focus on Android this asset would be wasted. They provide an offline navigation software. Incidentally I'm working on the location where this software is implemented. This would have been wasted as well. Nokia has a business unit around location based services. This is direct competition to Google and would have been wasted. OTOH, Bing maps is already using Navteq data for some time, MS and Nokia are both cooperating with Yahoo for quite some time, etc. All this is public available information, and I think it is enough reason to turn down Android.

And also over here:

[Nokia CEO Stephen] Elop said one of the key topics in the talks on doing a deal with Microsoft was convincing Nokia that it could reach "a very low price point."

Surely this is an important factor. Only it's not about the 1 billion, but about the hardware requirements / the costs to produce a device. The average prices for smartphones are declining, and when MS sticks to strong hardware requirements it is not possible to compete in these price segment. With WP "Tango" it will be possible to serve this market as well, and I guess that Nokia got a got deal for the license per device.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[petermgreen]

The thing is if a phone manufacturer breaks away from google they lose the andriod market. Theese days a good app market is one of the most important features for a sucessful smartphone platform. The loss of andriod branding would probablly be pretty painful too.

The likes of cyanogenmod can get away with suggesting the users install the google apps themselves but i'm not sure if those app packages are strictly legal and even if they were manufacturers can't really ask users to do that.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[q.kontinuum]

Did you know that Google allows competition on Android with their own services?

I read this story: http://thisismynext.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-lawsuit-motorola-samsung/
which is a clear example that Google does not (at least not always) allow this.

Example, did you know that Google allows hardware manufacturer or carrier to remove all Google services and apps from Android?

Example, did you know that Google does not pay anyone using Android or choosing Google services and apps in Android? Google does pay for device manufacturer and carrier part of the feed what it gains when user clicks an Ad when doing a search trough Google search widget when it is located to Android launch screen. But so does Google pay to Mozilla and every other who set Google search to search panel. It is same payment to every one.

You always write "Example", yet you don't provide any. I provided the example how Google hinders manufacturers to install competing services already in my thread start. (Not as a link, but I put Motorola, Google and Skyhook in context. Searching on Google, the link I posted here is the third in the list.) This contradicts quite obviously what you wrote about open development.

BTW, regarding your MS rant: I'm not saying I blame Google for their actions, so there is no point in showing that MS is acting equally ... hmmm.... revenue driven.
The difference is that MS does not advertise their system as open and does not claim to have the leading motto "don't be evil".

DISCLAIMER: I work for Nokia, but here I state my personal opinion only. Statements are only made based on public available information.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[tepples]

Do you have an Android phone?

No. I carry a dumbphone and an Android PDA because if I were to put them together into one device, my phone bill would be seven times higher. Which Android PDA should I have bought that is supported by CM?

The Google apps can be freely downloaded once CM is installed.

Where can they be downloaded? If from Android Market, where does one legally download Android Market?

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[Anonymous Coward]

Um ... the phone, messaging, browser, music apps -- in fact, pretty much everything in a consumer's "Android" except Gmail, the Market, and some mostly unknown odds-and-ends -- are open sourced. And groups like Cyanogenmod are developing these constantly. Sounds pretty damn open to me ...

Android devices are extremely open. That's why when I want to uninstall a pre-loaded application or a new version of the OS, I don't have to do something silly like wait for the hacking community to find a security hole in the bootloader or OS that can be exploited to get root access. Super-open.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[LWATCDR]

Samsung is putting more effort into WP devices? Maybe more than in the past but I doubt more than Android. I could be wrong because of the patient issues but since they just came out with the Galaxy Nexus after working with Google that seems a bit iffy.
Nokia should have bought Palm or stuck with Meego. Had the Meego phone come to the US on my carrier I would have gotten it next month when my contract is up. Really that looked so cool.WebOS was a great OS that was strangled at Palm by a lack of resources.
Frankly the perfect phone would have been Nokia's hardware running WebOS with Androids Gmail app IMHO.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[Anonymous Coward]

So not only are you WAY off topic on the subject of Android's actual openness status, still desperately trying to make a lost point, but you're not even familiar with the subject matter?

Go away troll.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[q.kontinuum]

Maybe more than in the past but I doubt more than Android

Agreed. Also I think there might be further changes, since WP7 to WP7.5 was a major step in functionality.

Had the Meego phone come to the US on my carrier

Unfortunately Nokia doesn't have enough market share in US to convince carriers of a new system easily...

I would have gotten it next month when my contract is up

It is a very cool device from a geek point of view, and is has some extremely cool features in the UI for normal end users. But when I had access to a proto last year, it was simply not ready, the ecosystem is still not available. And even now I think there is room for improvement/maturation in the software.

 

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[Dishevel]

I do not think that was ever a question. If it was it was a question put out and fostered by Apple fanboys and shills to promote anti Android FUD.
Google made their reasons for not releasing Honeycomb very clear. They also made very clear at that time that the next version would be released as the previous versions had been.
Can we please be done with this particular discussion?

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're in the US, and Sprint has decent coverage around you, and you use around 300 voice minutes per month, Virgin Mobile has no-contract Android phones from $100-$300 and unlimited data for $35/month. (In their case unlimited data means full speed for 2.5GB then throttled for the rest of the month - no extra charges & still able to access email etc.)

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[Dishevel]

That is not Android locking your phone.
That is your carrier doing it on your carrier subsidized phone.
If you want an Open Android phone BUY ONE.

"But, but I want my phone to cost $30.00 and be open and no contract and I do not want to read contracts before I sign them, Oh an I also want evil bankers who gave me $495,000 for a home to just decide to knock off $200,000 on what I owe because I have decided that I made a boo boo."

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[andydread]

http://www.cyanogenmod.com/blog/the-current-state

If your device was purchased with Google apps you can back up the apps and restore them legally to CM once installed or you can just legally download them here http://wiki.cyanogenmod.com/index.php?title=Latest_Version/Google_Apps

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[tepples]

if I were to [combine my dumbphone and PDA into a smartphone], my phone bill would be seven times higher.

If you're in the US, and Sprint has decent coverage around you, and you use around 300 voice minutes per month, Virgin Mobile has no-contract Android phones from $100-$300 and unlimited data for $35/month.

I use far fewer voice minutes per month than that, which is why I'm currently on Virgin's (unadvertised) $15 per 3 months payLo plan. A $35 per month Beyond Talk plan would cost seven times what I'm currently paying.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[Anonymous Coward]

Why complete the ongoing suicide act in the mobile market over something relatively small like offline navigation software? I don't have a room full of MBA's to consult or anything, but that doesn't sound like good business sense.

To put it bluntly, WP isn't positioned to help anyone. It has slightly more than zero customer appeal right now. Only a bribe makes sense.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[LWATCDR]

Maybe but WP7 and WP7.5 are playing catch up still. They are not better than IOS or Android so they are a fail. It is such a shame that Nokia just sort of gave up on US market. I think part of it was that they where Eurocentric. They thought the US market which isn't as large as the EU market wasn't worth the effort. I would have loved to get an E71 back a few years ago but I use a CDMA carrier. The Nokia phones where always very hackable and flexible devices. I am sure that the new WP7 phone will be great hardware but WP7.5 isn't enough to make me dump Android or ignore IOS as an option.
Oh and my wife also would have gotten MeeGo. She was a huge WebOS fan girl but is now an Android convert. She got the SGSII and loves it.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[tommy8]

Exactly. Only very low end phone makers would put Android on their product without the Android branding (which is trademarked and requires authorization from google).

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[tepples]

If your device was purchased with Google apps

Which Android devices priced close to an iPod touch without a contract are sold with Google apps?

you can back up the apps and restore them legally to CM once installed

Please see my reply to Anonymous Coward.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[Anonymous Coward]

you linux retards.
Google is USING the open source community so they don't have to pay royalty fees, license fees, etc, etc.

