Slashdot Mirror


Google's Definition of 'Open'

An anonymous reader writes "One of Android's biggest draws is its roots in open source. It enables a broad range of device manufacturers to work from the same code base, and provides app developers with more insight into the platform they're building on. But openness isn't a binary condition — there are many shades of gray. While Android is technically very open, from a practical standpoint it's much more difficult for device makers to distance themselves from Google, if that's their preference. 'Phone manufacturers and carriers that want to use Google's services must conform to Google's device standards, a stricter requirement than what basic AOSP requires. For some, this is a catch. For others, it's merely the cost of doing business. ... [Dianne Hackborn, one of Android's tech leads,] defends Google's right to include proprietary services, and to keep them proprietary, saying that its no different than any other proprietary app on Android. That's not entirely true, since Google does keep some API development to itself, but to its credit the company does open-source most of the new APIs introduced to Android.'"

168 comments

  1. Excelent read on Ars tech. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Google’s iron grip on Android

    Great story how Google gets it grip on Android.

    1. Re:Excelent read on Ars tech. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Great story how Google gets it grip on Android.

      However, as a counterpoint, here is a far less histrionic story which shows that AOSP is growing FASTER than Goog'es own Android, and has already easiy eclipsed iOS market share. Not to mention Nokia's Normandy phone, to be released later this month running a forked version of AOSP matched with Nokia serices rather than Google ones.

      ABI Research reports that Android once again dominated the Q4 2013 shipment numbers for smartphone advanced operating systems with 77% market share of over 280 million smartphones shipped in Q4 2013.Nearly one billion smartphones were shipped in 2013, Android accounting for 78% across the year.

      Android’s dominance is not quite as rosy as it seems though, with most of the growth coming from forked Android operating systems (137% year-on-year), mainly in China, India, and adjacent markets. Forked Android or AOSP accounted for 25% market share with 71 million unit shipments, as opposed to certified Android’s share of 52%, of a total of 77% market share.

      https://www.abiresearch.com/pr...

      For some reason, there's a concerted campaign happening to try to convince people that Google has locked up Android. It's an odd thing to pretend, and I'm wondering what their motive is?

    2. Re:Excelent read on Ars tech. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would not call anything Ron Amadeo writes "great". His articles on Ars Technica are mostly just wild speculation about what Google is doing. Most of the arguments are rebutted in a comment but Diane Hackborn (from a different article), which is mentioned in the summary.

    3. Re:Excelent read on Ars tech. by rudy_wayne · · Score: 3, Informative

      However, as a counterpoint, here is a far less histrionic story which shows that AOSP is growing FASTER than Goog'es own Android

      Except you left out the part that says AOSP is growing faster than Google Android only in China and India.

      As for the Ars Technica article, it's not histrionics to state facts:

      Google apps—mainly Gmail, Maps, Google Now, Hangouts, YouTube, and the Play Store -- are Android's killer apps, and manufacturers want these apps on their phones.

      While it might not be an official requirement, being granted a Google apps license will go a whole lot easier if you join the Open Handset Alliance. The OHA is a group of companies committed to Android—Google's Android—and members are contractually prohibited from building non-Google approved devices. Joining the OHA requires a company to promise to not build a device that runs a competing Android fork.

      Acer was bit by this requirement when it tried to build devices that ran Alibaba's Aliyun OS in China. Aliyun is an Android fork, and when Google got wind of it, Acer was told to shut the project down or lose its access to Google apps.

      This makes life extremely difficult for the only company brazen enough to sell an Android fork in the west: Amazon.

      Since the Kindle OS counts as an incompatible version of Android, no major OEM is allowed to produce the Kindle Fire for Amazon. So when Amazon goes shopping for a manufacturer for its next tablet, it has to immediately cross Acer, Asus, Dell, Foxconn, Fujitsu, HTC, Huawei, Kyocera, Lenovo, LG, Motorola, NEC, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, Toshiba, and ZTE off the list. Currently, Amazon contracts Kindle manufacturing out to Quanta Computer, a company primarily known for making laptops. Amazon doesn't have many other choices.

    4. Re:Excelent read on Ars tech. by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except you left out the part that says AOSP is growing faster than Google Android only in China and India.

      So, only in the two (potentially) largest markets in the world, then?

    5. Re:Excelent read on Ars tech. by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      Interesting yes. But is it any worse than the iron grip apple has on IOS? The grip is only there if you want to include google services. One is more than free to fork android if they choose (kindle for example) however there are no options with IOS except for those put forth by apple.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    6. Re: Excelent read on Ars tech. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, only in two of the most populous yet low margin markets.

    7. Re: Excelent read on Ars tech. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Yes, only in two of the most populous yet low margin markets."

      Low margin? On telcos' speech the low margin markets are the matured ones, USA and EU, that is.

    8. Re:Excelent read on Ars tech. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, Google prevents OEMs from making parts for Amazon? looks like Google is the new Microsoft.....

    9. Re:Excelent read on Ars tech. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      The bold part looks like something that is almost certainly illegal, as it indicates that Google is controlling a cartel. If they put that in a public license agreement, then they need to fire their entire corporate legal team.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    10. Re:Excelent read on Ars tech. by StripedCow · · Score: 1

      We just need an OS that is truly open. Like FirefoxOS.

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    11. Re:Excelent read on Ars tech. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For some reason, there's a concerted campaign happening to try to convince people that Google has locked up Android. It's an odd thing to pretend, and I'm wondering what their motive is?

      It likely originated from Microsoft. They have a history of these type of smear campaigns. Unfortunately, it always comes back to bite them in the ass.

    12. Re: Excelent read on Ars tech. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Yes, only in two of the most populous yet low margin markets."

      Low margin? On telcos' speech the low margin markets are the matured ones, USA and EU, that is.

      The telcos aren't phone manufacturers.

    13. Re:Excelent read on Ars tech. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except you left out the part that says AOSP is growing faster than Google Android only in China and India.

      Except where I directly quoted the article as saying:

      (137% year-on-year), mainly in China, India, and adjacent markets.

      As for the Ars Technica article, it's not histrionics to state facts: Google apps—mainly Gmail, Maps, Google Now, Hangouts, YouTube, and the Play Store -- are Android's killer apps

      Which is directly and immediately refuted by the 137% year-on-year growth of a version which DOES NOT HAVE Google Apps. Hence the Ars article being histrionic and very very misleading.

      Some Android competitor is determined to give the impression that Google has locked up Android. Ask yourself who that could be, and why.

    14. Re:Excelent read on Ars tech. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, Google prevents OEMs from making parts for Amazon?

      No, OP is lying.

      Companies which have joined the OHS have jointly agreed not to produce incompatible forks of Android. It's voluntary, and many OEMs haven't joined and can produce Kindles (Which shouldn't surprise anyone, as they're still on shelves and selling well).

    15. Re: Excelent read on Ars tech. by tom229 · · Score: 1

      People will bitch no matter what. Given the commercially backed alternatives, Android is by far the best option. Your only other options are completely closed source walled gardens.

      I think android using their propriety services to monetize the distribution of an open core for the entire world is genius. It resolves the corporate incentive problem the FOSS ideology has been lacking for decades.

      --
      If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    16. Re:Excelent read on Ars tech. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, OP is lying.

      Rubbish! He is absolutely correct that OEMs who are a part of the OHA are not allowed to produce devices that run incompatible forks of Android. Google forces them to either *only* support Google or to be kicked out of the OHA.

      It's voluntary, and many OEMs haven't joined and can produce Kindles (Which shouldn't surprise anyone, as they're still on shelves and selling well).

      oh fuck off, this is the same shit microsoft tried to do in the 90s "either support us only or we won't give you discounts" but google's version is "support us only or we will cut you off completely".

