Cyanogen Partners With Microsoft To Replace Google Apps
Unknown Lamer writes: Microsoft and Cyanogen Inc have announced a partnership to bring Microsoft applications to Cyanogen OS. "Under the partnership, Cyanogen will integrate and distribute Microsoft's consumer apps and services across core categories, including productivity, messaging, utilities, and cloud-based services. As part of this collaboration, Microsoft will create native integrations on Cyanogen OS, enabling a powerful new class of experiences." Ars Technica comments, "If Cyanogen really wants to ship a Googleless Android, it will need to provide alternatives to Google's services, and this Microsoft deal is a small start. Microsoft can provide alternatives for Search (Bing), Google Drive (OneDrive and Office), and Gmail (Outlook). The real missing pieces are alternatives to Google Play, Google Maps, and Google Play Services."
Rather than distribute more proprietary services, how about ownCloud for Drive, K-9 Mail for Gmail, OsmAnd for Maps, and F-Droid for an app store? Mozilla and DuckDuckGo provide Free Software search providers for Android, too. With Google neglecting the Android Open Source Project and Cyanogen partnering with Microsoft, the future for Free Software Android as anything but a shell for proprietary software looks bleak.
Rather than distribute more proprietary services, how about ownCloud for Drive, K-9 Mail for Gmail, OsmAnd for Maps, and F-Droid for an app store? Mozilla and DuckDuckGo provide Free Software search providers for Android, too. With Google neglecting the Android Open Source Project and Cyanogen partnering with Microsoft, the future for Free Software Android as anything but a shell for proprietary software looks bleak.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
How much money are those services going to offer Cyanogen to be included? I'm pretty sure at least 90% of the reason for this deal is that Cyanogen Inc needs revenue and Microsoft was willing to provide it in order to increase their toe hold in Android devices. Open is nice, but the Cyanogen people need to pay the bills.
seems Microsoft decide to have a real serious fight with Google ! who will win ? Apple
Not necessarily. Like Google, IBM once created an open platform and Microsoft got into a serious fight with them. Microsoft won. And IBM was a 500lb gorilla in those days like Google is today, a very different IBM than today.
The PC vs Mac platform fight was separate from the fight within the PC platform over the operating system. Similarly the Android vs iOS platform fight may be separate for an operating system fight within Android.
If Microsoft can do something to better integrate Cyanogen based devices into the corporate workflow they might have some leverage. Plus an operating system that gets bug fixes and security updates might warrant some attention.
Hasn't the future of 'open' android always looked bleak, more or less by design? At the bottom of the stack, we have SoC vendors who don't give a damn, handset OEMs who don't give a damn and/or actively prefer that older handsets remain as outdated as possible so you'll buy something new, and carriers who have largely the same incentives as handset vendors; but with their own crapware. This ensures that hardware support is spotty and typically weak for anything except whatever the device shipped with(and it's a moot point on the cryptographically locked devices). Markedly worse than the PC world in terms of vendor helpfullness or ability to do much of anything without a BSP or cobbling blobs together from vendors with slightly longer update support windows.
From the top of the stack, the 'free' parts of android are basically Google's hardware abstraction layer for google play services, and getting steadily more so.
I'm guessing this is just a matter of the cyanogen guys going from "open android" philosophy to "how can we make ourselves money?"
Eventually one graduates from college and has to pay bills.
"Open" projects generally need to be subsidized. Either by gov't (including much of academia) or corps. Linux is a prime example, long gone are the days of it being a hobbyist/enthusiast project. It is now primarily a corporate subsidize, corporate sponsored and corporate directed effort. Frankly such corporate involvement is largely responsible for its success.
Perhaps corporations can get cyanogen out of the dorm and mom's basement and get it some serious usage.
But now you're stuck with Microsoft.
Is this supposed to be some kind of improvement?
"Oh noes, google is teh big evil corp'ration, let's go with teh Microsoft". I mean, what the hell are they thinking?
This just sounds like the point at which the free software folks sell out and say fuck it, let's just follow the money.
I have a hard time people are going to buy an Android device, so they can wipe it, kick out Google, and bring in Microsoft. If you want that, buy a Microsoft device and get on with it.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Companies like IBM and Red Hat has poured millions into Linux. Red Hat is hardly a passive repackager. You're not "A. Capitalist", you're just "A. Confused and Stupid"
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Could the Cyanogen Mod group please file a trademark and sue Cyanogen inc for the brand confusion?
I'd really appreciate it. Thanks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
I respectfully submit that Android is substantially more functional with its core set of applications than iOS. Android device owners need fewer apps because the stuff that their devices come with do the things they need a mobile device to do. Android can share data freely among applications and is much less picky about data formats, so there's no need to resort to some of the weird fuckery or workarounds iOS users have to deal with to bend, fold or mutilate their needs into something that iOS can actually do.
Android as a platform has an ad-supported revenue channel more available to developers and the tools for developing and deploying on Android are free, so it's easier to be modestly sustaining without having to charge $1 for every fart keyboard or flappy bird application you want to put in the app store. There are drawbacks to that approach, but I really do not care if some software dev is getting rich because I needed an RDP client or somesuch.
-- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
I think you may be working with old information.
Can I store an arbitrary file on an iOS device yet? What if I want to download an MP3 using Safari or Chrome and play it with the native iOS music player? Can arbitrary apps share data without specific developer support yet? Can I do those things without rooting the device?
As far as I can tell the workflow for every single non-intended use of an iOS starts with "Step 1. Get a Dropbox account" and that by itself represents both a clear inadequacy of the platform and a worthwhile acquisition for a company that already has more money than it knows how to spend.
-- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K