Google may provide the source, but it's broken source and highly changed, so much so, apparently it's no longer possible to re-integrate it back into Linux to benefit the community.

A linux kernel engineer stated that Google has made their security model extremely different.
And a Google spokesman stated unambiguously that "Android isn't Linux"

http://blogs.computerworld.com/16900/android_linux_kernel_fight_continues

Linux police offer deviant Android return from exile: -
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/22/android_kernel_readmission/

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[Anonymous Coward]

In the shop, sales person: This car is highly economic, while powerful. It has air condition, EPS, ABS, park assistant and heated driver seats

AC: Why would I buy a heater? Unimportant, I wanted a car

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[zeroshade]

So reading through your link it seems that the problem here was that Skyhook was set as default and would prevent them gathering any location information. This does not contradict the statement that "Google allows competition on Android with their own services." They only required that the Google service was the default.

Not only that, but it doesn't prevent you from launching an android phone if you don't follow their tests. Nothing stops an OEM from loading stock android without Google's apps and releasing it. They just can't claim it is Google Approved and use the Google Apps, which is perfectly reasonable.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF? Now you are asking editors to be objective, and not to pick up random troll anti-google submissions! They wont get paid that way!

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[Belial6]

You know, that even GPL 3 doesn't require that you release the source until you distribute the software, right? There might be some legitimate complaints about how Honeycomb was handled, but hanging on to the source until the binaries are released is entirely within both the spirit and letter of open source.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[scot4875]

They've been quite clear. They said "The Honeycomb code is crap. We won't be releasing it because we don't want it running on phones."

They've also been quite consistent. Whenever they have shitty, rushed code, they finish it before releasing it.

--Jeremy

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[scot4875]

Locked down phones have nothing to do with Android's openness.

And, even if that were true, in addition to what Dishevel said, it's still better than *any* other non-niche alternative.

--Jeremy

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[Anonymous Coward]

low end ... Amazon

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[Vintermann]

It is absolutely legal to install those app packages, yes. I'm surprised you're suggesting a (now) huge open source project like Cyanogen should just not care about compliance.(

Way back, they did distribute the apps included in the system, and Google told them to not do that. So they asked if distributing them separately was OK, and Google said yes.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[PickyH3D]

As a developer that forks over the source code upon each release of a product to our customers, my only thought is that maybe they should try finishing it before they release it onto people's devices?

I know. Crazy thought.

Anything else is just an excuse.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[shutdown -p now]

So long as it's open enough to make third-party replacement for the stock OS on any Android device, it's open enough for me.

This also requires the device manufacturer to release all their bits, which doesn't always happen - so not all Android devices are created equal. But the only ask to Google is that they do their part. When it comes to manufacturers, I'll vote with my wallet.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[shutdown -p now]

It's relatively worse for developers, but I don't think there is a huge difference for users. And selection is pretty wide, definitely quite enough for a casual or even power user.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[shutdown -p now]

Maybe but WP7 and WP7.5 are playing catch up still. They are not better than IOS or Android so they are a fail.

It really depends on your requirements. For most people on /. - myself included - this is probably true. For someone who has a lot of contacts on Live Messenger and/or Facebook Chat, seamless integration of that with SMS in a single unified messaging flow in Mango (not unlike what Nokia did in N900 with Skype) is kinda nice, and I would imagine that there are quite a few people like that out there. On the other hand, if you use something else (e.g. GTalk in my case), it's pretty hard to find a decent third-party app, unlike iOS - and if you do, it'll always feel second-class to stock native apps.

I think part of it was that they where Eurocentric.

Nokia wasn't so much Eurocentric as it was rest-of-the-world-centric - they're also very strong in all ex-USSR countries, India, most of Africa, and most of Asia excepting Korea and Japan.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[amRadioHed]

The whole code base wasn't crap, they finished the tablet support before they released any Honeycomb tablets. The phone support was entirely broken however, and you'll note that no phones were released with the software yet. Now that the code is finished they will finally release both the phones and the source code.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[amRadioHed]

Well, that's unfortunate that they had to wait a few months longer, but that's life. I wanted a pony and I'm still waiting.

Of course the people wanting to run open software on their tablets instead of bitching could have just gone ahead and installed one of the more open alternatives like iOS or WebOS. Oh wait, no they couldn't because those are far worse, never have been OSS and likely never will be.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[mrsmiggs]

A number of companies disagree with this viewpoint; Amazon, Baidu, QQ and Alibaba have all forked or modfied Android beyond recognition. Nokia could have taken a similar route providing it's own app store and making it a complete no-brainer for developers to upload their apps to Nokia's market too. Sure it's not a pure Android solution but it would have allowed Nokia to maintain it's own user interface design and uniqueness in the market while tapping into a wider ecosystem.

Instead Nokia choose to join hand in hand with Microsoft and as far as I can lose their uniqueness in the market place while at the same time marrying their success to that of Windows Phone. While it might be easier and cheaper for Nokia to pick up Windows Phone they've lost the opportunity to make their product stand out while still tapping into the underlying application development created for Android. Clearly the fee and attention paid to them by Microsoft was what really cut to the chase.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[LWATCDR]

You kind pointed out what I think was Microsofts big mistake. Had they offered ZunePass on Android as well as their other services I feel that would have done really well.
But taking your example the majority of the techie crowd that fits your description has already found solutions that work for them on Android and IOS. Once you are part of the ecosystem jumping is less likely. Those that are not techie will ask their techie friends and they will mostly suggest IOS or Android.
The Nokia faithful are hurt and upset so it will be interesting to see how they go. Microsoft had one chance it make a big splash with WP7. They had blew it with WM 6.5 and frankly WP7 was nothing but a yawn. Part of the problem was that in the US nobody was going to make WP7 a Hero device. AT&T made the iPhone it's hero device, Verizon made the Droid it's hero device. Sprint tried to make the Palm Pre it's hero device but then went with the Evo when it came out. TMobile had the Sidekick, then the G1, and then the Nexus lines as it's hero devices. Today the US carriers are invested in Android and IOS. I doubt that have the desire or resources to push WP7 at this time.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[q.kontinuum]

The problem remains that they won't have access to latest source code, since the source is apparently opened after the lead devices are already on the market. Nokia would not be able to sell phones with latest version of Android with this approach.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[Anonymous Coward]

Nokia owns Navteq (they sell map data). With focus on Android this asset would be wasted. They provide an offline navigation software.

And instead of wasting navteq (which i doubt as you as europeans know what roaming costs are) they chose to waste the complete end-to-end phone selling business by adopting a dying ecosystem. - Brilliant.

Honeycomb

[NoobixCube]

The only reason they didn't release the Honeycomb source wasn't because of some shift to evilly exploiting the open source community (*cough* DARWIN), it was because it really really wasn't intended for phones. Google likely didn't want manufacturers hacking it into running on phones and giving a largely unsatisfactory experience. They always said this, and people still suspected Google of shifty evil motives. The ICS source being the unification of phone and tablet branches should keep people happy for a while...

Re:Honeycomb

[julesh]

The only reason they didn't release the Honeycomb source wasn't because of some shift to evilly exploiting the open source community (*cough* DARWIN), it was because it really really wasn't intended for phones.

Fine. However, as the owner of a v2.2 tablet whose manufacturer never released a software update, I'd have appreciated the opportunity to update it myself...

Re:Honeycomb

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't understand this approach, the industry standard approach of combating that sort of problem is by having a trademark policy. Want to use our code, fuck it up and deploy it? Fine, just don't ruin our brand. If you want to use "Android" trademark then your implementation must do X, Y and Z if not then make your own brand and soil that instead.

