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.

Comments

Well...

[pushing-robot]

...at least we're out of the frying pan!

Real fight

[__keronin]

seems Microsoft decide to have a real serious fight with Google ! who will win ? Apple

Re:Real fight

[beefoot]

Judging by the market share of android vs ios, (yes, I have the flame suit on), I'm sorry to say that apple .... hmmmm.... does not matter. So is windows phone.

Re:Real fight

[MightyYar]

Market share is not as important as "profit share". This is true for both device makers and App developers. Apple matters very much, with only 20% market share by unit but 89% by profit. On the app front, Apple paid out $10 billion to developers last year while Google paid out $7 billion.

So yes, they still are relevant.

Re:Real fight

[MightyMartian]

Microsoft has decided to have a serious fight with Google... on Google's platform. When the shoe was so often on the other foot in the 80s, 90s and 00s, and it was competitors trying to beat Microsoft whilst using Microsoft's platform, it usually didn't go so well.

Cyanogen is great and all, but really, the overwhelming majority of Android devices are using some variant of Google's branded version, which means they will come with Google's apps installed. I think Google has absolutely nothing to fear from Microsoft, whose fortunes are quickly being reversed as far as platform dominance and the synergy of developing the dominant software on that platform.

Google's real worries right now are the EU, which is not only going after the search business, but appears to be "analyzing" Android, which is going to mean what it did Microsoft; an unbundling of certain default applications, and a forced choice of which replacements to use. That is ultimately what I expect Microsoft is looking forward to, that the EU will do to Google what it did to Microsoft a decade ago, and that the guy who has just bought his Samsung Galaxy or Nexus-branded device is going to get a screen that asks "Do you want to use Google Docs or Microsoft Office?"

Re:Real fight

[Wheely]

However, that all started out as "can windows run without explorer". It turned out that it probably couldn't and Microsoft was found guilty of using one Microsoft product to unfairly increase the use of another Microsoft product. This is different and rather interesting though because now, Microsoft and Cyanogen are going to prove that Android can run perfectly happily without Google apps. This should suit Google just fine when the EU comes knocking.

Re:Real fight

[MightyMartian]

But everyone already knew that Android could run without the base apps. Most of the people I know that run Cyanogen do so to free themselves from data sieves that are the Google Android app suite. You don't get very good apps to view common office-format files, to be sure, and Microsoft will certainly fill that void. But in the grand scheme of things, Cyanogen simply does not matter that much.

What will matter in the medium term is that Microsoft works on a Google Apps replacement suite that it ready to go when (not if, when) the EU forces some degree of unbundling on Google.

But the lesson of Microsoft's experience, of course, is that the EU's unbundling requirement ultimately meant very little, and it was Microsoft's own decade of stagnation with Internet Explorer 6 that gave competitors the edge. The unbundling did nothing to help the actual victim of Microsoft's predatory bundling; Netscape.

Frankly if the OpenOffice/LibreOffice groups wanted to do something important right now, they'd put development of an Android version of the suite at the top of the priority list, because I think in the next couple of years a major opportunity will appear.

Re:Real fight

[slaker]

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.

Re:Real fight

[iluvcapra]

I respectfully submit that Android is substantially more functional with its core set of applications than iOS.

A good case can be made that an OHA Android phone is a better value proposition for a vanilla end user than an iOS iPhone. If you're alright with your phone being a dumb terminal for Google services and $SOCIAL_NETWORK_X, you're better off.

If you're a third party developer like Microsoft though, it's a much worse value proposition to target the platform, because Google aggressively crowds them out of providing features, and their store/monetization model doesn't produce as much income. If you're somebody like Microsoft, Apple is kindof easier to work with, since Apple isn't trying to clone Onenote and constantly dragging the users to their clone through defaults and platform integration. Also if Microsoft wants to charge $5 for an app or an IAP, on iOS there's a good chance they'll actually get the sale. Ads just don't generate the revenue sales do.

The user value proposition starts to break down if the end user isn't vanilla, and actually kinda wants access to the kinds of high-quality 3rd party apps that tend to show up on iOS first or exclusively. Or they're privacy conscious, or would just prefer not use Google services for everything.

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.

I think you may be working with old information.

Re:Real fight

[spasm]

Development of libreoffice on android *is* on the top of the priority list. Betas are available now: https://wiki.documentfoundatio... and the open document foundation awarded a contract to two firms to speed up development in January (http://www.zdnet.com/article/libreoffice-for-android-coming-soon/). The android stable is supposed to be released at the same time as the next major libreoffice release.

Re: Real fight

[VTBlue]

If you believe the only goal of the company is to make money I hope you never start a business. Shareholder Value Maximisation theory pushed forward by Milton Friedman has been one of the most destructive and empirically flawed ideas in the 20th century.

Re:Real fight

[slaker]

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.

Re: Real fight

[cavreader]

You can always start a non-profit company to sooth your conscience while satisfying your goals in life but there is nothing wrong about starting a company to make profits. MS, Apple, Google, and a whole bunch of other companies started out with nothing more than a few good ideas that eventually led to profitability. They didn't start off life as "evil" globe spanning billion dollar enterprises capable of throwing their weight and money around to increase their profitability.If you start a business from scratch with one of your goals being to reap monetary rewards from your work at what point do look around and say I have earned enough profits so I need to slow down or even shutdown my operations or someone is going to call me "evil"? If you want to start punishing success and remove the incentives that drive some people a reason to excel in delivering new and better products and services than you better hope the socialist utopian nirvana can deliver on it's promises.

Re: Real fight

[alexgieg]

at what point do look around and say I have earned enough profits so I need to slow down or even shutdown my operations or someone is going to call me "evil"?

At no point you should stop what you're doing just because you're earning enough. You should stop what you're doing when this that you're doing can only be properly described by the words "sociopathy" and/or "psychopathy". Given that, you can however certainly continue doing all the other non-sociopathic, non-psychopatic stuff you've doing that earns you huge and ever increasing profits. Those are fine.

Re: Real fight

[iluvcapra]

I may decide that I have (iTunes,Amazon,BeatPort) music but you have no business deciding, or worse forcing, those ditinguishing attributes for me.

Where have you been the last five years? The war was fought and consumers of your ilk have lost utterly. I mean you may want your phone or your computer to work this way but you're a vanishing minority. Only dorks prioritize app choice over content.

Re:Real fight

[slaker]

How would you share data between two apps if both developers didn't support that?

On Android, data sharing is fully handled by the OS, not unlike the copy/paste buffer in most desktop OSes. This means the list of applications with which one can share data is consistent both in terms of content and capability.