    17. Re:Excelent read on Ars tech. by exomondo · · Score: 1

      But is it any worse than the iron grip apple has on IOS?

      Yes, because while Apple holds a dictatorship over iOS that does mean that you don't end up with a bunch of incompatible versions. Your "Android apps" won't run on Amazon's Android or Aliyun's Android if they require proprietary (or even open but unimplemented) APIs only present in Google's Android and vice versa.

    18. Re: Excelent read on Ars tech. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      while yes it could have come from Microsoft, it is akin to what happened to them in the nineties. To use your dominant market share and make others comply with such terrible agreements is bad for markets every where. So stop complaining when proud is there is front of you.

    19. Re:Excelent read on Ars tech. by exomondo · · Score: 1

      For some reason, there's a concerted campaign happening to try to convince people that Google has locked up Android. It's an odd thing to pretend, and I'm wondering what their motive is?

      No it is that people are realising that 'Open Source' and 'Free Software' are not the same thing. If Google wants to put a proprietary layer atop Android that's fine, Android itself is still 'Open Source' even if you have proprietary applications requiring proprietary APIs running on it. In addition the development process is closed, you don't see the development branch for the next version even though it is being actively worked on unless you are part of the OHA, which isn't necessarily a problem but it's another element that differs from traditional 'Open Source' models. It is people being pedantic but also pointing out that things aren't as open as you might think they are, previously everything was open, now some old open things have been replaced with closed ones and some new things are closed...Does this matter to you? maybe. Does this matter to most people? Probably not. Will this impact companies looking to leverage the existing Android user base? Probably.

      Google hasn't locked up Android, they have only locked up the stock applications and the new application services platform. Which is really out of necessity since they need a revenue stream from somewhere and by keeping it open it is easy for anybody to cut off that revenue stream or redirect it.

  2. So, don't use Google Apps by Virtucon · · Score: 4, Informative

    You can use other apps and app markets on your android device. You don't have to use Google Search, Maps or Mail because there are free or very low cost alternatives to them and they don't have the clingy, Google scam you out of your data smell. Getting rid of them is a snap in most cases and there's literally dozens of websites that can help you do it. Sure when you get an "update" from your phone maker you'll probably get them all back again but it's easy enough to remove them or you can go with something like Cyanogenmod and never worry about it again. There are alternative AOSP based distros out there that don't have that Google smell so look around, It's really not that hard. If you've never rooted your phone or sideloaded an app or changed the OS it can be somewhat intimidating but you can also find help out there online and via local phone store kiosks (forget the pimple crowd at the Sprint, Verizon or AT&T stores) who can set you up in no time.

    I do have to say that the nicest thing about Android based phones is that there are alternatives. For example, I don't have Google Apps and use Skobbler for the navigation. It uses OpenStreetMap and I recently downloaded a couple of countries and really like the fact that I could navigate, offline.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    1. Re:So, don't use Google Apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bullshit article once again. It's almost as insane as the Ars article that I read on the subject (how could I avoid reading it when Ars' staff has been spamming its links all over the place)

      distance themselves from Google, ... that want to use Google's services

      Editors - are you so fucking blind as to not see the blatant contradiction here?

    2. Re:So, don't use Google Apps by elwinc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Agreed. For me, the big draw of standard Android is maps/navigation/traffic. Decent speech recognition is the cherry on top. Being able to whip out my phone and say "navigate to airport" is worth a lot to me. The premise of the original article, "One of Android's biggest draws is its roots in open source" just doesn't ring true for me. In fact, I doubt it's true for the vast majority of Android users. I would suggest that Android's biggest draw is the price vs feature tradeoff. I'm aware that we aren't getting the main google apps for "free" but for many people they are getting them at an acceptable price.

      --
      --- Often in error; never in doubt!
    3. Re:So, don't use Google Apps by jader3rd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The premise of the original article, "One of Android's biggest draws is its roots in open source" just doesn't ring true for me. In fact, I doubt it's true for the vast majority of Android users.

      That's true, but it kind of hurts the original Android fans. That's exactly the thing that got a lot of the early Android fans (especially the ones on Slashdot) to excited about Android. They went around telling everyone they could have a chance to talk to, to switch to Android. Their motivation was that Android was an Open Source device operating system, but knowing that no one cares, they just said 'It's better'. Now that Google has made a lot of the Android experience not fit the classic Open Source model, these early fans are feeling a bit betrayed.

    4. Re:So, don't use Google Apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just described crossing the chasm, a term made popular by a book in the 1990s, and it is a necessary step for a disruptive technology to make it long-term.

      The gist of it is, what makes a product successful early on (ie. open source in this case) will not be good enough to take that product to the next level, so you have to switch from appealing to early adopters to appealing to majority. The trick is to know what appeals to the majority and when the right time to do it is.

    5. Re:So, don't use Google Apps by brunes69 · · Score: 0

      Anyone who thinks Android is not open source has done no real research on the subject at all. If you want to see Open Source android, then download CyanogenMod. Or any one of dozens of other 100% open source roms.

    6. Re:So, don't use Google Apps by msobkow · · Score: 2

      How does Google's implementation not fit the "classic" open source model?

      The source code is free. You can modify it. You can build your own installer pre-configured to use alternative services. You can roll your own services if you like. You can download and install apps from any app store you choose to point your phone at.

      The default is Google's implementation of those services and apps. But you're free to change it.

      I don't see the conflict with open source "traditions" at all -- the deployment of services and maintenance were always at the option of "for fee" in the Open Source World. Even the GPL never objected to the idea of charging for services and deployments, just not for the software itself.

      As far as I'm concerned, the whole article is just more Google-bashing and whinging from freetards who think that everything should be free. Well, it's not. Get over it, get off your ass, and roll your own distro and installer.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    7. Re:So, don't use Google Apps by evilviper · · Score: 1

      For me, the big draw of standard Android is maps/navigation/traffic.

      You don't need Google services for that, Android, or even a smart phone for that matter. MapQuest is free for Android and iOS. And some stand-alone GPS devices are providing free "lifetime traffic" support with fairly inexpensive devices, no doubt to compete with phones:

      Garmin: "Lifetime Traffic is included with select Advanced series nüvis."

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    8. Re:So, don't use Google Apps by exomondo · · Score: 1

      How does Google's implementation not fit the "classic" open source model?

      At a guess I would say the development process. Where's the development branch being worked on for the next version of AOSP?

    9. Re:So, don't use Google Apps by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      GPL never objected to charging for software. For the longest time, you could have bought everything the GNU foundation put out, on tape, for $495.

      GNU/Stallman had also publicly stated that you can charge for software. You just have to provide the source code to the recipient as well. And not stop them from providing the source code to others.

    10. Re:So, don't use Google Apps by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      Serious question, here, not trolling:

      What does it mean for CyanogenMod, now that Google has signed off on them distributing an OEM in the Oppo?
      Do they have to follow all the Play Store non-open-source rules now?

      I've been trawling the internet looking for real analysis, and can't find anything helpful.

    11. Re:So, don't use Google Apps by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      They only have to follow the rules for ROMs they ship the Google apps in.

    12. Re:So, don't use Google Apps by msobkow · · Score: 1

      Ah, but GNU was charging you for the media distribution, not the software itself. It's a subtle distinction, but an important one. You were paying for them to prepare a tape for you.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    13. Re:So, don't use Google Apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could argue that the open source base is one of the biggest draws to manufacturers. It makes it a lot easier for them to bring a new phone to market if 90% of the software development is already done and an open kernel makes driver development easier. There are of course other big draws such as Android being one of the big names in smartphone OSes.