Re:Honeycomb

[A12m0v]

Most 2.x tablets can't be upgraded to 3.x, Google saved you wasted time.

Re:Honeycomb

[PhunkySchtuff]

Open Source doesn't mean "I'll release the source for this because I think it's useful to you" or "I'll not release the source to this, because we don't want you to hurt yourself, even though we're claiming that it's as easy as "mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git. kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make""

Open Source means you release the source. Plain and simple.

Re:Honeycomb

[amRadioHed]

Yeah, ok and Honeycomb wasn't open sourced. Google doesn't deny that, but they give clear reasons for it and there never has been any reason to believe that when the code base was fixed in ICS the source wouldn't be released again. You may not agree with their decision, but they have arguably valid reasons and aren't violating any licensees so it's entirely their decision to make.

Re:Honeycomb

[PhunkySchtuff]

Personally, I agree with their decisions. If something's going to be crap, don't release it until it's fixed.
Don't be taking a holier-than-thou stance and say you're open and the competition is closed though.

Re:Honeycomb

[Imbrondir]

I think the confusion is between Open Source, and Open Development.

The id Tech engines are usually released as open source after several years in use as closed source. But when it's released it's still 100% "Open Source".

Re:Honeycomb

[marcello_dl]

If your only issue is preventing people from tying the android name to bad user experiences, why not simply defend the trademark and release the free stack under a different name? worked for apple, and worked for java, who didn't even bother changing name.

Re:Honeycomb

[Anonymous Coward]

I won't call it evil, but I strongly believe the source wasn't opened so as to stop lesser-known manufacturers from competing with the ones Google rely on (aka China and India).
If China/India were to join in the tablet market with cheap Honeycomb tablets, it will likely create a negative first impression for Android on tablets (poor hardware).

Re:Honeycomb

[shellbeach]

Don't be taking a holier-than-thou stance and say you're open and the competition is closed though.

Except that they are holier than either Apple or MS -- they are releasing their code base as open source (and not doing anything to stop AOSP-based ROMs).

And here's the thing: even if Google turned around tomorrow and said that they were never going to release any more source code, period, it wouldn't matter: people such as the CM team would continue to develop the existing code, and we'd still have a fully-functional open sourced phone OS running on top of linux. That used to be every geek's dream five years ago, and we've got it in spades. You don't need any closed source (Google) code to run a fully-functional Android system -- the only things you'll miss out on without the Google apps is a native Gmail client (which doesn't matter, as you still get the native email client OSS) and the Market (which doesn't matter because you can side-load apps, and even use a marketplace like GetJar's if you want to have a market interface). There is no way you could claim that iOS or WP7 provide anything like this level of openness or freedom.

To me, that's worth a few brownie points for Google any day, and Android definitely gets my vote in the OS-of-choice awards.

Re:Honeycomb

[betterunixthanunix]

They were not exploiting the open source community, they just wanted to control how people use their software!

Re:Honeycomb

[drinkypoo]

OK, then you don't agree with their decisions, you agree with one of their decisions, the decision not to release. They also made the decision to lie about whether Android was open.

If they don't retroactively release those sources, they are lying scum.

Re:Honeycomb

[Anonymous Coward]

U Self-Righteous Bro?

Re:Honeycomb

[georgesdev]

let's see ios5's source

Re:Honeycomb

[andydread]

Hey! Apple claims their operating system is open source and Apple drones will gladly remind anyone that Darwin is open source. I would venture to say that Android source code is a whole lot more usable than Darwin by a terribly long shot. So your droning for Apple is quite transparent. Google is OPEN and Apple is closed. You are not going to come here and convince anyone that Google is lying about being open. Google releases actual usable code. Google released open codecs etc. I don't know of any project that Apple initiated that is open. Webkit,Darwin,Cups were not initiated by Apple. So your attempt to put Google in a bad light here is failing horribly. Only the Apple/MS choir agrees with you.

Re:Honeycomb

[laffer1]

And google decided that all vendors weren't willing to put in the time to make it ready for a phone. If it were really open source, they could have trusted the community to do it right. If not, well they should make their own hardware like apple does then.

Re:Honeycomb

[Anonymous Coward]

Most 2.x tablets can't be upgraded to 3.x, Google saved you wasted time.

Says who?

Re:Honeycomb

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason they didn't release the Honeycomb source wasn't because of some shift to evilly exploiting the open source community (*cough* DARWIN), it was because it really really wasn't intended for phones. Google likely didn't want manufacturers hacking it into running on phones and giving a largely unsatisfactory experience. They always said this, and people still suspected Google of shifty evil motives. The ICS source being the unification of phone and tablet branches should keep people happy for a while...

Oh I see. So 'open source' means 'use it only as we see fit' and not 'use it however you want'. I'll keep that in mind in the future when some of the pundits on this board start equating open source with freedom, or complaining about Apple putting restrictions on how people use their devices or software.

Re:Honeycomb

[athrian]

Hey! Apple claims their operating system is open source and Apple drones will gladly remind anyone that Darwin is open source. I would venture to say that Android source code is a whole lot more usable than Darwin by a terribly long shot. So your droning for Apple is quite transparent. Google is OPEN and Apple is closed. You are not going to come here and convince anyone that Google is lying about being open. Google releases actual usable code. Google released open codecs etc. I don't know of any project that Apple initiated that is open. Webkit,Darwin,Cups were not initiated by Apple. So your attempt to put Google in a bad light here is failing horribly. Only the Apple/MS choir agrees with you.

I want you to go back and re-read your post, and imagine someone else made a post about Apple using the same tone and level of emotion in their defense. You'd probably call them an 'Apple drone' or something along those lines, and that's exactly how you sound about Google.

Re:Honeycomb

[Tharsman]

That is a fake excuse. No phone maker will release a phone without Google's blessing since doing so prevents them from adding the Android Market, marketing it as Android, or including any other Google branded service.

I think it was more of one of these two reasons:
A) Honeycomb was a hacked mess they were embarassed about
B) They fared some one **cough Amazon* would grab the raw OS, fork it and manage to establish a successfull Tablet line before they managed to gain ground.

Re:Honeycomb

[drb226]

There's more to "Open" than just "Open source". For example, suppose I want to make an iPhone app. I need to buy a mac, and use xcode. Android is clearly more "open" in regard to developer tools.

Re:Honeycomb

[DragonWriter]

Fine. However, as the owner of a v2.2 tablet whose manufacturer never released a software update, I'd have appreciated the opportunity to update it myself...

The version of Android which includes 3.0+ features but is designed to run on most devices that met the requirements for Android 2.x is 4.0.

Which Google has announced that they will release as open source.

So it sounds like you'll have that opportunity.

Re:Honeycomb

[tangent3]

There's a huge difference between lying and changing your mind.

Re:Honeycomb

[DragonWriter]

And google decided that all vendors weren't willing to put in the time to make it ready for a phone. If it were really open source, they could have trusted the community to do it right. If not, well they should make their own hardware like apple does then.

There's quite a lot of excluded middle between the open development model (which you confuse here with "open source") and the OS manufacturer making their own exclusive hardware (both Microsoft's Windows CE/Mobile/Phone internal-development, closed-source, but rely on third-party hardware vendors approach, and Google's internal-development, open-source-most-of-the-time, work-with-a-network-of-vendors-that-actually-own-Android model are among the many possible models that are neither Apple's internal-closed-do-everything-yourself model or a pure open-development, open-source model.)

The Google/OHA model with Android appears reasonably successful in the real world, so I'm not really clear on what justification you think you have for arguing that if they aren't using the open-development, open-source model they should instead use Apple's model rather than the model they are currently using.