Something I've observed to be true is that iOS applications seem to be specifically coded to share data with other iOS applications. A lot of things can share data to Dropbox, but fewer seem to be able to share the same data to Google Drive or Onedrive. Data sharing seems to be a one-way street where the application developer has to support whatever hooks were provided for the target app. At the very least, the list of supported applications for sharing does not appear consistent from app to app, even within the context of a particular data type. I suspect this is in large part due to the iOS security model, but I take issue with that for other reasons anyway.

Everything you mention is fine but I'm not sure there's some killer user story or use case that justifies it in light of the security issues. I don't think any 3rd party app developer should be able to see any of your file system ever, not on your phone. It's just too dangerous, the thing is always on the network, it knows where you live and you can't unplug it.

"I can't think of a reason someone would want to to it, so it must be a bad idea."
There's a 128GB iPad sitting in my office. I have no particular use for a 128GB iPad, but it's still 128GB of flash storage that I could potentially use for something-or-other (yes, I am aware that I can get 128GB flash drives for under $50 but that's what a 128GB iPad is worth to me). Putting that aside, it's storage. On the iOS device, I have to associate everything with a particular application. I can't even use the stupid thing to transfer inert data (that I already had to add through iTunes since the device can't meaningfully interact with SMB, FTP or NFS) that for one reason or other doesn't match up with file size limits on my cloud storage provider's service.
Likewise, I don't have any control over arrangement of data under iOS. I have to accept whatever the device does and like it. That sometimes means making multiple copies of the same file (on a device that's specifically sold on the basis of its storage limitations) for different apps in cases where those two apps can't share data. It also means potentially jumbling a lot of data together that I don't really want to have view that way. Should I really be forced to reorganize my data to conform to the limitations of the device?
Whether or not applications are granted the ability to access a filesystem, the system owner should be able to do that even if it's just an infrequently used option.

Honestly I just spent about 30 minutes trying to find a website where I could even try to download an MP3

Ahem. This is a thing that people do. This is a thing people do all the goddamned time. Yes, you can get an app on iOS that can sandbox those particular downloaded MP3s on internal storage, but look at how ridiculous the workflow is to move those files out of that sandbox and in to the default music app so you can add them to your normal playlists.
Even speaking of podcasts, haven't you ever been browsing on your iThing and wanted to snag a one-off episode of something? "Oh, I want to download the rest of that episode of Fresh Aire that I heard 10 minutes of in the car. Should I open a podcasting app and then the Fresh Aire feed so I can find that one episode that was a rerun originally recorded in 2007 and therefore buried in the feed or should I just search for it from the web?"

One app to play all your music is 1990s thinking; modern apps are meant to brand content and service experiences, instead of them all launchi

Re:Real fight

[Anonymous Coward]

If I didn't know better, I'd say you're astroturfing for someone. Your post reads like it was written by a corporate shill for Apple or a similar company.

Users may prefer the UI or specific features of one media player over another, especially knowledgeable users who are willing to put in the time and effort to customize their experience for themselves. I could give a rat's ass about "branding" or the "experience" that Apple or Microsoft think I should be exposed to. I want the raw content, and I will take it from there. And yes, I'm happy to pay for my music and movies.

It is also extremely important to me to be able to see the actual file system on my devices and control exactly what applications open my files. If you don't think this important on a personal computer that you bought and paid for, you are either an idiot who has no business owning a PC or have drunk the Apple walled garden kool-aid. I ditched by iPhone at first opportunity and switched to Android because I can directly access the file system. Now I don't need to deal with Apple's crappy iTunes bloatware. I just copy the music I want to my Android phone's file system. Apple will not have my business again.

Also, I find your statement that you had difficulty finding MP3s to be complete and utter nonsense. A Google search of the term "MP3" renders multiple sites where you can download them legally. This includes Amazon.com, which will sell you MP3s and allow them to download them to any device you want, as many times as you want.

Re: Real fight

[VTBlue]

It's a great sentiment that you express and I agree with all of it. It doesn't really speak to the idea that the only purpose of business is to make money. When you study 20th century business history and compare the age of managerialism to age to value maximisation (mid-80s onward) the data shows that the first had better outcomes, both for the business and for society.

Re: Real fight

[cavreader]

"sociopathy" and/or "psychopathy" I don't see how these descriptors apply to a large company without resorting to making wide generalizations and assumptions based more on hearsay than actual facts. They seem to be attributes of individuals. People who criticize corporations as the root of all evil don't seem to realize that those very same corporations provide a lot of jobs for a lot of people. It would be nice to have those running the corporations to put more effort into adopting policies that support their employees and go the extra mile to ensure competitive salaries, good benefits, and job security even when the business may experience a reduction of profits due to the general economic conditions. Preventing mass layoffs triggered by the stock price dropping a few points would go a long way in a repairing a corporations image.

Re: Real fight

[Jack Griffin]

What if his business is to compete with the Mint?

Re:Real fight

[l3v1]

"Visible global filesystem on a phone always seemed like a gee-whiz feature that wasn't really justified. Frankly I think the visible global filesystem on personal computers isn't really justified, considering how many people just dump everything into ~/Documents and most productivity apps have their own bespoke document browser/organizer."

First: average users being ignorant doesn't mean what they do is OK, or acceptable for everyone.
Secondly: for crying out loud, how many times do we need to repeat that not everyone is in a constant consumer-only mode, and - surprise - not everyone is an idiot.
Third: I'm just simply too tired with the leagues of idiots thinking dumbing down everything to the point of frustration and sometimes sheer pain is the way to go.

Re:Real fight

[gl4ss]

this is just ridiculous.

BTW Microsoft already has android integrated maps, bing etc etc. In Asia you can still go to a shop and big a Nokia X - with microsoft services.

they did shut down their own sw marketplace and replaced it with operas now though iirc.

bottom line here is this: cyanogen mod guys can go fuck themselves and MS doesn't have a friggin clue what it wants to do(first shutting down their, bought from nokia, android development and then paying some other guys to do the exact same fucking thing).

Re: Real fight

[radl33t]

I don't see how these descriptors apply to a large company without resorting to making wide generalizations and assumptions based more on hearsay than actual facts.

Read about it then. There is no dearth of material based on observation and fact. Peer reviewed research articles. Films. Investigative journalism.

Re: Real fight

[tehcyder]

If you believe the only goal of the company is to make money I hope you never start a business. Shareholder Value Maximisation theory pushed forward by Milton Friedman has been one of the most destructive and empirically flawed ideas in the 20th century.