  3. Make it complete without Google apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please, one of the big ones needs to be our knight in shining armor and make an Android phone without all the Google tie-ins. Make your own app-store that doesn't require a login or GUID from users, only from authors. Make a map and navigation app based on OSM. Include offline calendar and to-do lists, with optional syncing to a computer or an open source online service. Resist the urge to replace Google's apps with your own proprietary apps. Just make a phone worth buying.

    1. Re: Make it complete without Google apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean a Kindle?

    2. Re: Make it complete without Google apps by hawguy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Please, one of the big ones needs to be our knight in shining armor and make an Android phone without all the Google tie-ins. Make your own app-store that doesn't require a login or GUID from users, only from authors. Make a map and navigation app based on OSM. Include offline calendar and to-do lists, with optional syncing to a computer or an open source online service. Resist the urge to replace Google's apps with your own proprietary apps. Just make a phone worth buying.

      You mean a Kindle?

      Or you can just buy a phone that has good Cynogenmod support and stick with the F-Droid open source app repository.

    3. Re:Make it complete without Google apps by Cinder6 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that you won't (legally) get access to Google Play Services this way, which means you will be missing out on a lot of Android apps. I would be curious to find an actual number, though; all I'm seeing is a nebulous "many".

      --
      If you can't convince them, convict them.
    4. Re:Make it complete without Google apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why one of the big ones needs to open an app-store that doesn't require registration for users. My phone is devoid of Google apps. I use F-Droid. I know exactly how barren the landscape is. App store competition, such that app authors feel a real need to be present outside of Google Play, is dearly needed.

    5. Re:Make it complete without Google apps by timmyf2371 · · Score: 2

      Ironically, Microsoft via the Nokia Normandy is likely to be the first of the big players to do this.

      --

      Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
    6. Re:Make it complete without Google apps by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I had a look, and all of the proprietary Android apps that I'm currently running are available on the Amazon store, which you can download as an apk. I'd love to have a phone with the Amazon store and F-Droid installed by default, but without any of the Google things. If the device manufacturer would guarantee OTA security updates for 4-5 years, I'd buy one today.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:Make it complete without Google apps by Cinder6 · · Score: 1

      Good to know; thanks.

      --
      If you can't convince them, convict them.
    8. Re:Make it complete without Google apps by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      Well yeah. The Android apps you would miss out on are (only) the ones that are designed to require Google's cloud services specifically (Drive storage, Maps navigation, Google's voice search, Play games syncing etc). No big surprise there.

      There are entire categories of apps which don't need any cloud services of course, and many others where the apps are written to use alternative services, or where the bulk of the app is entirely usable even when a given service is unavailable (e.g. when sold through Amazon's app store). In all cases though, it's the developer's decision, and Google's cloud service APIs are completely optional & not part of the base Android framework.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  4. I don't care by koan · · Score: 1

    Android is a breath of fresh air after using Apple, I prefer Android in every way, so having Google "set a standard" is fine with me.
    Otherwise what will we get.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:I don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is more than google and apple. I use neither.

    2. Re:I don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The switch from Android to iOS is temporary; the switch from iOS to Android tends to be much more permanent for most users.

      Disclaimer: I and several of my friends work at stores that sell both, and have much data between the five of us to flesh out this view.

    3. Re:I don't care by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      Is it the way Android spies on you that you like, or is it the way it advertises at you?

    4. Re: I don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple spies on me too. Oh basilbrush never mind. Apple shill alert.

    5. Re:I don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WinPhone does not count.

    6. Re:I don't care by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      It's the way that Android doesn't make me feel like I belong to a Scientologist-level cult. I tried iOS for quite awhile. An iPod Touch used to be the best handheld wifi connectivity device. Now you can buy any mid-level Android cellphone and use it like a quasi-iPod Touch. You can buy a Virgin Mobile smartphone for $40 these days, slot in a 32GB SD card and have a heck of a device, without ever paying for any celltime with Virgin Mobile. It's the iPod Touch killer. Best of all: no iTunes.

    7. Re:I don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WinPhone is a dumb phone OS.

    8. Re:I don't care by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Blackberry, Firefox OS, Jolla

    9. Re:I don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the way that Android doesn't make me feel like I belong to a Scientologist-level cult.

      Yet you sound exactly like you do.

  5. Works for me by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Until Apple burst on the scene Carriers locked their platforms down, charged insane amounts of money for dev kits ($20k+) and were generally jerks to their customers. They had little or no desire to improve since they were making lots of money selling slightly better handsets and super high prices. Google does a good job reigning that in. The carriers aren't powerless in this equation either you know. I like that they're all at each other's throats :P.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: Works for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Palm WebOS

    2. Re:Works for me by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      The bigger issue for me is that from a user perspective - my android phone is still locked down. I need to root the phone if I want to uninstall the bloatware Verizon insists be on my phone.

    3. Re:Works for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VS apple and what it charged to Newton developers?

      Android charges $0 out of pocket for its SDK.

    4. Re:Works for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until Apple burst on the scene Carriers locked their platforms down, charged insane amounts of money for dev kits ($20k+) and were generally jerks to their customers. They had little or no desire to improve since they were making lots of money selling slightly better handsets and super high prices. Google does a good job reigning that in. The carriers aren't powerless in this equation either you know. I like that they're all at each other's throats :P.

      Bbbbbbut, ... Apple is evil isn't it!?!?! Now I'm confused ...

    5. Re:Works for me by bananaquackmoo · · Score: 2

      That's not an Android issue, its a Verizon issue. It's the main reason that I ditched Verizon. GSM phones are the most open phones.

    6. Re: Works for me by Karlt1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's not an Android issue, its a Verizon issue. It's the main reason that I ditched Verizon. GSM phones are the most open phones.

      No it is an Android issue. I've had an iPhone on three of the four major carriers - AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile and none of them have ever had carrier installed crapware and I didn't have to wait for the carrier to decide to allow me to update to the latest OS.

    7. Re: Works for me by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Palm -> HP -> LG.

      you might find webOS on your next-gen telly.

    8. Re: Works for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that is because of an iOS is even more restrictive, Apple just throws its weight around against the carriers as well as users and developers.

    9. Re: Works for me by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      Amazing. When someone identifies something that Apple does well, it's still "bah, it's Apple's fault".

  6. hey guys... by advocate_one · · Score: 2, Interesting

    try making an iOS device and taking on the Apple Empire...

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    1. Re:hey guys... by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      wow, must have run into a couple of Apple fanboys with mod points... :P

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  7. OsmAnd for maps, ReplicantOS, Neo900 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I prefer OsmAnd for offline navigation because it is GPL Free Software that uses Open Street Maps data. Can you trust *any* proprietary maps application to not spy on you?

    Also use ReplicantOS, an Android distro based on Cyanogenmod that replaces all non-Free software with Free GPL licensed alternatives. It uses F-Droid app store.

    Neo900 is an open hardware phone currently under development based on the next-gen GTA04 boards. It's designed to use Nokia N900 case design (slide out keyboard) and will be able to run ReplicantOS.

    1. Re: OsmAnd for maps, ReplicantOS, Neo900 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That seems mainstream and destined to be used be tens of people.

  8. Didn't stop Amazon by AmericanBlarney · · Score: 5, Interesting

    With the Kindle, I think the Amazon has been one of, if not the most, successful at embracing what Android provides as a core, but extending/customizing it to support their preferred business model. Sure, they did a lot of work on their fork of Android, but if other companies aren't willing to put the work in, don't complain about something you're getting for free.

    1. Re:Didn't stop Amazon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, Amazon expended a lot of effort to trap you into a different walled garden than Google does. Amazon built what is essentially the world's largest squid server to track your online habits. They also had to provide solid DRM or companies would not license digital content to them. An impressive amount of work to customize Android, motivated by the Apple and Google walled gardens.