Re:Honeycomb

[DragonWriter]

Open Source means you release the source. Plain and simple.

Well, actually, it means that the source is released under an open source license. Which Google has done with all versions of Android prior to Honeycomb, and has announced plans to do with Ice Cream Sandwich.

So, all pre-Honeycomb versions of Android are open source, and Ice Cream Sandwich will be open source, and Honeycomb is not and will not be open source.

Re:Honeycomb

[Belial6]

Really? "lying scum" for not releasing the source of one old version? I think you are setting your bar for defining someone as "scum" a little low to successfully function in society.

Re:Honeycomb

[scot4875]

No, the confusion is some people being willingly dumb -- mainly people with some sort of irrational fear or hatred of Google, or overzealous open source advocates.

What I wonder is how long we'll keep hearing this stupidity. When Android 6 comes out in 3-5 years and Google releases the source, will people *still* be bitching about "oh remember that one time they DIDN'T release the code when they said they wouldn't? They're EVIL!"

--Jeremy

Re:Honeycomb

[Belial6]

I think your to reasons are likely correct. Google pretty much openly admitted that they were embarassed about the hacked mess that was hiding under Honeycomb's UI. They wrote Honeycomb to function. Not to be maintainable or clean.

On the other not, there are phones without Android Market, as well as tablets. If you look through here, you will see that the phones are available. The issue is that no US carrier would sell a phone that doesn't have Android market.

Re:Honeycomb

[Anonymous Coward]

"use it only as we see fit" and "use it however you want" both apply to different licenses of free/open source software. The GPL is "use it only as we see fit" and BSD-based licenses (like most of Android) are "use it however you want"

If it's not released at all, like with Honeycomb, the comparison is basically meaningless because in that case it's "you can't use it at all"

Re:Honeycomb

[drinkypoo]

I think you are setting your bar for defining someone as "scum" a little low to successfully function in society.

You may or may not have noticed that I am a gmail user. That invalidates your comment, as if being posted by you were insufficient.

Re:Honeycomb

[bill_mcgonigle]

Personally, I agree with their decisions. If something's going to be crap, don't release it until it's fixed.

It was OK for tablets, but crap for phones. So they released it for tablets.

Sounds like you wanted ICS to be done 9 months ago. And a puppy?

Re:Honeycomb

[bill_mcgonigle]

I'm sorry, I was reading two comments together and misunderstood. The reply wasn't appropriate.

Re:Honeycomb

[Vintermann]

It is in general a problem that the device manufacturers are totally, 100% willing to destroy the commons (the Android ecosystem and its reputation) for an advantage to themselves. Google only has two tools to restrain them, so it has to use them all for what it's worth:

1. Delaying release of source code, giving the most compliant early access.
2. Making demands in order to allow pre-installation of Google's apps (GMail, Maps, etc.)

Re:Honeycomb

[Belial6]

Neither of those sentences make any sense in context of the discussion.

Re:Honeycomb

[Anonymous Coward]

If modding community can hack together decent Honeycomb custom ROMs (mind you without access to the Honeycomb source ) that is a sure sign that 2.2 tablet can be easily upgraded. Most of Android tablets are spec wise similar to the desktops 10 years ago + some dedicated hardware for the video processing. Also keep in mind that you are not doing anything mind blowing with this rectangular object.

It is simply a question of economics. Manufacturers don't want to push Google and hardware platform developers (like Nvidia) because now they can try to sell to the same people the new shiny tablets with Honeycomb and then yet another slew of the devices with Ice Cream Sandwich. Manufacturers have no incentives to upgrade because every upgrade is a lost sale. Planned obsolescence is great for them.

Re:Honeycomb

[shutdown -p now]

Frankly (as an owner of a Honeycomb tablet, and a different one before it), it was crap for tablets, too. I fully believe Google when they say that it was such a mess that they didn't want to release it.

Re:Honeycomb

[PhunkySchtuff]

And therein is the point that people are making. Sure, it may not be release-worthy, but if it's not released then it's not as open as Google claim it is.
Like I said, I don't personally have a problem with that - if it's that bad I probably wouldn't release it either, but then I couldn't turn around and tell everyone how open my system was.

Re:Honeycomb

[shutdown -p now]

I don't know; was Google actually telling everyone how open Honeycomb was?

In truth, the question of whether Android is open simply cannot be answered by a single "yes" or "no" these days. You always have to clarify the version, at the very minimum. In practice, since you're going to run it on some physical device, you also need to clarify whether the device itself is open (no locked bootloaders etc).

Re:Honeycomb

[mdielmann]

As per the GPL, you don't need to release the source if you don't release the compiled code. If they had a development version which was never released, you wouldn't have any right to request the source.

Developing one thing as Open Source doesn't mean you're obligated to release every piece of code you produce as open source.

Some software which is labelled as open, rather than free, doesn't obligate you to do anything with the code, except include licensing text, re. BSD.

Frankly, open source isn't simple, unless you live in a kindergarten world. I'm sure Google's team of lawyers made sure that what they were doing wasn't illegal. And just because you don't agree with their decision doesn't make it wrong.

Re:Honeycomb

[julesh]

Finally, yes. However, as my device isn't a phone, and apparently the only problem with 3.0 is that phone functionality was broken, I don't think there was any valid reason I couldn't have had the opportunity months ago.

Re:Honeycomb

[drinkypoo]

Neither of those sentences make any sense in context of the discussion.

That is entirely incorrect; neither of those sentences make any sense outside of the context of the discussion. I clearly do not think that Google is all bad, or I wouldn't use gmail, especially in light of my many and loud arguments that all Sonys are Sony and so on; all Google products are just another branch of Google inseparable from anything else Google is doing. You have been astoundingly wrong in this thread so far, care to go another round?

Is this the same source code?

[sunr2007]

I want to know whether this is same source code which was used by samsung+google to built galaxy nexus? or there is difference in the builds? . If its the same source code , then can i recomplile and flash to my phone? If i cannot then how its open source. see, for e.g., Linux kernel is open source .i can always over write my kernel from the distro by downloading the source from kernel.org. can i do the same with android?

Re:Is this the same source code?

[petman]

Why are your questions in the present tense? The source code hasn't been released yet, so you should pose your questions in the future tense. Try again.

Re:Is this the same source code?

[somersault]

The source does exist in the present, even if it's not been released. Also, English clearly isn't his first language, so you could cut him a little slack..

Re:Is this the same source code?

[brian.swetland]

Yes, the ICS tree that will be released to AOSP is the same code used to do the build for Galaxy Nexus (among other products).

Instructions on building for Galaxy Nexus will likely end up here (alongside Nexus S):
http://source.android.com/source/building-devices.html

The handful of closed source userspace pieces necessary (some firmware, the hardware opengl libraries, samsung radio library, etc) will end up here:
http://code.google.com/android/nexus/drivers.html
(please disregard the unfortunate use of "drivers" here -- all the kernel drivers are GPLv2, none are closed source)

What's not included is the Google Mobile Apps (gmail, gcalendar, gtalk, maps, etc). These are proprietary Google applications, not part of the core Android platform (which consists of the lower level libraries, dalvik vm, framework libraries, services, core apps like phone, contacts, launcher, settings, etc, etc).

Re:Is this the same source code?

[shellbeach]

Assuming it's like Gingerbread, then yes and yes. Depending on your phone, you will probably need hardware drivers for some things, though (for which, just as with any linux distribution, you'll have to speak to the hardware manufacturers or wait until a compatible ROM is released by the phone manufacturer).

for e.g., Linux kernel is open source .i can always over write my kernel from the distro by downloading the source from kernel.org. can i do the same with android?

That's possibly not the best example for you to pick -- are you aware that Android runs on top of the linux kernel, and that you can build and install your own custom kernel on your Android system if you want?? But yes, you can download the full android source from here and build your own AOSP ROM should you so wish.