If you aren't interested in maximising shareholder value, you should not have (external) shareholders. There is nothing that forces a company to become a publicly traded one.

Re: Real fight

[KlomDark]

What are you talking about? Or was that supposed to be a funny statement?

Re:Real fight

[FuegoFuerte]

Is OpenOffice/LibreOffice still a thing? I mean, it was great when I was in college and wanted something free to run on my old crusty hardware running Linux or Win2k, but MS Office really blew it out of the water last time I compared them side by side. Now that I have an income, I just buy the real thing.

Re:Real fight

[slaker]

QED, AC.

Re:Real fight

[Rakarra]

Putting that aside, it's storage. On the iOS device, I have to associate everything with a particular application. I can't even use the stupid thing to transfer inert data (that I already had to add through iTunes since the device can't meaningfully interact with SMB, FTP or NFS) that for one reason or other doesn't match up with file size limits on my cloud storage provider's service.

Unfortunately Google and Samsung have been moving towards this model as well. Recent changes in Android (4.something) means I now can no longer access the external SD Card as generic storage; limitations have been added so that only approved media apps can access the external card now. Google also recently disabled USB audio support which was working just fine for many people. Now, only my iphone can output audio via the USB cable to my car stereo. And on Samsung's side, with the Galaxy S6, the battery is no longer removable, and the there is no option to add an SD card for storage. None. All so they can make the phone another half-millimeter thinner, as if that was some holy goal worth shooting for. Both Samsung and Google are nipping at Apple's heels now, making devices that aren't quite as functional, but have all the restrictions that iPhones have.

This makes no sense

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing this is just a matter of the cyanogen guys going from "open android" philosophy to "how can we make ourselves money?"

Re: This makes no sense

[Anonymous Coward]

...implying that it is remotely possible for them. This is like when Oracle tried to do stuff to OpenOffice. What happens when a free software product whose only reason for existing is as a free software product tries to stop being a free software product? Forking, or death.

Re: This makes no sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. They sold out. Sad, but understandable.

Re:This makes no sense

[Andy Dodd]

WAT?

https://cyngn.com/blog/its-tim... - They constantly talk about how they're all about an "open OS" and "open Android".

The problem is that their actions are always inconsistent with their talk. While they talk an Open OS, their reaction to Google moving more and more components of AOSP into GMS and abandoning the open-source AOSP variants is:
Take that list of applications and create their own proprietary versions or license them from someone else:
First Focal, and when attempting to use their CLA to obtain dual-licensing rights to Focal failed (due to their CLA fortunately lacking some of the nastiness found in other CLAs like Harmony - not all CLAs are created equal, as Koush learned the hard way with Focal), CameraNext
GalleryNext
EmailNext aka Boxer
Now, Microsoft's suite of proprietary apps, ones which contribute further to the continued dominance of Office by encouraging use of proprietary formats prone to vendor lock-in (Google is, in contrast, pretty good about giving people who want to migrate away their data in open formats - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... )

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Cyanogen is dead.

[Anonymous Coward]

This.
Cyanogen is dead.

Proprietary Services

[wile_e8]

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.

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.

Re:Proprietary Services

[NotInHere]

They have a simple choice: either they develop the apps Microsoft provides themselves, or they let Microsoft do it, and focus on developing an OS. From their website, you can see, that they do want to remain open. They don't drive an 100% OSS approach. Cyanogenmod never was about 100% open source, installing google apps always has been an extra step in the cyanogenmod installation guide. Also, they didn't replace the proprietary drivers with open ones.

This is about Cyanogen OS, not CyanogenMod. Cyanogen OS is included into phones out of the box.

What they do, is giving people a choice. I have installed cyanogenmod onto my phone because I wanted to get rid of bloatware and google services. If this is the way how Cyanogen can finance CyanogenMod development, and that is still open source modulo drivers, I'm ok with it.

Re:Proprietary Services

[Anonymous Coward]

We know Microsoft openly cooperates with the NSA on eavesdropping technology

And we know that Google doesn't?

Not agreeing with it but...

[Junta]

Owncloud is not a cloud *service*, but a platform for creating your own (I actually prefer Seafile incidentally).

Ditto for K-9 mail, not a service, but an app.

Re:Not agreeing with it but...

[fluffernutter]

I use Owncloud and it works very well. The one thing I don't like about it is that it takes a good 1/2 hour for a file to get from one end to the other. Sometimes I wish you could just go to the target machine and immediately pull down a certified newest copy of a file. Seafile doesn't happen to do that does it?

Re:Not agreeing with it but...

[kwalker]

Schwa? I run my ownCloud on a 1.5Mbit DSL line and it takes virtually no time for anything to sync around my three desktop clients when I upload something (They're all remote to the server). Files even start coming down before the upload finishes if there are more than one. And I'm talking about everything from single-page PDFs (400K) to digital camera pictures (2-8MB) and music files (3-10MB). And downloads happen quickly when I am using the Android client (Limited by line speed). What are you syncing, full distro ISOs?

Re:Not agreeing with it but...

[iris-n]

Sounds strange, I use owncloud to collaborate on my papers between 4 authors and nobody reported this problem. I guess it depends on the server you're using (mine is the University itself), rather than the software owncloud.

Fight within a platform, not between platforms

[perpenso]

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.

Re:Fight within a platform, not between platforms

[muirhead]

Tots agree that this could work for corporations. Especially if a certain Canadian firm gets a licence.

Re:Fight within a platform, not between platforms

[MightyYar]

IBM once created an open platform

They didn't create an open platform - the platform was "opened" for them by Compaq, and IBM saw a threat. Microsoft, on the other hand, saw an opportunity and happily licensed their code to all comers.

Re:Fight within a platform, not between platforms

[MightyMartian]

BlackBerry is dead. Chen turned down the best deal he was likely ever going to get, and now it will fade away completely. Nobody cares about BB, heck they barely care about mobile Windows now. Microsoft's best hope is to hitch its wagon to an "open" Android variant with the hopes that it is a short hop to when the EU forces Google to open the branded version of Android on all those mid-range and high end mobile devices.

Mark my words. In two to three years, BB will have folded up, probably after Chen and his fellow executives have pocketed large amounts of hte company's cash reserve.

Re:Fight within a platform, not between platforms

[Strudelkugel]

Now that Gates is advising Nadella, I can imagine the conversations revolve around that fact that Microsoft never made the actual platform that ran Windows. Phones are a bit different, but logically is Android really so different from IBM, Phoenix, AMI, Award, etc., BIOS? Gates and Nadella probably think of Azure as Windows, sitting on top of Android or iOS instead of whatever BIOS, with Office 365 and every other cloud app being the equivalent of desktop apps in the PC era. I doubt they really care if Microsoft services are running on a Windows Phone in the long term.