    2. Re:Didn't stop Amazon by Anubis+IV · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Amazon is a success story here, but it's also a cautionary one. When most people envision an "open" Android, they envision a world where up-and-comers are capable of disrupting the old guard, yet the reality is anything but that. Instead, what we see from Amazon's example is that the cost of entry for launching your own fork is owning an established media delivery system, having an already-established app store with tens of thousands of apps available from day one, and having a world-class backend on which to build alternatives to Google's services.

      Who else has the resources to do something like that right now? By my count, no one. Microsoft would be the closest, since they have Azure and an established media content ecosystem, though they'd lack for Android apps. Sony? They lack for apps as well, though they're a possibility, since they have a media ecosystem and backend built up around their Playstation brand, which has tens of millions of users. Samsung? Probably not. They don't have the sort of ecosystem or services that could pull people away from Google.

      The point is, while Android itself may be open, it's not truly open to anyone but the biggest players in the game, so long as the most valuable parts are kept locked away by Google. The problem isn't that Amazon had to do "a lot of work on their fork of Android", the problem is that they had to do a lot of work establishing themselves in those other areas for years in advance before that fork of Android could even possibly be considered viable.

    3. Re:Didn't stop Amazon by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I was quite impressed with the Kindle Fire. My stepfather got one for Christmas, and is now using it as his primary computer. It was very easy to set up and use. I did find the pervasive adverts somewhat annoying, but from a UI perspective Amazon has done a pretty good job at implementing something that is easy for non-technical users to set up and run. The walled garden aspect is quite troubling though, and more so given that it's quite an appealing garden: no one would care about walled gardens if they didn't contain things people wanted.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Didn't stop Amazon by Baloroth · · Score: 2

      There are dozens (at least, probably more like hundreds), of small-player Android devices out there which are based on Android's open source. Sure, you lose out on the largest Android store, but there are quite a few other stores out there (Amazon's being probably the biggest, but by no means the only one). You don't often hear about them (because they're made by small players), but they do exist. Heck, I own one (an MP3 player/mini-tablet). Anyone who has the resources to make a tablet can make their own Android device.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    5. Re:Didn't stop Amazon by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Amazon launched their app store long before they launched the Kindle Fire. It's not tightly integrated with the Kindle line, and you can download it as an apk. There's nothing stopping other manufacturers from building their own custom Android version and shipping the Amazon store by default. There's also F-Droid, which maintains a large repository of open source Android apps, and also makes available the infrastructure that they use to build it, so creating a vendor-specific app store with a moderate set of applications as a bootstrap would be quite easy.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:Didn't stop Amazon by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      Amazon launched their app store long before they launched the Kindle Fire.

      This was a key factor in what I said and was why I said it had tens of thousands of apps on day one.

      It's not tightly integrated with the Kindle line [...] There's nothing stopping other manufacturers from building their own custom Android version and shipping the Amazon store by default.

      That's a fair point, and something I completely overlooked. And for similar reasons, I suppose they could rely on Amazon's content ecosystem as well, in lieu of building their own, leaving only the need for a strong backend on which to provide their services.

      That definitely diminishes what I said quite a bit. It doesn't eliminate it, but it does mitigate it to a significant degree.

  9. Choosing between evils by Urkki · · Score: 1

    "When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I've never tried before." (Mae West)

    Well, this can be generalized to choosing between several evils. That would mean choosing WP for a lot of folks, I suppose... But what's scary is, choosing WP doesn't scare me any more.

    1. Re:Choosing between evils by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I've never tried before." (Mae West)

      Her advice for choosing politicians?

      Well, this can be generalized to choosing between several evils. That would mean choosing WP for a lot of folks, I suppose... But what's scary is, choosing WP doesn't scare me any more.

      A lot of us here did try Word Perfect and preferred it over word. It was extremely popular with lawyers for a while which makes you wonder why its interaction with Windows kept getting broken. But can't imagine you mean Word Perfect there or the Washington Post.

    2. Re:Choosing between evils by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      if you are going to choose a minority player phone, may as well pick blackberry 10, it can run android apps

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    3. Re:Choosing between evils by Urkki · · Score: 1

      But is it evil? I'm not sure. Anyway, BB is not even on sale in my country I think, or at least I've never seen one. Then there's Jolla of course, but I think it's definitely not evil, so not in the running for evil things to choose from.

    4. Re:Choosing between evils by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      we are talking about phones. If you cant figure out WP = windows phone I dont know what to tell ya

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    5. Re:Choosing between evils by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I've never tried before." (Mae West)

      That's funny but it corresponds to the way people think. I remember when personal computers reached the mass adaption stage in the late '80s and early '90s, people saw Microsoft as a scrappy upstart led by a youthful visionary, so when they fell out with their partner IBM over Windows and OS/2 people decided to go with MS instead of with the Big Bad Monopolists. (By that time industry insiders had already seen enough of Bill Gates to know he was just as greedy and brutal as the IBM executives, and a lot smarter besides). Then Apple was reborn with the second coming of Steve Jobs and Apple looked awfully good in comparison with Microsoft.

      Now it's Apple's turn to be the bad guys and Google looks like the saviors. Just wait a few years and there'll be another round of buyer's remorse.

    6. Re:Choosing between evils by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh! So, you get a new Windows Pain if you throw the Phone through the Window?

  10. Just one problem... by Sable+Drakon · · Score: 1

    Not every phone that's out there has an AOSP or CM ROM available for it. So for some people, they really are stuck with whatever the OEM and carrier chose to cram on there. If you don't already have a phone and are willing to look for your ROM before buying, this is great. Those with existing handsets though have good odds of being stuck unless they're lucky enough to have a flagship device.

    --
    The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
    1. Re:Just one problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
      That's not the point of this article. This is about OEMs being able to sell devices with Android on them, but not include Google's standard apps.

      It's weird FUD. I wonder what Microsoft expects to gain from it?

    2. Re:Just one problem... by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Confusion and to try to stay relevant by saying "Hey we make a Smartphone OS too."

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    3. Re:Just one problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do the Google shills always jump on board with this shit? Whenever Android gets criticized it must be a Microsoft plot! Because nobody would ever criticize Google!

      If you actually read the article you would see that many of the services and features for advancement of Android are in GMS and the reason for this is that Google needs a revenue stream, they cannot be expected to just continue to build and distribute AOSP for free and get no revenue. They need to create lock-in at the platform level by innovating in their proprietary API layer that applications will use so they become "Google Android apps" rather than just "Android apps".

      It makes perfect sense and IMO is a very legitimate thing to do but for some reason the Google fans are desperate to stick their heads in the sand and propagate the idiotic notion that Google can develop all this stuff free of charge and just give it away and not care if they get any revenue for it.

  11. You say that like that's a good thing... by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

    its no different than any other proprietary app on Android

    Except I don't like all the proprietary crud that my tablet came with, regardless of whether it's from Google or the manufacturer. It's doing god-knows-what in the background and its removal is well beyond the ability of the average user (which is the entire point, isn't it?).

    So ol' "Don't Be Evil" is now "Don't Be More Evil Than Our Business Partners?"

    1. Re:You say that like that's a good thing... by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      Don't like proprietary apps on your tablet? Then flash your own choice of completely FOSS rom. CyanogenMod makes a few, and so do many others.

      Granted this is (a little) beyond the average user - but the average user *wants* most of those proprietary apps and services; it's just you that doesn't want them (and if it's beyond you as well, you could always pay someone to do it for you).