Of course, you could have found this out by using the search engine of your choice rather than trolling /. -- googling for "android source" brings up the relevant link on the first hit.

Re:Is this the same source code?

[Anonymous Coward]

Brian: As a Googler I read yours posts on the various internal mailing lists and concluded a long ago that you are a fucking idiot like the rest of the Android developers. Go keep sucking Andy Rubin's cock.

Re:Is this the same source code?

[petman]

My post was not a gibe at his grammar. My point was, why is he asking about recompiling and flashing from the source code when it had not even been released yet?

Re:Is this the same source code?

[somersault]

Because the manufacturers already have access to the source, and he wants to know: when it's released, will he will be able to recompile the released source, flash it to his phone and have it work?

(the answer is obviously yes, as long as he has the binary drivers from his original install, and doesn't change how the system interfaces with those drivers)

"Soon" ?

[Rexdude]

What's with the superfluous air quotes? It's not like there's any ambiguity in Google's statement. At least wait for the devices to hit the market before judging them.

Re:"Soon" ?

[julesh]

I think the general idea is that quotation marks have been used because the word's a quotation. May be wrong, but that was just the impression I got.

Re:"Soon" ?

[Rexdude]

By itself the word soon doesn't seem rather quote worthy. Putting it in air quotes makes it sound as though it's completely vague. They have said it will be released once ICS based devices hit the market, not in a 'When it's done' sense that the Duke Nukem Forever team used to say when asked about the game's release.

Re:"Soon" ?

[djmurdoch]

Those aren't "air quotes". Those are quotes. "Air quotes" are the ones you do with your fingers.

Re:"Soon" ?

[Wovel]

They may mean you are using a word in an unusual way. In that case, you should only use quotes the first time.

To their disadvantage

[Anonymous Coward]

They could actually benefit from having independent developers review their code before it gets deployed on millions of devices. Fixing any leaks now should be easier, cheaper, safer and less damaging for their reputation than doing so later.

I think Google does not understand open source

[Errol backfiring]

Why wait till the software is stable? Even if you do believe in the myth that software ever is finished enough, isn't the one of the purposes of open source to have a few extra eyeballs to check if it is mature? There are zillions of real open source projects with both stable versions for everyday use and current state for development. Why does Google think Andoid is any different?

Re:I think Google does not understand open source

[somersault]

Did you even read the summary? They haven't said anything about making sure it's stable (which doesn't mean they haven't done so, before any trolls leap on that), but they have said they're waiting until the devices are released. Probably because they don't want people's first impression of Ice Cream Sandwich to be a barely functional custom ROM with half the drivers missing.

Re:I think Google does not understand open source

[petman]

Android is different because Google is making money out of it. Most open source projects are released for free, so if users have bad experience with it and stop using it, there's no real impact to the developers. On the other hand, if people use half-baked releases of Android and have bad experience, they might switch to other platforms and Google would lose out in terms of profit.

Re:I think Google does not understand open source

[amRadioHed]

There is no rule that Google has to follow any particular model of open sourcing. Many open source projects have open development with stable and unstable branches. I think that's the best way to go, but that's not the way Google does things. Google knew that the Honeycomb source was entirely broken for most devices, so they didn't exactly need any outside sources pointing that out.

Re:I think Google does not understand open source

[Anonymous Coward]

The myth of software being ever finished enough?
False dichotomy much? (Also: Universal absolutism much.)

Have you ever even used a spiral-model-like approach? Of course it can be "finished enough". At the precise point when the worth of the improvement doesn't justify the cost anymore. Plain and simple. But that's an individual thing everyone decides for himself. So when you must think in universal absolutes, "finished enough" and "not finished enough" will look like they are in a state of superposition, which you resolve by only allowing your very own "it's never ever good enough" extremist view.

It's the exact same thing with any piece of art or work: There is a moment when you decide that it's not worth it anymore, and move on to things that are giving you more.

Your problem is that you think in extremist black-and-white universal absolutes. (Otherwise knows as FOXthink) In reality, things are relative and have a gradient. (Except for the quantization in quantum physics and the speed of light apparently.)

Re:I think Google does not understand open source

[Superken7]

It is clearly not about that, I think you misunderstood the reasons behind this move.

This is about preventing the "Android ecosystem" to go berzerk with incompatibilities if systems based on Honeycomb's source code start appearing. I think they have done the right thing. A binary release and a source code release are different things, you can't just release the source just because it "runs". Especially not when it is a platform that should remain compatible and backwards-compatible.

Re:I think Google does not understand open source

[mrpacmanjel]

The last thing you need is the platform to fragment and then start catering for different versions of the software........oops too late!

Re:I think Google does not understand open source

[Superken7]

"framented" is very ambiguous. You are twisting the meaning. Android remains compatible between versions. You can totally take a binary that was compiled for Android 1.0 and have it run under an Android 4.0 just fine.

About *new* features, you can't really do anything if someone is running something old. Same thing happens with new APIs for hardware that does not exist on older phones. You can't do much about it.
Yes, Android is fragmented in that many phones are running old versions. And it is not fragmented in the sense that every Android phone has run a test suite that ensures compatibility between versions.

I still don't understand why people blame Google for not releasing the source when the source release is NOT ready. Instead, they think Google is plotting to make Android close source. Even while they repeatedly say that this is temporary because they took shortcuts, which would make the open source release irresponsible because it might break the platform.

Re:I think Google does not understand open source

[whisper_jeff]

Did you even read the summary?

You must be new here.

Re:I think Google does not understand open source

[RasputinAXP]

You're all new here.

Re:I think Google does not understand open source

[betterunixthanunix]

Most open source projects are released for free, so if users have bad experience with it and stop using it, there's no real impact to the developers.

Except that they lose people who might potentially report minor bugs or even contribute small patches. "Users are developers" is pretty much the central tenet of the open source movement.

On the other hand, if people use half-baked releases of Android and have bad experience, they might switch to other platforms and Google would lose out in terms of profit.

Google could just as easily use trademark laws to accomplish this goal -- that is what Mozilla does, that is what Red Hat does, etc. The problem is that Google's decision makers does not "get" the "open source" concept.

Re:I think Google does not understand open source

[andydread]

Google admitted they didn't need the few extra eyeballs to tell them that he code sucked so no need to open it at that point since they already admitted the code sucked and the code was a stop-gap until it was fixed and released as ICS. Your trolling attempt is pathetic.

Re:I think Google does not understand open source

[JanneM]

"You're all new here."

Whippersnapper.

Re:I think Google does not understand open source

[DragonWriter]

Why wait till the software is stable? Even if you do believe in the myth that software ever is finished enough, isn't the one of the purposes of open source to have a few extra eyeballs to check if it is mature?

That's one thing some people release things as open source to gain, but its not the only reason people use open source, and its possible to use open source without that even being part of the motivation.

Re:I think Google does not understand open source

[David Gould]

Are we still doing this?

Wut?

[DrXym]

This information was supplied the last time /. shrilly made a story out of nothing concerning the source code. If within a few weeks there is no sign of the source then there is a story. For the time being I expect Google have enough on their plate just reinstating the old source code on new servers that they want to make sure that is working before moving all the 4.0 stuff over.

I think you do not understand Google ;-)

[q.kontinuum]

Google wants to make money with their services. Therefore they need to make sure that manufacturers do not integrate competing services. To achieve this they need to make it a condition for using Android. But this is only possible as long as Android is not open source. So in return for not integrating competing services, Google offers the source code (half) a year earlier to complying manufacturers, making sure that unfriendly devices will always be at least a year behind.