Another observation: I have a Nexus, iPhone and Windows phone. My observation is that the iPhone has the best app implementation, the Nexus / Lollipop is close and "good enough", and that the Windows Phone is obviously second fiddle in the app world. Windows Phone has most of the apps I need, but not all, and the other problem is that even if Windows Phone has the apps I want, they are not maintained as well as the iOS and Android versions. That said, I am somewhat surprised to say how much better I find the Windows Phone UI to be over Android and iOS. I am guessing individually downloaded apps will matter less and less and integrated services more and more in the future, so Microsoft may very well achieve the same thing in the mobile world as they did in the PC world.

Re:Fight within a platform, not between platforms

[Eponymous Coward]

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.

What leverage? For what purpose?

The enterprise market doesn't really matter. Back in the IBM vs Microsoft days, the consumer market was tiny compared to the corporate market. Today, the enterprise market is a fraction of the consumer market. As long as the C-level executives want to use iPhones, that's what corporate IT will have to support.

Still, it makes sense for Microsoft. They have absolutely nothing to lose. Their new focus on going where the customers are (even on other platforms) is refreshing and smart. Cyanogen, on the other hand, is less interesting all the time. They seem to be trying to make a corporate version of FireOS. I guess you can't support a business selling themes.

Is anybody other than Google and Samsung making money from the Android ecosystem?

Re:Fight within a platform, not between platforms

[occasional_dabbler]

I am somewhat surprised to say how much better I find the Windows Phone UI to be over Android and iOS. I am guessing individually downloaded apps will matter less and less and integrated services more and more in the future, so Microsoft may very well achieve the same thing in the mobile world as they did in the PC world.

Yes, my thoughts too. I think the shift to W10 running on all devices with the UI kinda intelligently morphing to be appropriate for the size will help Microsoft long term as people get used to it, forget how bad W8 was and get on with their lives. (Try the previews). Despite being something of a Microsoft enthusiast I still find I use my favourite apps, Skype and OneNote, on my Nexus 7 far more than on the phone and hardly ever on the desktop. I think Microsoft are making a pragmatic and sensible move.

Re:Fight within a platform, not between platforms

[perpenso]

The corporate market influences the consumer. Many consumers want personal gear compatible with work.

Re:Fight within a platform, not between platforms

[westlake]

Microsoft, on the other hand, saw an opportunity and happily licensed their code to all comers.

The MS-DOS PC was a commercially viable platform before the cloning of the IBM PC BIOS.

Microsoft entered the 16 bit market with a full suite of programming languages that made the transition from the eight bit world of CP/M remarkably fast and painless. It's a part of a part of the story the geek tends to forget.

Re:Fight within a platform, not between platforms

[MightyYar]

It was "commercially viable", but so were it's plethora of competitors. The clones took over the world (except for maybe education and the Mac's eventual niche markets).

Re:Fight within a platform, not between platforms

[fashkaat]

| And IBM was a 500lb gorilla in those days like Google is today, a very different IBM than today. And a very different Microsoft than today.

Re:Fight within a platform, not between platforms

[FuegoFuerte]

Yeah, Microsoft is making buckets of money from it, from licensing. As a shareholder, this makes me happy. :)

Hasn't it always?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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.

Thanks, but no thanks.

[Anonymous Coward]

if I wanted Microsoft Apps, I would buy a Microsoft Phone. Very Unfortunate.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks.

[slaker]

Honestly, Microsoft applications for Android are credibly useful. If you're in favor of software choice or you want to segregate personal data between services, it's nice that the option exists. I don't really use any stock Android Apps at all anyway. I certainly don't see the harm in letting Microsoft in, so long as I still have access to the Play/Amazon App stores that otherwise give me the broadest selection of all available Android software.

If the Cyanogen people want to ditch Google licensing completely so that devices won't be able to run the Google Application framework (this is a problem for Kindle Fire devices as well), that's a decidedly consumer-unfriendly direction for their software to take.

One eventually has to leave dorm / basement

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:One eventually has to leave dorm / basement

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Perhaps corporations can get cyanogen out of the dorm and mom's basement and get it some serious usage.

Or Google could release an OS that doesn't require vendors' permission to install... like Microsoft does. Hah.

Re:One eventually has to leave dorm / basement

[JohnFen]

Perhaps corporations can get cyanogen out of the dorm and mom's basement and get it some serious usage.

But if the path to getting "serious usage" involves having to use Microsoft apps, then I don't care. That inclusion would mean that Cyanogen is no longer acceptable to me and I need to find a different OS. If the OS isn't acceptable to me, then I couldn't care less how many other people use it.

What alternative ROM would you recommend?

[staalmannen]

I am definitely moving away from CM as soon as this bundling gets in place. What would be the best alternative Omnirom? Something else?

Re:What alternative ROM would you recommend?

[JustNiz]

Yep I'm 100% with you. The moment Microsoft crapware starts appearing on my phone its goodbye CyanogenMod.

Re:What alternative ROM would you recommend?

[staalmannen]

AICP seems interesting... will try :)

Re:What alternative ROM would you recommend?

[viperidaenz]

You're implying they will not be any bundling?

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.

Re:What alternative ROM would you recommend?

[drinkypoo]

I am using Sonic Open Kang Project, which seems pretty good... if someone is doing a Kang for your device

Re:What alternative ROM would you recommend?

[mrchaotica]

Replicant is the only one I know of that aims to be actual, you know, 100% Free Software.

I have no idea why hardly anybody knows about it.

Re:What alternative ROM would you recommend?

[tepples]

Probably because makers of I/O components, such as GPUs and radios, aren't exactly warm to the concept of a completely free operating system.

Re:What alternative ROM would you recommend?

[fashkaat]

Buying Nokia smart phone division did not help Microsoft. It hurt Nokia phone. The same will go for CyanogenMod.

Re:What alternative ROM would you recommend?

[Andy Dodd]

Yeah. As much as I'd like to be as "massively open" as Replicant is (and the Replicant guys' work was HUGELEY beneficial with some of the nightmares that were Haxxinos, I have had some great conversations with Paul during the days when Teamhacksung was active), the truth is that as long as SoC manufacturers are douchebags (Sadly, Qualcomm is the most open of the viable vendors out there - for all of the bad things they've done for open source, some of which were the final straw that led to JBQ stepping down as AOSP lead, Samsung and MediaTek are FAR worse. I've heard good things about Freescale's ARM i.MX6 chips as far as openness, but their "newest" offering is a quad Cortex-A9...)