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  12. The Plague by JimSadler · · Score: 2

    Business is like a wretched plague that insists on infecting every area of life. Computing and communications are more vulnerable to the infestation than most other aspects of life. The net started as a wonderful idea that was to be a super breakthrough and uplifting idea never before possible for humanity. And I don't mind porn one bit but almost overnight half of the traffic on the net was porn. Worse than porn every half witted scheme to defraud people attached itself to the net and became fixated as a permanent part of the net. Next the net became a battleground as soon as organizations and governments found out that people really would communicate on the net. I do realize that some economic incentives are needed to cause better hardware and communications abilities using computers. But somehow that gets disgustingly translated into some supposed right to sell phony Viagra tablets, made in some fools kitchen to the masses. We really need to crack down on fraud and beat some of these "businesses" back to the stone ages.

    1. Re:The Plague by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Without that 'plague' as you call it, you wouldn't be sitting here on slashdot complaining about it, as there would be no slashdot, no internet, no computers, no electricity...

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    2. Re:The Plague by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Fraud isn't business.

      Business in general has a tremendous upside and somewhat of a downside. You're just bitching about the negatives without deigning to mention any of the huge number of positives. Who made the computer you're writing this on, or the network that transmits your data? It wasn't ARPANET, that's for fucking sure.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:The Plague by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Without that 'plague' as you call it [business], you wouldn't be sitting here on slashdot complaining about it, as there would be no slashdot, no internet, no computers, no electricity...

      Lets see. Slashdot was created as a personal blog, business only came later. The Internet was created by various public sector agencies. Computers were invented by government code breakers. And electricity is a natural phenomenon.

      So no, that statement is false. For sure business took part later, as that's what businesses do in a capitalistic world - leech onto good ideas and make money out of them.

    4. Re:The Plague by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      You are an idiot and don't have a clue how the world actually works. Go crawl back under your rock.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    5. Re:The Plague by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go on, continue your list with: "no wheel, no fire".

      I dare you.

      The world does not revolve around one idea, even if that idea is money or personal gain. Lots of stuff happen and the world keeps on turning just fine without many of the things you think are necessary.

    6. Re:The Plague by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Ah, but in reality it does. As even the 'altruistic' folks need money to live on while they do their 'good deeds'. They also need money for the infrastructure to do their good deeds.

      Money and profit is at the root of what makes the modern world go around. With out the drive to gather more, there is no advancement of anything ( and before there was actual "money", it was property ownership and people were driven to collect shiny objects ).

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    7. Re:The Plague by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      And you have no argument.

      Seems the facts ruined your case.

  13. Google Play Services by cseg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Honestly, in my opinion the most offending point of Android is Google Play Services. Google making all its services depending on one another is something we've all been seeing for years now, one could argue that we're expecting and used to it. Now, a service at the center of it all, which can do anything it wants, whenever it wants, that's honestly going too far in my opinion.

    That's point #1, actually.

    #2 is the fact that for many people (myself included), the days of tinkering with devices is over. It can be a hobby sometimes/for some people, but I for one like to separate what I rely on from what I play with. So at best an Android device would be a toy, not something I rely on daily.

    Now, if anyone can point me to a simple/reliable way to use Google's Android without Google Play Services owning the device, and without being forced to nurse custom/specific distros/ROMs for it, I'd greatly appreciate it.

    1. Re:Google Play Services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      On the contrary: this generation of phones are some of the most tinkerable devices that have existed. Just because you have lost interest and/or ability to tinker with your device doesn't discredit the millions who still do.

      That being said, the ROM you want is Cyanogenmod. Sure, you could replace all the google stuff yourself and put in your own features, but 99% of the time you will have a carbon copy of Cyanogenmod, it just took you weeks/months to make it instead of an hour to install it.

    2. Re:Google Play Services by cseg · · Score: 1

      I did not discredit anyone or anything. I said that for many people, tinkering with devices is not an option (or ceased to be, like in my case).

      Thanks for the suggestion, but like I said, I'm looking for a solution that does not involve nursing custom ROMs.

    3. Re:Google Play Services by QuasiSteve · · Score: 2

      but like I said, I'm looking for a solution that does not involve nursing custom ROMs.

      Could you explain a little further exactly what it is you're hoping for, then?

      Right now it seems like you're asking for Google's Android, which inherently means Google's Services and thus Google Play, etc. - but without exactly those things. At that point, it's not Google's Android anymore.

      So let's say you meant regular ol' Android. Okay, that's fine too, go grab AOSP. But then that's really no different from a custom ROM when seen from the viewpoint of 'Google's Android'. It's just that it's a rather barren one.

      So if you have to go with a ROM in the first place, Cyanogen is, once installed, fairly hands-off. Nobody's forcing you to delve into the nightly builds, say.

      But maybe you just don't want to deal with having to look up, download, install, custom roms at all. Well, you could get any number of phones that have it or, just as an example, MIUI pre-installed - with OTA updates so you don't have to 'nurse' it. But then you'd have to get a different phone.

      Seems to me that with your desires, you're going to either just have to live with the Google Play integration bits, or ignore the part where you wanted Android to begin with, and jump ship to iOS, Windows Phone, FireFox OS, Sailfish, etc.

    4. Re:Google Play Services by cseg · · Score: 1

      but like I said, I'm looking for a solution that does not involve nursing custom ROMs.

      Could you explain a little further exactly what it is you're hoping for, then?

      Right now it seems like you're asking for Google's Android, which inherently means Google's Services and thus Google Play, etc. - but without exactly those things. At that point, it's not Google's Android anymore.

      So let's say you meant regular ol' Android. Okay, that's fine too, go grab AOSP. But then that's really no different from a custom ROM when seen from the viewpoint of 'Google's Android'. It's just that it's a rather barren one.

      So if you have to go with a ROM in the first place, Cyanogen is, once installed, fairly hands-off. Nobody's forcing you to delve into the nightly builds, say.

      But maybe you just don't want to deal with having to look up, download, install, custom roms at all. Well, you could get any number of phones that have it or, just as an example, MIUI pre-installed - with OTA updates so you don't have to 'nurse' it. But then you'd have to get a different phone.

      Seems to me that with your desires, you're going to either just have to live with the Google Play integration bits, or ignore the part where you wanted Android to begin with, and jump ship to iOS, Windows Phone, FireFox OS, Sailfish, etc.

      I don't mind that Google requires you to have all-or-nothing. I do mind that through Google Play Services it is able to change a device at will. This is the old argument about the device being mine and not rented/borrowed from someone. What goes in and out of it should, at very least, have me warned about. Mind you, I'm not even the overly paranoid type regarding privacy, my main concern is the device becoming useless or simply malfunctioning due to a bad update that got to it without my authorization or even knowledge.

      No person or company is immune from making that kind of mistake, and I have read about Google Play Services destroying battery life with bad updates, for example.

      So to be to the point and answer your question: I didn't say I don't want the Google parts of Android. I just don't want one very specific part: Google Play Services' ability to do anything it wants with a device, including updating itself at will and granting itself permissions I don't even know about. Besides that, I'd need it (the preventing that from happening) to be done via some sort of configuration or app that you can install without needing to use a different/non-official ROM (rooting would be fine).

      To elaborate more: Android devices tend to be cheaper than its counterparts, but lately (post Google moving most of Android into a closed-source model), that comes at a cost: You have to "bend over" to Google's will, or choose to use a different ROM and forego Google entirely (or at least for the greatest parts). I think that is very important to take into account when switching to Android (I'm not an user yet). Like I said, I'm not excited about keeping such a close eye on that kind of thing anymore (I used to be), I just want something I can rely on and not have this sort of headache from.