DISCLAIMER: I work for Nokia, so I'm biased. But here I state my personal opinion only. Statements are only made based on public available information.

Re:I think you do not understand Google ;-)

[Errol backfiring]

Silly me ;) I thought Google was proud to introduce an open source OS when it was introduced? And now it is not open source and comes closer to abandonware. I'm confused.

Re:I think you do not understand Google ;-)

[Anonymous Coward]

ALL human beings lie, exaggerate, and embellish to suit their needs...

Are you REALLY naive enough to think corporations run by humans wouldn't "spin" the truth in their favor?

Re:I think you do not understand Google ;-)

[q.kontinuum]

You, sir, are a liar! SCNR

Since it's Google it's alright then!

[mrpacmanjel]

So let me get this straight.

Google say something like "honeycomb source wll be released 'at some point in the future'" while specific hardware manufacturers get access to the source code for their devices - interestingly "cheap"/smaller (e.g chinese) brands do not(?).

Google now say "we won't bother releasing the source code for honeycomb".

Google then say "we'll release the source code to ICS - but not yet" - specific hardware manufacturers get access to the source code. Everyone else has to wait.

Google's definition stretches the idea of "Open source" to it's limits. It's very "orwellian" - "some people are more equal than others"

I get the feeling that manufacturers are putting pressure on Google to protect their markets. You can't have "just anyone" producing android devices with the latest features.

It must be just me but generally with open source software everyone gets access to the source code in its current state. If you want a working, "predictable" version then you download the "stable" branch.

Google + android = open source fail.

At least with Apple you generally know where you stand.........(what did I just say!??)

Re:Since it's Google it's alright then!

[Anonymous Coward]

....(what did I just say!??)

Bullshit ofc :P

You are nitpicking about how Google decides to open source android, then in the end you compare Apple's model (a closed source one where you never ever get the code), favorably. Your post fails logic.

Re:Since it's Google it's alright then!

[msevior]

Google + android = open source fail.

At least with Apple you generally know where you stand.........(what did I just say!??)

Steve Jobs says:'I'm going to destroy Android': - Jobs declared 'thermonuclear war' on Google

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/im-going-to-destroy-android-jobs-declared-thermonuclear-war-on-google-20111021-1mbaq.html#ixzz1bPhM8NJY

Now the source code to android is open everyone on the planet can get IOS features (and more). We're way ahead because of Google.

No need to be an apologist for Apple. They've got enough cash to keep you in new shiny gadgets for at least 10 years. The rest of us can build and play with linux and android.

Re:Since it's Google it's alright then!

[Superken7]

You fail big time at common sense.

They did not release the source code for Honeycomb because it was not ready. Why would they release the "incomplete" source code in the future, when its obsolete?

Do you REALLY want to nitpick about Google not releasing the previous, broken source code version which they did not release for a reason in the first place?

Google will release the source code to ICS a few days after it has been released on hardware, just as they almost always do.

Why do people always think about those crazy conspiracy theories when past indicates that they DO release the source code shortly after the new handsets release, and google has always been true to their word in this respect? With other releases they told us the source was coming shortly, and it came. With Honeycomb they told is the source was NOT coming until the next release, and so it was. And now they are telling us the source is coming shortly, and people speculate about there being evil intentions behind all that. Pity.

Re:Since it's Google it's alright then!

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool story bro.

Enjoy being Google's product, I'll continue to be Apple's customer.

Re:Since it's Google it's alright then!

[drinkypoo]

Now the source code to android is open everyone on the planet can get IOS features (and more). We're way ahead because of Google.

NO, Now the source code to android is closed to everyone on the planet. They're not releasing ICS, and they haven't released Honeycomb. You are simply wrong, like everyone else in this thread claiming Android has been Open Source since 2.x. No, it was Open Source, it is currently closed, and we have only their word that this will ever change. Anyone buying an Android device while this is true is a traitor, and fuck you.

Re:Since it's Google it's alright then!

[Namarrgon]

Man, which side of who's bed did you get out of this morning?

Last I looked, the source to Gingerbread is just as open as it ever was. I'd think Amazon and B&N would agree with me. It was never open development, nor was that claimed.

ICS is not open source yet. Feel free to doubt their word if you like, but Google has committed to opening ICS a couple of weeks after the Galaxy Nexus is released, and to be quite honest, ranting that some organisation hasn't given you enough of the source they bought, paid for and developed themselves and have freely given in the past, just comes across as childish. Don't like their development approach? Do your own, or fork theirs (and give them some credit for it).

Re:Since it's Google it's alright then!

[drinkypoo]

ICS is not open source yet.

And yet, if you remove the word "yet" from your sentence, it is more accurate. You don't know yet that it actually ever WILL be, you have only google's word for that.

I don't trust google any more

[evanism]

Open source, going to do this, going to do that. I get the very real feeling google are fundamentallyy failing at what they are trying to project.

They are a company seeking profits, for the sake of their shareholders. I sincerely doubt they are doing anything for the users, it's all lip service and marketing PR spin.

Re:I don't trust google any more

[Anonymous Coward]

You get the 'very real feeling' but where is the evidence to support it?

Re:I don't trust google any more

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno man, he has a 'very real feeling', maybe it was something he ate? :o}

Re:I don't trust google any more

[Anonymous Coward]

They are a company seeking profits, for the sake of their shareholders. I sincerely doubt they are doing anything for the users, it's all lip service and marketing PR spin.

Yes, but not just that: open source code means more innovation, more handset makers being involved in the project, and plenty of stuff like watches, car radios and other stuff using the same code. Which, in turn, means more developers for Android.

What you fail to see is that making the code open source is not (only) a PR spin, it's in the very interest of Google, their profits and shareholders. That's free, open source software making money and being profitable. Don't believe me? Just ask Mr Ballmer why Windows Phone miserably failed.

Re:I don't trust google any more

[Anonymous Coward]

But they do it oh so well! And that's why we continue using their products ...

Re:I don't trust google any more

[Anonymous Coward]

set tinfoil_hat_on = 1

Re:I don't trust google any more

[LWATCDR]

tinfoilhat.set(true);
Please if you are going to be paranoid at least use POOP "Paranoid Object Oriented Programming"!

I Can't Believe...

[X3J11]

I can't believe Slashdots readers are really as stupid as the last few posts about the Android source are making them appear to be.

Google was clear that Honeycomb's code was not going to be released because they did not want people attempting to shoehorn what was effectively a tablet OS on to mobile phones. End of story.

Google has also been clear that the ICS code will be released after the devices that are shipping with it roll out, which none have yet. Also end of story.

Really, has the intelligence of the average Slashdot reader fallen so low that these two simplistic statements have been rendered incomprehensible?

Re:I Can't Believe...

[betterunixthanunix]

Google was clear that Honeycomb's code was not going to be released because they did not want people attempting to shoehorn what was effectively a tablet OS on to mobile phones. End of story.

...so much for open source. Since when do "open source" software vendors try to prevent people from using their software in whatever manner they want?

Re:I Can't Believe...

[drinkypoo]

Is your intelligence so low that you don't understand that if you can't get the source, it's not Open Source? Google created an entirely not-Open-Source version of Android, and here you are to pat them on the back for it. It's almost like you're some kind of shill, but I suspect you're actually just stupid. You have so much invested in the idea that Google is the Good Witch that you refuse to accept that they have lied, engaged in fraud, et cetera. This isn't Oz and this isn't some naked titty wannabe wicca party, this is the real world, and there is no Good Witch. Just another corporation.

Re:I Can't Believe...

[Namarrgon]

Way to prove the GP's point.

The source to Gingerbread is still Apache-licenced, and is still open. Nobody, not even Google, is preventing anyone from using it in any way. Ask Amazon.