Reverse engineering all of that is a MASSIVELY time consuming effort, and it doesn't help that some of the best tools for reducing that time investment are incredibly expensive - Hex-Rays Decompiler for ARM is a few thousand dollars.

Re: What alternative ROM would you recommend?

[staalmannen]

I am curious to know if Replicant works with the latest kernel. One reason as far as I have understood it with the "old" kernels also on the latest ROMs is for compatibility with blob Android drivers. If Replicant does not have those, it should be possible to already run linux 4.0 on it?

Sure, you're free of Google ...

[gstoddart]

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.

Re:Sure, you're free of Google ...

[gstoddart]

I have a android device and user neither Google nor Microsoft. I have no use for either company.

That's kind of my point ... are people who are trying to kick Google off their android devices all keen to get Microsoft instead?

This is like a hard core Linux user wiping his Windows machine and then installing a version of Office.

I just can't figure out who the target market for this is.

Re:Sure, you're free of Google ...

[SuiteSisterMary]

Because choice is a bad thing.

Re:Sure, you're free of Google ...

[Voyager529]

But now you're stuck with Microsoft.

Is this supposed to be some kind of improvement?

Google applications on virtually every stock (read:non-AOSP) ROM: not removable.
Microsoft applications on an AOSP ROM that, almost by definition, requires root and an unlocked bootloader: Good question; the fine summary says "integration", which could mean anything.

Still, I'd say the ultimate outcome is better with Microsoft than with Google. Not because of who Microsoft is, but because of who Cyanogen is.

"Oh noes, google is teh big evil corp'ration, let's go with teh Microsoft". I mean, what the hell are they thinking?

They're probably thinking, "Rent is due this month, and I need to put gas in my car, and I'd like to eat something besides ramen noodles tonight", like the rest of us. Microsoft is willing to give them a pile of money to make it so that a build of their ROM prompts for an outlook.com address instead of a gmail address. Dropbox, Samsung, and HTC already do this, so as long as the MS additions don't dim the "uninstall" button, I see no reason why MS being the prompt at the beginning is any better or any worse.

This just sounds like the point at which the free software folks sell out and say fuck it, let's just follow the money.

Which is why the devil is in the details. If the pile of money means "It prompts to create a Microsoft account at the beginning and OneNote and OneDrive are installed by default, with a 'skip' button for the former and working 'uninstall' buttons for the two latter", then it's foolish to turn down that pile of money. If Cyanogen with Bing(r) is just as difficult to deal with as pulling the Google stuff from a stock ROM...then that *is* selling out.

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.

Personally, I really like the new Outlook client for Android, especially since I have an Exchange account. Also, I don't always store stuff in The Cloud (tm), but when I do, I use OneDrive. However, I use Xprivacy, and I see no Windows Phone equivalent for the title. I use Root Explorer, and again, I see no WP equivalent. I use Swype, which doesn't exist on Windows Phone, nor does Titanium Backup or any number of other apps. "Buy a Microsoft device" is as shortsighted an answer as when zealots say "Get a Mac" to any and every problem that happens on a PC: it ignores any number of other variables.

Re:Sure, you're free of Google ...

[occasional_dabbler]

I use Swype, which doesn't exist on Windows Phone

I agree with everything in your post, including this, but the basic windows phone keyboard works at least as well as Swype, the autocomplete is almost telepathic.

The solution is simple.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fork Cyanogen.
If people are upset at the arrangement, they will move.

Company-less Android will still be a thing because people want it.
Although in saying that, at this point in time, I'd honestly rather have Microsoft than Google. Google have destroyed pretty much any reason to like them now.

Cyanogen Inc != CyanogenMod

[Anonymous Coward]

From the CM site: To highlight the one take away that matters to CyanogenMod users â" We are not bundling or pre-installing Microsoft (or any Cyanogen OS exclusive partner apps) into CyanogenMod.

Re:Cyanogen Inc != CyanogenMod

[BitZtream]

Of course not. It'll just cease to exist in a few months, replaced by something that does.

Re:Cyanogen Inc != CyanogenMod

[John.Banister]

That wouldn't be the way to go. Rather, CyanogenMMod would be a parallel product with extended features and a faster update cycle. After a year and a half of the two running in parallel, they release the message "We've regretfully decided to stop future development of the original flavor CyanogenMod after the next update as the vast majority of our users prefer CyanogenMMod, so we're concentrating our efforts there. We have the greatest regard for our original flavor CyanogenMod users and will leave the last update available for download until it is utterly obsolete."

Re:Cyanogen Inc != CyanogenMod

[JohnFen]

This is true, and people are getting confused (They really should call "Cyanogen OS" something else to minimize confusion). What this means to me, though, is that I have changed my mind and my next phone purchase will not be a Cyanogen-based phone after all.

Meh

[c]

It maybe sucks for those who buy a phone with CM pre-installed, but they've already announced that there's no plan to install any MS junk into CyanogenMod, and it's highly unlikely that the community would stand for it if they tried.

So, not something to worry about terribly much. Yet.

Re:Meh

[synapse7]

Are these phones targeted at China or foreign markets? I've never seen one in the US.

Re:Meh

[boondaburrah]

Well, there was oneplus.net, but they ditched CM for their own android flavour recently anyway. Also they only sell on Tuesdays.

Re:Meh

[luther349]

it was a April fools joke that's still cycling around. there not putting ms garbage in cynogenmod.

Re:Meh

[mcl630]

Umm, no. There was an April fools joke about Cyanogen being "powered by Microsoft", but this is new news, not an April fools joke. They are including MS apps in Cyanogen OS, but not CyanogenMod.

Re:Meh

[c]

So far that seems to be the major target market. As long as the carriers are heavily involved in choosing and customizing phone for consumers as they are in the US and Canada, I doubt you'll see a CM-based phone get much traction over here.

Re:Meh

[Andy Dodd]

Key being "Yet".

Every time Cyngn fucks up PR-wise, CM gets splash damage.

Why? Because for all you want to say Cyanogen Inc. != CyanogenMod - that's not true. Every person who has a leadership role in CyanogenMod and drives the direction of the project is an employee of Cyngn. That's a fundamental conflict of interest that cannot be resolved.

Yeah the MS junk won't be installed into CM just yet - but wait until that "Deep integration" Kirt McMaster keeps talking up starts happening - you're going to see architectural changes happen in CM designed solely to be beneficial to Microsoft.

Re:Meh

[c]

Yeah the MS junk won't be installed into CM just yet - but wait until that "Deep integration" Kirt McMaster keeps talking up starts happening - you're going to see architectural changes happen in CM designed solely to be beneficial to Microsoft.