      I'm asking this here because I have overhyper friends who bug the hell out of me to "join the movement" of switching to Android. I'd be okay with that if it did not mean either leaving the device to Google's will, OR being forced to use custom ROMs and going Google-free. By the way, another important point in that would be the loss of the Google Play Store. As far as I know, if you don't have Google Play Services, you don't have the store. And if you don't have the store, that is yet another hit in the price-for-the-bang tag on Android.

      Please correct me if I'm getting any of this wrong.

    5. Re:Google Play Services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you believe that the world owes any of this to you?

      You don't like any of the stock options, or (very) easily configurable ones which have already been suggested.

      You don't want to put any effort into managing your very specific requirements.

      Why, then, should any of us care?

    6. Re:Google Play Services by cseg · · Score: 1

      Why do you believe that the world owes any of this to you?

      You don't like any of the stock options, or (very) easily configurable ones which have already been suggested.

      You don't want to put any effort into managing your very specific requirements.

      Why, then, should any of us care?

      You don't. I'm asking if there are options that fulfill my needs, and then I have to laugh at people like you going on the offensive because apparently me not accepting to take any and everything a company throws at me, means you get your feelings hurt.

      Thanks. :-)

    7. Re:Google Play Services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that was quite a tirade I launched there.

      You seem to be too sensitive for a phone which has Internet access, maybe you should settle for something simpler? That would also solve your security concerns, and would bring the added bonus of way more battery life for your phone which you rely on daily and don't want to tinker with.

      Seems like a win-win, how about a nice Nokia 3310? Still a classic.

    8. Re:Google Play Services by StripedCow · · Score: 1

      I had my Bluetooth A2DP connection destroyed by a bad Android update.

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    9. Re:Google Play Services by cseg · · Score: 1

      Yes, that was quite a tirade I launched there.

      You seem to be too sensitive for a phone which has Internet access, maybe you should settle for something simpler? That would also solve your security concerns, and would bring the added bonus of way more battery life for your phone which you rely on daily and don't want to tinker with.

      Seems like a win-win, how about a nice Nokia 3310? Still a classic.

      Thanks, I'll pass.

      My iPhone doesn't install updates without me telling it to, that's enough for me. I guess asking for such complex feature from Android is too much. :-)

  14. my turn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    fuck beta

  15. They're all the same by ErnoWindt · · Score: 1

    Google are to be admired for their energy and inventiveness. However, all big companies (and those who aspire to be big) all want the same thing: dominate the markets they are in, or take over everything they can. Google hides behind the fig leaf of "open source" when it suits their ends. If we compare Google to Apple, however, it's like comparing the US to North Korea.

    1. Re:They're all the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And is recall, one of the big things cited in the anti-trust case against microsoft was an accusation that they kept undocumented APIs to Windows for themselves to gain a competitive advantage. I don't know if that was true or not, but it was used as fodder against them.

      @see paragraph 4 -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft#Copyright_enforcement

    2. Re:They're all the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's ridiculous. Apple's current desktop OS has always been built on a model similar to Android: an open source interior with a closed candy shell. And Apple's contributions the industry--especially to Google!--with Webkit have been massive, all that code coming back under BSD and LGPL licenses.

    3. Re: They're all the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which one is NK?

  16. proprietary services by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Suck. No matter who provides them.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  17. Kindle is Google-free by evilviper · · Score: 2

    While Android phones are almost always tied-in to Google, cheap tablets most commonly are NOT, and they do just fine. The success of the Kindle Fire should be a sign that you can sever those Google ties without too much trauma.

    You're not getting all that much from the fees paid to Google.

    You can find other free maps and navigation easily enough (MapQuest, OsmAnd~, etc.).
    You can find 3rd party YouTube apps, or you can just leave users to view YouTube in a web browser like desktop users do.
    You can set-up Gmail access without the official Gmail app.
    etc.

    The biggest stumbling block is the app store. Google has market effects on their side. There are several competitor app stores, but none as complete as Google's. Still, as long as you have the most-popular apps, your customers won't complain. GetJar and Amazon are passable.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  18. Fan boys will be fan boys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Don't ever talk trash about Android or the fan boys will get butt hurt.

    1. Re:Fan boys will be fan boys by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Problem is, it's not an 'all-bad' or 'all-good' issue. It's bad, because Google is obviously not open here, and have been making moves to keep things less open. It's good though, because a lot of their code IS open source. So each side has something to argue.

      If you really want to troll the Android fanboys, point out that Apple is just as open, because their base OS is completely open.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Fan boys will be fan boys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      apple, google and samsung spent the better part of a decade to design the first versions of their products and another 7 years building from there
      now some complain they can't build a phone in two days just by taking someone's work because its not enough

      android might be far from open but google spent a lot of time and effort on it and deserves to be paid for their work

    3. Re:Fan boys will be fan boys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure that even "base OS" of iOS 6 includes a bit more than WebKit, compiler tools, stdc++ lib and iconv.

      </trolled>

    4. Re:Fan boys will be fan boys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fucking hate Android. I hate coercive permissions, unclearable evercookies, "ecosystems" based on DRM, UI lag, pointless UI churn like changing the MCS-is-connected signal from green to blue to absent and removing notification sounds, notifications that are simultaneously spammy and missable, kowtowing to carriers with tethering restrictions and poor software maintenance, and all touchscreens everywhere in general.

      But this isn't an either-or good-bad question, durr android good, android baa-aad. The topic is, is it open or not? Do you think I can hate Android and still defend Google for keeping it open in the relevant way? spoiler: I can.

      The fact you can't rebuild exactly what's on your phone making one change because of blob drivers, missing build scripts, locked bootloaders, makes it not open for a user but still open for a device manufacturer. None of these things are an obstacle to making your own device, but they all trip up users. Only Nexus phones are open for a user, and they're only thoroughly open recently, and there's been a lot of fighting---jbq getting fired for publicly insulting the almighty Qualcomm---to keep that Nexus openness mostly-present. Other phones are forced open by the game-cracker script kiddies at Cyanogenmod and the like, but at the cost of glitches and of having to deal with script kiddies and their awful spazzy forums, so those are much less open than a Nexus phone or a normal Linux computer.

      The way android source is thrown over the wall at each dessert release instead of released at HEAD like Chromium makes android less open than Chromium, but still open. This somewhat excludes developers, but Chromium sets a really high bar there. I don't have a problem with Android's doing this: less open, but difinitively _open_ and not a "grey area".

      The way Honeycomb was released, technically, but without a tag in git so that nobody could find and build it, is shameful and cynical and suggests they don't get what open means. That might qualify as "grey area" in my book. Thankfully they have not repeated that bullshit for several releases, so my trust is mostly repaired on this issue.

      but the OP _definitely_ doesn't get what open means. I came because I wanted the freedoms of Free Software: to control my own device, to share my changes with others, to fork the entire platform if it goes the wrong way. If I use AOSP, and I don't if I use Google's apps, that freedom is mine. How would I ever get this using Google's apps, since they have a cloud component? I don't get it using Google's Android Market, either, but the developers in that market are scumbags who like it closed. The only exception to this is Chrome for Android, which doesn't have a cloud component and doesn't come with source. TFA should call that out, but doesn't, because he doesn't actually care about openness in the sense of freedom, just about grabbing more ecosystem power for device manufacturers, and they do not deserve it: every inch of power they've grabbed so far, they've abused, to push more _closed source_ adware onto the phone, to fork Android and not release their changes, and...

      The real threat to android openness is device manufacturers with locked bootloaders, blob drivers, and missing build scripts.

      Also, since changes aren't upstreamed in the world of "devices", it's arguably a threat to openness that they don't maintain their software for the life of the device (end-of-sale + 2 years)---although Stallman's principles don't demand that they do that, in practice I get more openness with an i386 Linux box where board support stuff is upstreamed because I can keep up with the patches others are sharing with me, while with a "device" I'm trapped in an obscure manufacturer ghetto, so once Linux's HEAD moves on, I've less ability to take the free software others are trying to share with me.