Honeycomb is not open, and never was. Deal with it. We now have a firm commitment that ICS will be opened. It's another free gift to the community - why are you so upset that you weren't given more free gifts? Do you realise how much like a spoiled brat that makes you sound?

Re:I Can't Believe...

[Namarrgon]

[citation needed]. Links to lies, fraudulent claims etc please.

Or are you just assuming that using the term "Open Source" is some sort of binding contract for the developer to turn over any and all future source code, regardless of the state of completion? Are you confusing the Apache licence with the GPL, maybe?

The insults you're freely tossing around aren't helping you get your point across, I might add; kinda the opposite.

Re:I Can't Believe...

[Anonymous Coward]

You really need to take a step back and try being rational instead of emotional.

Not being an ass, just trying to get you to simmer down a bit. People can't think when their emotions get in the way...

Try looking at it this way and see if it helps you cool down at all:

Android is OSS. The Honecomb fork ... is not.

ICS continues the Android line that began with Cupcake and stopped at Gingerbread (for which the source has never ceased being available).

Re:I Can't Believe...

[SuiteSisterMary]

You're not talking about Open Source. You're talking about Public Domain.

Re:I Can't Believe...

[drinkypoo]

[citation needed]. Links to lies, fraudulent claims etc please.

Lie: Android is Open Source. Links: everywhere. Counterproof: ICS has been out for ages but the source hasn't. How can you even try to continue this conversation?

Or are you just assuming that using the term "Open Source" is some sort of binding contract for the developer to turn over any and all future source code, regardless of the state of completion?

No, "Open Source" means that whoever can get the binary can get the source. This is the sense in which SCO was open, and Sun before them; anyone who really needed the SunOS source and who had a sizable service contract could get it. But Google is currently not even that Open. They were in the past, and perhaps they will be soon, but they are not currently.

ICS is not an Open Source operating system, and it won't be until Google makes good on their promises.

Re:I Can't Believe...

[laffer1]

Well most open source projects release every version as open source. Imagine if we only got every other linux kernel opened up. Google is technically open source, but it's not "real" open source. The FSF wouldn't do this and BSD projects don't even do this.

Google's actions are fine for a commercial company, but they shouldn't get the "open source" bump for doing it half assed.

Re:I Can't Believe...

[laffer1]

The license used is irrelevant. I can download development releases of Apache HTTPD right now. It has to do with the definition of open source and what people think it means. Technically, Google is not doing anything wrong. However, most of us are used to development models like Linux, BSD, Firefox, etc. We can checkout code at any point in the development process and use it.

The form of open source google is using is what RMS is always upset about. Let's not forget components of Android releases are under the GPL.

Re:I Can't Believe...

[rcrodgers]

[citation needed]. Links to lies, fraudulent claims etc please.

Lie: Android is Open Source. Links: everywhere. Counterproof: ICS has been out for ages but the source hasn't. How can you even try to continue this conversation?

Or are you just assuming that using the term "Open Source" is some sort of binding contract for the developer to turn over any and all future source code, regardless of the state of completion?

No, "Open Source" means that whoever can get the binary can get the source. This is the sense in which SCO was open, and Sun before them; anyone who really needed the SunOS source and who had a sizable service contract could get it. But Google is currently not even that Open. They were in the past, and perhaps they will be soon, but they are not currently.

ICS is not an Open Source operating system, and it won't be until Google makes good on their promises.

You probably just tripped yourself up a bit in order to rush that reply out, but ICS hasn't been out AT ALL. Honeycomb was released earlier this year and they haven't released the source to that at all. That said, Google has now said multiple times that they will release the source to ICS once products using it have been released. There's not one released ICS product on the market at the moment. So complain about it after they Galaxy Nexus hits the shelves.

With regards to Honeycomb, I don't recall them ever actually saying that they'd release the source, though they were willing to share the release with partners that could produce sufficiently powerful hardware. Even then, I believe they *did* say they'd look at releasing the source eventually. Eventually doesn't mean last month, last week, today, tomorrow, next week, next month, or next year. It means at some point in the future. And for what it's worth, the vast majority of the changes in Honeycomb are in ICS from what I gather, so why not just be satisfied with the newer and better release once the source becomes available.

Take a breath and calm down. Having the source to tinker around with and make your own custom build isn't that important unless you're working on a product you're trying to sell to actual customers.

Re:I Can't Believe...

[drinkypoo]

You probably just tripped yourself up a bit in order to rush that reply out, but ICS hasn't been out AT ALL.

Correct. My bad. I am not an Android expert - I have no Android devices whatsoever. Android on x86 is still in its infancy or I might have one (I have a Geode-based tablet which might make a dandy though very slow Android system, which would possibly serve some of my needs.) But I'm over smartphones.

With regards to Honeycomb, I don't recall them ever actually saying that they'd release the source, though they were willing to share the release with partners that could produce sufficiently powerful hardware.

Right, but that makes it not Open Source! That's all I'm saying. Not that google is evil since that's subjective, or anything else for that matter, just that Honeycomb is not Open Source, and Honeycomb is a release of Android, and therefore you cannot say "Android is Open Source", you can only say "Most versions of Android are Open Source".

And for what it's worth, the vast majority of the changes in Honeycomb are in ICS from what I gather, so why not just be satisfied with the newer and better release once the source becomes available.

I don't actually care either way, what I care about is that people are saying things that aren't true simply because it is Google, and I want to call attention to the fact that cultism is not healthy whether it's Apple, or Google, or you're strapping on Nikes and eating pudding. Obviously that last one was thrown in to show that there's levels and then there's levels, but the blind following the bland helps nobody.

Re:I Can't Believe...

[rcrodgers]

With regards to Honeycomb, I don't recall them ever actually saying that they'd release the source, though they were willing to share the release with partners that could produce sufficiently powerful hardware.

Right, but that makes it not Open Source! That's all I'm saying. Not that google is evil since that's subjective, or anything else for that matter, just that Honeycomb is not Open Source, and Honeycomb is a release of Android, and therefore you cannot say "Android is Open Source", you can only say "Most versions of Android are Open Source".

But I think you're overlooking the fact that there are lots of open source projects run by companies that make public releases with most of their code, and then also release a closed source version with enhancements from which they make a profit. In addition, as the copyright holder of a project, you're allowed to make some portions or versions of it open source and other portions or versions closed source for whatever reason you like. I may be mistaken, but I think that Android is indeed a dual or multi license project enabling Google to do that very thing even if they weren't the copyright holder. Nonetheless, if and when ICS's source is released, Honeycomb will be irrelevant unless someone really, really, really wants to work with that older version. So I think the point of this discussion is moot.

Re:I Can't Believe...

[X3J11]

Is your intelligence so low that you don't understand that if you can't get the source, it's not Open Source? Google created an entirely not-Open-Source version of Android, and here you are to pat them on the back for it. It's almost like you're some kind of shill, but I suspect you're actually just stupid. You have so much invested in the idea that Google is the Good Witch that you refuse to accept that they have lied, engaged in fraud, et cetera. This isn't Oz and this isn't some naked titty wannabe wicca party, this is the real world, and there is no Good Witch. Just another corporation.

Is your intelligence so low that you cannot understand that Google plainly said "NO HONEYCOMB SOURCE" and gave their reason for it? Google is not the only company developing "open source" but not always/entirely releasing the code (VirtualBox comes to mind with their extension pack).

It's almost like you're some one of those morons who calls anyone who points out the idiocy of you and your ilk a shill because you've really got nothing else, but I suspect you're just stupid.

I don't claim to be a genius, but apparently my comprehension skills are superior. Nor am I a shill, and you have no idea what I think of Google beyond my repeating what they said without embellishment or praise. How you got an insightful rating for such a moronic comment is, however, beyond my comprehension. Further proof of the average Slashdot reader's declining intelligence. Perhaps I can score higher on my posts if I throw in baseless ignorant remarks, call people shills, and just to fit in with today's crowd add "lol i troll u".