Well... I'm less certain of that.

CM/Cyngn has to walk a fine line between making investors/partners happy and not pissing off the CM community. They don't make money from the community, but the community is a huge QA base and they'll have a lot of trouble developing and supporting Cyanogen OS without it.

If they ram through MS-specific stuff (versus just expanding the capabilities of the OS for everyone), a huge chunk of the community is going to bail on them.

I don't think they're quite stupid enough to do this. But I did say "Yet", because ... well, aside from their inability to muzzle their CEO, publicly fucking over a loyal customer with an international reach in favour of a regional exclusive was easily one of the most boneheaded things I've seen in a while. Short of changing the default boot animation to an android waving its dick around, I can't imagine a much more effective way to scare off potential Cyanogen OS customers...

Re:Long live OSS

[MightyMartian]

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"

Pretty please

[Nyall]

Could the Cyanogen Mod group please file a trademark and sue Cyanogen inc for the brand confusion?

I'd really appreciate it. Thanks

Re:Pretty please

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize that they're one and the same right?

Re:Pretty please

[Andy Dodd]

They are one and the same. Every person who has a leadership role in the CyanogenMod project is an employee of Cyanogen Inc.

CyanogenMod is trademarked, Cyanogen (in respect to Android operating systems) is trademarked - and Cyanogen Inc. (or Steve Kondik personally, I'm not sure, but he's CTO of Cyngn) is the holder of those trademarks.

Because K9 sucks like most

[rjr162]

for any sort of Exchange email.

Nine works great but costs something like $10 and doesn't do pop or imap.

There was another app (IIRC it has a paper airplane icon) worked okay with exchange as well. The rest, if you setup folders, you don't get alerts if a new email lands in a folder outside of or a sub-folder of INBOX.

Re:Because K9 sucks like most

[higuita]

Simple, don't use exchange!! don't try to fix the wrong problem!

If you choose a closed email server full of closed protocols, you will have problems finding tools that work with it! All the tools that can work with it will cost money and usually require yet another closed tool or service.

Use other things or pressure MS to support open protocols. if you don't do that, then you can't complain about application support.

If you really want to follow that path, set up a davmail server and use it (directly with SSL or via a vpn)

Again, exchange is broken and is not required... exchange people don't really know anything else and always complain that nothing can replace it... yet million of companies and people use other solutions and are happy. So yeah, exchange users/companies are "blind" inside a walled garden.

Re: Because K9 sucks like most

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have a choice on what mail server is running.. I could use IMAP or pop3 but that loses a lot of other features I need. Also, its not exchange but zimbra that's running.

Re:Because K9 sucks like most

[adiposity]

Touchdown was ok for Exchange.

I am using Mailwise, currently. It does threading and works with Exchange, my two requirements.

Re:Because K9 sucks like most

[RogerWilco]

Exchange is a given in many a corporate environment.
Not for technical reasons, but for legal and business reasons.
Choices like Microsoft and Oracle are almost a default because of two reasons:
- You can have a nice Platinum contract for same business day support.
- You have a target for your lawyers if things go wrong.* **

Neither of these are provided by the kind of project you mention.

*) I'm talking from Europe, it's probably worse in the USA.
**) I'm talking something that can absorb a €100+ million damage claim.

Re:Because K9 sucks like most

[JackieBrown]

Mailwise as well. It lets you bypass the security restrictions and updates my calander

Re:Because K9 sucks like most

[higuita]

- both support from MS and Oracle is sh*t our days... i know, i used then until a few months ago
  I understand that "companies" will not care, they want someone to blame and pay the money they ask... but those are brainless companies. Companies that do really think on why and the costs see that it may be better to use something help or even pay for a "cloud" solution

-If you company business is doing @100+ million based on exchange, your company is doing it wrong, for sure!!
Almost no companies are "email based" (eg: making money based on the email), even worst depending on something so hard to scale as exchange.

Lets face it, companies use exchange because is MS, because they have many tools and people trained on that and because they don't know anything help.

Re:Antitrust

[Dracos]

What you describe is not too dissimilar to what MS makes PC OEMs agree to regarding preinstalled Windows. It wouldn't be impossible to get this to backfire all over Redmond.

IBM PC was an open platform

[perpenso]

IBM once created an open platform

They didn't create an open platform - the platform was "opened" for them by Compaq, and IBM saw a threat. Microsoft, on the other hand, saw an opportunity and happily licensed their code to all comers.

Compaq et al were able to create clones because the IBM PC was an open platform.

"Lowe presented a detailed business plan that proposed that the new computer have an open architecture, use non-proprietary components and software, and be sold through retail stores, all contrary to IBM tradition"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...

Re:IBM PC was an open platform

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

From the same link:

The success of the IBM computer led other companies to develop IBM Compatibles, which in turn led to branding like diskettes being advertised as "IBM format". An IBM PC clone could be built with off-the-shelf parts, but the BIOS required some reverse-engineering. Companies like Compaq, Phoenix Software Associates, American Megatrends, Award, and others achieved fully functional versions of the BIOS, allowing companies like DELL, Gateway and HP to manufacture PCs that worked like IBM's product. The IBM PC became the industry standard.

Using off-the-shelf parts is not the same as being open.

Re: IBM PC was an open platform

[Anonymous Coward]

People always forget, or never knew, that the IBM PC was built entirely from off the shelf chips and released with full schematic diagrams, and the commented ASM source code for the BIOS published in the Technical Reference Manual. That was just how things were done back then. Compaq did the same thing, and AT&T did too with the 6100 PC compatible.

Everything was openly documented. Publishing the BIOS was a smart move by IBM, because many people otherwise qualified to write a clone BIOS read IBM's source and were thus contaminated.

Re: IBM PC was an open platform

[MightyYar]

Openly documented does not mean you were allowed to clone it. Compaq had to reverse engineer the PC BIOS using engineers who had never looked at the BIOS. These engineers wrote a spec that a separate set of engineers then had to implement. It was very costly and laborious and resulted in a landmark court victory for Compaq.

Re:IBM PC was an open platform

[Solandri]

When someone says "open platform" they're usually referring to the software. The hardware specs for the IBM PC were open - anyone could make PC hardware without getting a license from IBM. Whoop dee doo. The software was locked down with the IBM BIOS, so nobody could sell a PC-compatible because they needed the IBM BIOS to run any software developed for that open hardware platform. And the BIOS had a great big "Copyright IBM" at the beginning without which DOS (and thus any PC software) wouldn't work. That is, if you wanted to sell a PC-compatible, you needed to get a license from IBM. And IBM wasn't selling licenses.