      If Google uses their closed apps to force more software maintenance, the manufacturers will whinge "grey area" and "less open" because they don't like having their consum

  19. Lack of Understanding of Open Source by Luthair · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Its almost like there is a concerted campaign this month against Android openness - or are journalists seeing buzz around earlier stories and creating more link bait? I think this article and the others all demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of the open source world.

    There is more than one model, while there are entirely open projects like the Linux kernel, there are also a great many projects with both open and proprietary components. See MySQL, JBoss, Glassfish, Solaris, ExtJS, Nexus, etc., all of these projects are completely functional products but the companies provide additional functionality for profit.

    Android code is available under an OSI license, the code comprises a complete functional product (assuming device drivers, but that isn't Google's responsibility). The Open Source world is driven by contributing back, not by getting everything on a silver platter for free.

    1. Re:Lack of Understanding of Open Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just blatently wrong. AOSP is a fully-functional operating system.

    2. Re: Lack of Understanding of Open Source by cecom · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Pfffft. Who cares? Let's all hate Google. How dare a for profit company not give out everything for free? Those greedy bastards!

      Oh, and Google stole all my personal information by showing me ads when I used the services they provide for free in exchange for showing ads. Google's evilness knows no boundaries!

    3. Re:Lack of Understanding of Open Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ssshh. You were told to read the article, you dummy, not to try and comprehend it and in circumstances get the real world involved.

      Otherwise you might notice all the things like CyanogenMod or OEMs that didn't want to sign Google's agreement and keep producing Googleless phones and tablets.

    4. Re:Lack of Understanding of Open Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its almost like there is a concerted campaign this month against Android openness - or are journalists seeing buzz around earlier stories and creating more link bait? I think this article and the others all demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of the open source world.

      Nah, it's you who do not understand.
      Slowly people are starting to realize how the promise of Free Software, with its almost human rights connotations, has been hijacked and usurped by the "Open Source" people.

      Now one of the many consequences is that smart people at Google have figured out how to exploit the gullible techs like us to get technology for free, and at the same time control it and use it to destroy the competition and kill innovation outside of its control.

      It is not the only place where Open Source has become the parody of itself, it is all across the industry.
      Is it better than the pure proprietary world? Sure. Are we heading to a level playing field in software? Not by a long shot. The rules of the game have changed, but the underlying problems remain the same.

      Just ignore me though, I am just a disillusioned "Open Source" developer who just woke up (grew up?) and an Anonymous Coward as well.

      Cheers

      Anonymous Coward

    5. Re:Lack of Understanding of Open Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not complete, without google's services it is no better than the bare windows kernel on a phone, you can't use it for anything. Read the article on Ars.

      You're an idiot.

  20. MS has their own set of problems. by leuk_he · · Score: 1

    MS still lacks market share, and one of their main problems is that windows phone 7 is the last platform supported by apps builders. It is that bad that they consider running android on windows.

    At the same time they have to push all phone makers to pay them patent licenses for patents for fat and what they madeup when windows mobile (5.x 6.x) was the big thing.

    MS Never said to be open. They controll the gates to their app store, just like Apple takes full control of everything htat is allowed to run on their phone.

    Beside your point of not being able to include google apps on them, developers are tied to using a devkit that does not have a lices that allows anyone to fork it.

    1. Re:MS has their own set of problems. by segin · · Score: 1

      A Chinese developer did manage to port most of the Android userland atop Windows. It ran a large number of the Android software packages I threw at it, so long as no dependence on NDK/JNI libraries were in place. (Presumably, if the application developer they had the not-made-publicly-available NDK said Chinese developer had to make their port, they could port their native NDK bits to x86/win32.)

      I did do a basic teardown of the software, and it's either a very, very, very convincing fake, or a legitimate port. Most of the native command-line tools in a real Android device are present as Win32 .exe binaries, and work as intended.

    2. Re:MS has their own set of problems. by leuk_he · · Score: 1

      WIN32 Has little to do with the API that is available to windows phone 7/8. But still a interresting link if you compare that to the emulation effort of bluestacks.

  21. Google closes open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my opinion Google takes advantage of open source and makes it much more closed then open. Take Chrome OS and their Chromebook hardware. Nothing open about Chromebooks as they simply don't allow for anything outside of what Google wants. No choice in browsers, no iTunes, no Microsoft Office and no Skype.
    All of these programs are directly competing with Google apps and surprise, surprise. Google does not allow any of them. Now I know Linux versions do not have any of these programs running either. But you are free to use alternatives which the choices are many. Android and Chrome OS are two different animals. Android started out being a smartphone platform which it made sense to have a app store and very controlled ways of installing apps. Chrome OS is simply just a propagation tool for Google and their ecosystem. Nothing worse then a giant like Google using the backs of open source to expand their closed system. Has anyone even read the new
    EULA with Android development? Its all about Google.

    1. Re:Google closes open source by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      I have 4 different browsers installed on my android device (no root). Tell me again how many browsers you can install on IOS (no root)

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re:Google closes open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wells lets see, I've used Chrome, Dolphin, Mercury, iCab and Opera. There are tons more than I have never tried and all downloadable from the App Store.

    3. Re:Google closes open source by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      well now I feel stupid, I was under the impression that IOS still did not allow other browsers in the app store

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    4. Re:Google closes open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, technically, they're as much of a browser as MyIE/Maxthon were - custom shells around built-in WebKit.

      Apple doesn't allow anything that remotely looks like interpreting code that's not packaged with the app or typed by user, even up to rejecting games that let you download user-generated levels. Custom HTML renderers and JS engines are right out.

    5. Re:Google closes open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opera Mini on the phone is not webkit based, but it's the only one I believe.

    6. Re:Google closes open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No need to feel stupid. Even though you can install different browsers on iOS all links you click will only open in Safari.

    7. Re:Google closes open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also not really a browser, it doesn't have a local rendering engine at all.

  22. Google Apps is bloatware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Biggest bloat in my CM10.2 Galaxy S is all those Google services (backup specially) which hog all the memory. But I have to install Google's Play Store to test development apps. Ugh!

  23. I guess the "Android fragmentation" FUD failed by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Only a little time ago, there was lots of "OMG Android is becoming fragmented" stories. Now the stories are essentially the opposite: that device makers are closely tied into what Google does.

    Is there someone behind this? Or am I seeing consipiracies where there are none?

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:I guess the "Android fragmentation" FUD failed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It was more open, Google freaked out about fragmentation and tightened the noose. I

    2. Re:I guess the "Android fragmentation" FUD failed by swillden · · Score: 3

      Only a little time ago, there was lots of "OMG Android is becoming fragmented" stories. Now the stories are essentially the opposite: that device makers are closely tied into what Google does.

      Is there someone behind this? Or am I seeing consipiracies where there are none?

      It really has changed, and the first thing caused the second.

      Android fragmentation was becoming a real problem, so Google decided they had to do something about it. Since AOSP is truly open source, Google can't use it to control what device manufacturers do. Google's solution was to tighten up the licensing requirements on the Google Apps, requiring licensees to agree not to do things that tend to fragment the ecosystem. Similarly, many new APIs have been added to the Google Play services, rather than the core OS, because that way Google can push the new APIs out, rather than having to wait for carriers and device makers to upgrade the core OS.

      (Disclaimer: I'm a Google engineer, but I don't work on Android and don't have any knowledge of Google Apps licensing beyond what I read in public articles. My information about the intent behind putting APIs into Google Play services came from a talk at Google I/O last year.)

