Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cyanogen Partners With Microsoft To Replace Google Apps

Posted by Soulskill on from the unexpected-alliances dept.

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.

36 of 179 comments (clear)

  1. Well... by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  2. Real fight by __keronin · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

    1. Re:Real fight by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Real fight by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Informative

      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?"

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Real fight by Wheely · · Score: 2

      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.

    4. Re:Real fight by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:Real fight by slaker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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
    6. Re:Real fight by spasm · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    7. Re: Real fight by VTBlue · · Score: 2

      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.

    8. Re:Real fight by slaker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    9. Re:Real fight by slaker · · Score: 3, Informative

      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

      --
      -- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
  3. This makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    1. Re: This makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ...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.

  4. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  5. Proprietary Services by wile_e8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Proprietary Services by NotInHere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  6. Not agreeing with it but... by Junta · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  7. Fight within a platform, not between platforms by perpenso · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Fight within a platform, not between platforms by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Fight within a platform, not between platforms by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  8. Hasn't it always? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. One eventually has to leave dorm / basement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. What alternative ROM would you recommend? by staalmannen · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    1. Re:What alternative ROM would you recommend? by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  11. Sure, you're free of Google ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Sure, you're free of Google ... by occasional_dabbler · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
  12. Cyanogen Inc != CyanogenMod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  13. Meh by c · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    Log in or piss off.
    1. Re:Meh by mcl630 · · Score: 2

      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.

  14. Re:Long live OSS by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  15. Pretty please by Nyall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  16. IBM PC was an open platform by perpenso · · Score: 4, Informative

    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...

    1. Re: IBM PC was an open platform by perpenso · · Score: 2

      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.

  17. Re:IBM published their BIOS source code by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2

    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.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  18. Re:IBM published their BIOS source code by Enry · · Score: 2

    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.

  19. sure, they'll do that... by SeaFox · · Score: 2

    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.