Compaq opened up the platform by reverse-engineering the IBM BIOS in a clean room (i.e. engineers who only had access to the IBM PC BIOS chip in a black box, and they deduced everything in the BIOS by sending in signals and seeing what came out). That's what allowed PC-compatibles and turned the PC into the open software platform it is today.

Apple locks down their Macs with the software license on OS X - you are (aside from OS X server in a VM) only allowed to run it on Apple-sold Mac hardware. The plethora of Hackintosh guides out there demonstrate that hardware compatibility is for the most part not a problem. Thus far the license agreement for OS X has been legally bulletproof. Unlike the copyright protection on the IBM BIOS.

Re:IBM PC was an open platform

[BitZtream]

Compaq et al were able to create clones because the IBM PC was an open platform.

Wow, you know nothing about what happened, do you? Are we really already to the point where people don't have any idea how 'locked down' the PC was when it first came out? We've already forgot? Oh, you misread a Wikipedia article ...

IBM fought tooth and nail to prevent Compaq from being able to sell generic 'PC's and they had to go to great lengths to emulate the IBM BIOS without actually using any code to avoid lawsuits.

IBM saying its 'open' does not mean what you think it means. It doesn't mean you can get the specs and information for free, or even for the same price as the last guy. IBM means 'open' as in they are 'open' to charge you whatever the fuck they want to allow you into their system. It was about as open as any game console now days.

Re:IBM PC was an open platform

[perpenso]

Compaq et al were able to create clones because the IBM PC was an open platform.

Wow, you know nothing about what happened, do you? Are we really already to the point where people don't have any idea how 'locked down' the PC was when it first came out? We've already forgot? Oh, you misread a Wikipedia article ...

Wrong. Are you under the mistaken impression that "open" means the source code is also free to re-use and distribute? It does not, contrary to how the FSF would like to redefine "open". The fact remains that the IBM PC BIOS was open, PC developers had access to the source code. This source code was part of the documentation provided by IBM to PC programmers so that they could call the BIOS API. The comments in the source code were the API spec. We weren't using pirated copies, we were using official copies provided by IBM.

Re: IBM PC was an open platform

[perpenso]

Compaq had to reverse engineer the PC BIOS using engineers who had never looked at the BIOS. These engineers wrote a spec that a separate set of engineers then had to implement.

That's not how it worked. The first team absolutely looked at the BIOS to create that spec. Its the second team that implemented the spec that had never seen the BIOS.

Re:IBM PC was an open platform

[IAN]

Are you under the mistaken impression that "open" means the source code is also free to re-use and distribute? It does not, contrary to how the FSF would like to redefine "open".

That's a misrepresentation of FSF's stance. They are the ones who grumble about using the term "open source", because they feel it's too loose, for exactly the reasons you have described.

Re: IBM PC was an open platform

[MightyYar]

Sorry, yes, you are correct.

Bug/Security Updates would be an Improvement

[Anonymous Coward]

But now you're stuck with Microsoft. Is this supposed to be some kind of improvement?\

If your device gets no patches under factory android but it does under cyanogen, then yes it is an improvement. A huge improvement.

Re:IBM published their BIOS source code

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

IBM published the source code to their BIOS. That is pretty open and greatly facilitated the creation of a compatible BIOS.

Heh. No. Compaq reverse-engineered their BIOS. Here's some more reading material.

Re:IBM published their BIOS source code

[Enry]

Releasing the source code would actually made it worse for the compatibles - in order to prevent infringement, the clones had to reverse engineer the BIOS in a clean room fashion, so no looking at the source code at all.

sure, they'll do that...

[SeaFox]

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.

It's like whoever wrote this doesn't understand how modern software/device manufacturers think.
Half their business plan involves data mining and vendor lock-in.

Re:To be honest...

[occasional_dabbler]

Nokia is selling off Here Maps. Bought for $6B, yours for a steal at $2B! Seriously, check out Here it's a way better service than either Google's or Microsoft's but thanks to the tangled history it is the location service behind all of the WindowsPhone navigation apps.

April's Fool

[sanf780]

Although I need to say that bloggers or wanna-be-reporters are getting it wrong. You know what? Pink ponies are real.

The enemy of my enemy...

[erp_consultant]

is my friend. It's kind of interesting to watch all of this shake out. Apple and Google hate one another. Microsoft has traditionally been anti-open source. Google hates Microsoft. Apple embraces open source...as long as you play by their rules. Microsoft and Apple have an alliance, albeit an uneasy one. IBM hates Microsoft and now had teamed up with Apple.

So Microsoft figures the best way to get Google is to team up with Apple and Cyanogen. We'll see how effective it is but it seems like a bit of a desperation move on Microsoft's part.

False headline

[mcl630]

Cyanogen isn't "replacing" Google apps with Microsoft, they are including Microsoft apps in addition to the Google apps. At least for now anyways...

Re:False headline

[Andy Dodd]

You seem to have forgotten the announcement that they're working on a device for Blu that will not contain GMS.

Source code made it easier

[perpenso]

Releasing the source code would actually made it worse for the compatibles - in order to prevent infringement, the clones had to reverse engineer the BIOS in a clean room fashion, so no looking at the source code at all.

There are two parts to the clean room approach. One is the specification phase where one team defines the necessary behavior for a compatible system. This team may look at the copyrighted material. In the IBM PC case the fact that this team was looking at commented source code rather than disassembled binaries was a big advantage, it made their job far easier.

The second phase, which is performed by an entirely different team with no connection to the specification team (other than their output, the specification), is the implementation. Whether the specification they received came from disassembled binaries or source code makes no difference. Well, other than if the spec is source code based it is probably more compatible. So in the IBM PC case we may have had fewer incompatibilities in the spec which made implementation easier too, fewer bug hunts later on.

"Open" does not mean without copyright

[perpenso]

IBM published the source code to their BIOS. That is pretty open and greatly facilitated the creation of a compatible BIOS.

Heh. No. Compaq reverse-engineered their BIOS. Here's some more reading material.

"Open" does not mean without copyright. The fact is those working on a compatible BIOS had the IBM source code with comments to work from in order to define what a compatible system needed to do. That is a huge advantage compared to disassembling binaries. The fact remains that IBM published the source code to the embedded firmware, that is by definition open. The fact that it is copyrighted and may not be distributed without permission does not change this.

Re:"Open" does not mean without copyright

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

...the fact is those working on a compatible BIOS had the IBM source code with comments to work from

... they clean-room reverse engineered it.