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:I guess the "Android fragmentation" FUD failed by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No the only thing behind this is the calamity of the month that journalists create for link bait. Android not being open is even more ludicrous than the sky is falling fragmentation nonn-issue of yesteryear. Googlebashing is in vogue right now. Sad really since the alternatives are many times worse in the way they are now being critisised for.

    4. Re:I guess the "Android fragmentation" FUD failed by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Only a little time ago, there was lots of "OMG Android is becoming fragmented" stories. Now the stories are essentially the opposite: that device makers are closely tied into what Google does.

      Is there someone behind this? Or am I seeing consipiracies where there are none?

      ArsTechnica.

      They love posting anti-Android scare peices. Not sure if they're doing it because they want page views, are getting paid for it or of their own account because just love Apple a little bit too much.

      The problem is, the anti-Android crowd is so desperate for any ammunition they latch onto the tiniest hint of anything remotely possibly becoming wrong in the next 20 years and blow it completely out of proportion.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  24. Shades of Openness? by smack.addict · · Score: 1

    If you destroy the value of something the minute you fork it, it isn't open. Period.

    1. Re:Shades of Openness? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad you admit to being a smack addict, because that's the only way someone could confuse a platform with fucking cloud services. If the cloud services are what brings value, then re-implement them, not the platform.

  25. SaaS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Biggest enemy of Open Source Software there is.

  26. It's worse than Apple by mozumder · · Score: 0

    Apple at least doesn't try to give you the illusion of openness. They make it very clear you're dealing with Apple's overall direction, which makes the system simpler to deal with - you know exactly what's going on, and you know that Apple sells systems, not subtly advertisement-driven operating systems like Google.

    It's far easier to deal with something you understand than with something that's trying to hide its motives.

    1. Re:It's worse than Apple by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      I dont think they are trying to hide anything when it comes to this. Its very straight forward actually.

      If you want the google play you have to include all google software. If you dont want google play, you dont need to worry about it. Amazon is doing quite fine with its kindle

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re:It's worse than Apple by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Also, I find that it's pretty easy with an Android phone to go into the Application Manager and disable the most onerous Google bits. I turn off Google Plus, Gmail, the Play Store video/audio/ebooks clients, Google's Chat and Wallet, etc. The functionality to disable these binary chunks is right in the configuration settings. You can't recover the storage space they consume, but you can clear out any updates and data files, and shut off lots of the functionality that communicates back to the Googleplex.

    3. Re:It's worse than Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dont think they are trying to hide anything when it comes to this. Its very straight forward actually. If you want the google play you have to include all google software. If you dont want google play, you dont need to worry about it. Amazon is doing quite fine with its kindle

      If you want the Google Play on any of your devices you can't build the Amazon Kindle, you mean.

  27. Open by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure the base platform is open, but none of the higher level stuff that an end user would need. By this definition OS X is open, since it runs on FreeBSD. Open for Google is just a marketing term.

  28. Re:Didn't stop (Amazon, ...) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is not just Amazon. You can setup Android apps to Jolla's Sailfish from Yandex Store. One can do the same on CM. MIUI has its own app store. Google Apps are simply not needed most of the time, despite some API challenges. Furthermore cloud and WebApps are cross platform, work on Android variants, iOS, Firefox OS, Sailfish, WP8 (the new burning platform), Tizen etc.

  29. Re:Didn't stop (Amazon, ...) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, I forgot to add Google's Chrome OS as a cloud/WebApp platform, as well as any desktop OS variants.

  30. buck feta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is all.

  31. google.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cares about profits, about keeping competitors at bay, and about share price and shareholder value.. they could care less about openness or open source, unless it can be abused or exploited to make money... and even then they'll strangle whatever it is with all their corporate might to contain and control.

  32. how to get out of beta as A.C.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    where can I click to get out of beta?
    I cannot use the site..

    A. C.

  33. Don't Be Evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    was never meant to go public it was only for insiders.

  34. Troll's Alternative: YaCY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't like Google-NSA's Monopoly Search Engine, check out YaCY: Search engine from the people by the people.

    Now, let's see how the Paid $hills will respond. I am quite sure they will blame any desease on not using Gogol products.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Government_Inspector

  35. Actually... by macinnisrr · · Score: 1

    App updates, including updates to Google Play Services, always ask for explicit permission if the app's device permissions change (if an app needs to use GPS and hadn't previously, for instance). When apps haven't changed their requirements, you can still turn off automatic updates in order to prevent any app (once again including Play Services) from updating without your explicit permission. If you don't add a google account to your device, you won't even be alerted about possible updates, let alone see them applied without permission (once again, this includes Google's Play Services). And in the very extreme case of an entire system update, you are always asked for explicit permission before upgrading. In other words, even when your device comes with Google Play Services by default (as most do), you are NEVER forced to apply system or app updates without authorization.

  36. What is the suggested alternative? by iamacat · · Score: 1

    Unlike making a copy of open source software, every access to Maps or YouTube servers costs money. Giving the cloud away without any revenue or strategic advantage is not a valuable business model.

    What other choices are expected besides licencing Google cloud services, rolling your own or doing without?

  37. Getting apps in the first place without Play by tepples · · Score: 1

    But how do you download MapQuest onto an Android device without Google Play Store? The only download links I could see on mobile.mapquest.com were for Apple App Store, Google Play Store, and Windows Store.

    1. Re:Getting apps in the first place without Play by evilviper · · Score: 1

      But how do you download MapQuest onto an Android device without Google Play Store?

      I was speaking to device manufacturers rather than consumers... They would get an APK along with license terms directly from MapQuest.

      For users, though, it's available on the Amazon app store.

      http://www.amazon.com/mobile-a...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  38. Haven't seen FxOS and Jolla in USA by tepples · · Score: 1

    Are Firefox OS and Jolla even available in Slashdot's home country (the USA)?

    1. Re:Haven't seen FxOS and Jolla in USA by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Can one buy a handset with said OS on a contract with a US telco? Unlikely

      But one can order a phone online.

      The foundations of both are open source, so in theory it's possible to port each to an existing Android handset. A worthy Kickstarter project for someone wanting to emulate the Cyanogenmod business model?

    2. Re:Haven't seen FxOS and Jolla in USA by tepples · · Score: 1

      But one can order a phone online.

      I thought a manufacturer's warranty and support obligation were limited to the country for which a product was produced. Besides, if a phone isn't sold in any English-speaking market, there aren't going to be a lot of apps available in the English language.

    3. Re:Haven't seen FxOS and Jolla in USA by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Well the firefox phone will ship for $100 or less with a 2 year warranty; for that price, how much support do you need?

      http://www.ebay.com/itm/281165...

      As for apps, there are 3000+ on https://marketplace.firefox.co...

      NB: I have an android phone but I'm just curious to see FF OS evolve but the hardware is very 2010...

  39. No stumbler for iOS by tepples · · Score: 1

    It's the way Android lets me spy on the wireless signals passing through my body that I like. The user can choose to delegate management of the Wi-Fi data link to a specialized application, which lets users choose to contribute to an access point map. Because Apple has chosen not to make an equivalent API available to iOS applications, there won't be "an app for that". The user of an Android device can also choose to install from trusted third parties, unlike Apple which spies on all installations of all apps onto all iOS devices that aren't associated to a paid developer or enterprise program. So who's the spy now? Ha ha ha, boom boom.

  40. F-Droid gaming by tepples · · Score: 1

    With just Replicant and F-Droid, how will you find games to play? I imagine it's harder to finance development of video games for F-Droid because even if the game engine is free software, promotion of the non-free mission packs whose sale funds development triggers the "NonFreeAdd" antifeature that hides the app from the majority of users.