Re:I Can't Believe...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except Honeycomb isn't just "another version." Honeycomb vs. Gingerbread is like Windows Server vs. Windows desktop. Android 3.0 isn't a successor to the 1.0 & 2.0 editions -- it's no better than 2.3 on phones, and it supports smth like 10/1000 Android devices.

Re:I Can't Believe...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just Another Corporation that is releasing it latest version of its OS as Open Source. Who has release prior versions of its OS as Open Source. You can get the source for those. And when the first phones start to ship you will get the soruce for 4.0

You come off as someone who feels entitlted to the source code for honeycomb. Did you develope that release or did Google develope it? Your just another taker who spams message boards asking for something. Give me this feature. Give me the source. Give me early access. Is it ready yet. Why isn't it ready yet? Blah Blagh Bla...

Re:I Can't Believe...

[Anonymous Coward]

so if i develop software offline im evil? do i upload changes after every line of code? or is it okay if i write the program THEN release the source code when its in the hands of the public?

This whole time i didn't know you had to release the sourcecode before releasing the program.

Re:I Can't Believe...

[Vintermann]

The problem here is the middleman: Device manufacturers. They would tear android apart in order to carve a niche for themselves, in addition to making it very hard for users to have control over their own phones. Android is a commons, and although it is software, it has things that can be wrecked by reckless exploitation (such as a reputation).

Re:I Can't Believe...

[bingoUV]

Since when do "open source" software vendors try to prevent people from using their software in whatever manner they want?

Since a long long time. Apple, Oracle, Microsoft, are all "open source software vendors". And they all "prevent people from using their software in whatever manner they want".

Re:I Can't Believe...

[bingoUV]

therefore you cannot say "Android is Open Source",

That's all I'm saying

No, you are saying many other things too, check your recent slashdot post history. Not to mention the things you are saying elsewhere / "elsehow" . You are a liar.

Which brings us to the point that in natural language processing, it is context that has a large impact on the meaning of any sentence. Can you point me to a public statement from Google where the context implied Android Honeycomb and Google said it is open source? All I can find is Google saying open-source in the context of phones , where all its Android OSes have been open source. Or its statements before HoneyComb was released.

Re:I Can't Believe...

[Namarrgon]

Now it'll just get bogged down into semantics. Yes, the Gingerbread release of Android is open source. No, the Honeycomb release isn't, even though binaries are. ICS isn't open source either - but, unlike Honeycomb, Google promises that this release will be. Though, technically, the recently-released SDK includes a binary release of ICS for the emulator, so you could argue that ICS is indeed released, for some values of "released", but the source isn't open.

If some releases aren't open, is the Android project itself open source? Depends on your viewpoint I guess. I'm sure there are versions of Apache (like vendor forks) which are closed; does that mean Apache itself isn't open source? Android uses the same licence, and also has closed vendor forks. Regardless, you'd have to be pretty hard-nosed to accuse a vendor of lying about an entire project being open source just because one unfinished (though released) version wasn't opened, especially when a) the licence allows it, and b) they never claimed that every version would be (they said very early on that Honeycomb would not be opened).

Also, one wonders what you've got against Google that you're accusing them of lying anyway. After all, unlike the other major smartphone OS vendors, they have at least opened all their previous releases - are you saying that's worthless? Or is your perspective really that black and white?

Re:I Can't Believe...

[Namarrgon]

You might note that all those GPL components of all Android releases are fully open, and always have been (which AFAIK is the kernel only).

Perhaps Android isn't open enough to keep RMS happy; that's his problem. I'm just thankful that Google have been donating an entire smartphone OS platform to the community (and not an obscure one either).

Scare quotes

[tepples]

"Air quotes" are scare quotes done with fingers. Perhaps Rexdude used "air quotes" because he was unaware of the term "scare quotes".

Re:Scare quotes

[drinkypoo]

Air quotes don't have to be scare quotes. You can use the gesture to indicate that you are repeating an official party line without allowing the irony into your spoken word. Useful for expressing irony without being caught. In some countries, irony might get you shot. Hell, if you kick a little too much in front of some NYPD whiteshirts, you might get punched in the face, even if you're some old lady.

Yes, everything is about politics :p

Steve wants to fscking kill Google... again.

[tepples]

Steve Jobs says:'I'm going to destroy Android'

What is it with people named Steve and wanting to destroy Google?

Dan Morrill get back on twitter!

[Snaller]

Forget about this + nonsense.

Re:Dan Morrill get back on twitter!

[Obsequious]

Nah. I like it where I am.

More irony...

[bradgoodman]

The real irony is that the one and ONLY thing I like about iOS 5 is the new notification manager.

Then I found out that that idea was completely swiped from Android!

This is not new news...

[rcrodgers]

Funny, I believe it was Andy Rubin that said that exact same thing in the announcement webcast on Tuesday night/Wednesday morning... It's odd that people don't listen the first time around...

Old Market on new CM

[tepples]

http://www.cyanogenmod.com/blog/the-current-state

According to that page, the common practice is to back up Android Market, install CM, and restore Android Market. But how likely is an Android Market application that has been backed up from a device that came with an older version of Android and restored to CM based on a much newer version of Android to run correctly?

Re:Old Market on new CM

[shutdown -p now]

I haven't ever heard of anyone complaining that his Market app wouldn't run after being restored. And, well, why wouldn't it? It's not really magical, it's just another app (as demonstrated by Amazon Appstore and other third-party Market-like apps that work exactly the same) - so it doesn't need any special hooks in the system and such.

Duke Android Nukem source code Forever

[sl4shd0rk]

I see what they are doing here with the "soon, Soon, SOON" business. The android project is obviously suffering from endless feature-creep. The project manager is trying to get the devs to implement every cool feature he sees in other systems. This is causing delays.

The android devs are clearly spending all the profits on booze, blow, hookers and Ferraris. Google will go bankrupt soon and be purchased by another mobile OS company. Said future owner will hurry-up-and-finish ICS to get the source code out the door.

"soon"?

[JustAnotherIdiot]

I had a street corner growing up that said "Gas station coming soon" for 10 years before they finally built it.
Can we get something slightly more specific?

Soon. How Soon ?

[Cutting_Crew]

Colonel Sandurz: Try here. Stop.
Dark Helmet: What the hell am I looking at? When does this happen in the movie?
Colonel Sandurz: Now. You're looking at now, sir. Everything that happens now, is happening now.
Dark Helmet: What happened to then?
Colonel Sandurz: We passed then.
Dark Helmet: When?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now. We're at now now.
Dark Helmet: Go back to then.
Colonel Sandurz: When?
Dark Helmet: Now.
Colonel Sandurz: Now?
Dark Helmet: Now.
Colonel Sandurz: I can't.
Dark Helmet: Why?
Colonel Sandurz: We missed it.
Dark Helmet: When?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now.
Dark Helmet: When will then be now?
Colonel Sandurz: Soon.
Dark Helmet: How soon?

Forgot Spinal Tap when they chose the name...

[Dogtanian]

I've been reviewing the source, and IceCream is the best thing ever since sliced bread!

Yeah, that's great and everything, but I wonder what percentage of the *negative* reviews will simply consist of the words

"Shit Sandwich".

Speculation about Market's special hooks

[tepples]

Amazon Appstore, AppsLib, Soc.io Mall, and SlideME all have that extra permission screen between downloading and installing an APK. Android Market does not; it somehow presents a custom-styled permission screen before the download begins and doesn't present one between download and install. I don't see how it can do this without special hooks into the OS.