That is pretty open and greatly facilitated the creation of a compatible BIOS.

The fact remains that IBM published the source code to the embedded firmware, that is by definition open.

You can nitpick individual details all you like, but at the end of the day Compaq created the clone of the BIOS despite IBM, not with support from them.

Clean room design (also known as the Chinese wall technique) is the method of copying a design by reverse engineering and then recreating it without infringing any of the copyrights and trade secrets associated with the original design. Clean room design is useful as a defense against copyright and trade secret infringement because it relies on independent invention.

Source code was also the BIOS API doc

[perpenso]

I don't think "clean room" was as you described. I believe one team had access to copyrighted materials including the commented source code. They created a specification that describes the required compatible behavior without any mention of any copyrighted. The "clean" part of the process is the next step. A separate team implements a compatible BIOS working *only* from this specification. The implementation team has no contact with the specification team other than this specification. I think the implementation team was also selected from people who had never programmed the PC before.

The fact that IBM was open with the source code and the specification team had access to commented source rather than disassembled binaries was a great advantage. Keep in mind that this source code listing was official IBM documentation on how to use the BIOS. IBM intended it to be viewed by PC programmers so that they could make use of BIOS API calls.

Listings documented the BIOS API calls

[perpenso]

As an example of IBM being open with their BIOS source code see their PC Hardware reference manual:

http://www.retroarchive.org/do...

Open listings like this were *the* documentation on how to use the BIOS API calls.

Clean room design has dirty and clean teams

[perpenso]

...the fact is those working on a compatible BIOS had the IBM source code with comments to work from

... they clean-room reverse engineered it.

A clean room design involves *two* teams. A dirty team that reverse engineers and writes a specification for a compatible device, and a clean team that does the actual implementation using only the provided specification. The "wall" is between these two teams, the implementation team has no contact other than the specification.

The dirty part of the team had a much easier time creating the specification given that they had commented source code. This source code, widely distributed by IBM to PC programmers, was the BIOS API documentation. This is a night and day difference with respect to reverse engineering and the fact that IBM didn't want a compatible BIOS to be produced does not change this.

Re:Clean room design has dirty and clean teams

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

This is a night and day difference with respect to reverse engineering...

No, it isn't. They had to go further out of their way to dance around that issue in order to make a legal clone.

...and the fact that IBM didn't want a compatible BIOS to be produced does not change this.

It changes this part:

Compaq et al were able to create clones because the IBM PC was an open platform.

Re:Clean room design has dirty and clean teams

[perpenso]

This is a night and day difference with respect to reverse engineering...

No, it isn't. They had to go further out of their way to dance around that issue in order to make a legal clone.

The half of the clean room effort that does the implementation are the one's making the clone, they don't see source code, disassemblies, etc. The other half doing the reverse engineering in order to develop the specification have to discover the *intent* of the original developers with respect to functionality. That discover is easier when you have their commented source code rather than a disassembly of a binary.

The dancing you refer to is for non-clean room scenarios where the developer implementing the compatible non-infringing clone has access to the original copyrighted code. And that dance occurs regardless of whether he/she is working from a binary disassembly or commented source code. Lawyers literally look at the code and say these ten or so lines in the new are too similar to these ten or so lines in the original. Disassembly or source has this same problem. Now source still has the advantage of better divining the original intent, so having the source is also a win in the non-clean room scenario.

...and the fact that IBM didn't want a compatible BIOS to be produced does not change this.

It changes this part:

Compaq et al were able to create clones because the IBM PC was an open platform.

No, it didn't. The fact that IBM provided source code to all PC programmers as a way of documenting the BIOS API actually made things simpler despite such a desire. If IBM was to act in a manner more consistent with that desire so as to hamper Compaq et al they would have simply provided PC programmers with registers for input/output parameters and the interrupts to use to invoke an API call. As was done with DOS.

Any revenue model on F-Droid?

[tepples]

F-Droid excludes all non-free software. And by default, it hides apps with antifeatures such as advertisements and reliance on non-free add-ons or services. So how are the developers of an app on F-Droid supposed to keep a roof over their heads? And would your suggestion also work for games?

But

[uvajed_ekil]

But Cyanogen can't even seem to get bluetooth to work properly on my 3 year-old LG Optimus G. The BT MAC address is always an incorrect value, causing major connection and audio streaming issues. I have been a big fan of CM roms for 5-6 years now, but there are too many bugs they can't seem to rectify these days for me to take them completely seriously. This is especially true if they want to do Android without Google.

Good luck to them, but dancing with the devil (and undisputed king of unresolved bugs) doesn't seem like the way to perfect Android, even if it means taking the lead away from Google. This is disappointing, to say the least.

Re:Long live OSS

[radl33t]

and at the end of the day you waste your time commenting on slashdot same as me. Glad you use that financial freedom so wisely.

This is a capitalist world we live in. Accept it

[cloud.pt]

"Rather than distribute more proprietary services,"... Do not confuse CyanogenMod (CM) with Cyanogen Inc.. The later is a 1B$ valuated company, not an NPO. CM is to Inc. much what AOSP stands for Android: an open-source project backed by a for-profit organization that takes the helm.

Android itself is nothing more than a Google certified AOSP+GApps package. Gapps (market, big data collection, and so on) and OEM support/certification is the way Google monetizes the free AOSP. If Cyanogen Inc. is to succeed as a company, they must have a proven Mobile market exit strategy that should be similar to this. That strategy can be good, bad, or so-so for the stereotypical user:

1. If Cyanogen Inc. decides to collaborate with Microsoft in ways that the Microsoft services are provided with low to no strings attached, and under some form of source openness, there is a clear benefit to the user, and Microsoft will certainly benefit from AOSP divergence in the market in favour of Windows Mobile (so there should be small financial incentive flow to Cyanogen Inc.).
2. If CM starts dropping Gapps integration in favour of focusing efforts on an "MSApps" solution, that is a clear step back but it will probably provide more financial incentives to both parties, since Microsoft will totally hijack Google's model.

I predict a third option (the so-so one) is what's cooking, as Microsoft/Cyanogen Inc both need to take a stand for their financial goals, yet Inc surely wants to steer clear from total dependency on a third-party, and keep up their FOSS/XDA-community driven popularity - they are, after all, the ones who freely do all the heavy lifting on CM, and Cyanogen Inc, much like a RedHat or an Oracle, is reaping gains from an open environment needing professional supervision. They would be shooting themselves in the foot otherwise.

Re:Long live OSS

[radl33t]

Sorry I'm an internet millionaire too, with preferred private capital investments. It is you who work for me.