Android Leader Says That Android is Still Open

[Marcus Yam]

Everything is cool, says Google's chief Android.

Android Leader Says That Android is Still Open : Read more

 

[burnley14]

Sounds legit to me. I don't think Google is the big angry monster people paint it out to be.

 

[Griffolion]

Rubin's handling it very well considering him and his team are basically sandwiched between people shouting 'FRAGMENTATION!' on one side because Android is open for modification etc and people shouting 'HYPOCRITE!' on the other side when they actually try and take measures to reduce fragmentation and increase consistency.

He was right, people seriously do need to calm down, until the whiners can create a better OS and have it become as popular as Android, shut your damn mouth.

 

[scuba dave]

[citation][nom]Griffolion[/nom]Rubin's handling it very well considering him and his team are basically sandwiched between people shouting 'FRAGMENTATION!' on one side because Android is open for modification etc and people shouting 'HYPOCRITE!' on the other side when they actually try and take measures to reduce fragmentation and increase consistency.He was right, people seriously do need to calm down, until the whiners can create a better OS and have it become as popular as Android, shut your damn mouth.[/citation]

I would calm down as soon as they stop calling it Open Source, and calling it by a more correct term. Beyond that, I think he's handling it as well as can be expected, as far as PR disasters go, lol.

 

[jon_doe_x]

"As soon as this work is completed, we’ll publish the code. This temporary delay does not represent a change in strategy."

Wrong Mr. Rubin, your statement constitutes a logical fallacy of the highest order.

Clearly, your decision to withhold source code until the phone port is completed does indeed represent a change in strategy, especially in light of the fact that Google has stated that Honeycomb was going to be essentially an operating system aimed squarely at the tablet market.

Of course, a good many of the same people who bash Apple for being ego-maniacal are the same people praising Google for doing what they should have done in the first place: taking responsibility for their products.

Websites like Tomshardware and Anandtech have become shills for the likes of Google and their mealy-mouthed VPs who believe the average Android user to be dumb enough to believe the stinky stuff their shoveling. Man, its good to be Google!

 

[ericburnby]

If someone wishes to market a device as Android-compatible or include Google applications on the device, we do require the device to conform with some basic compatibility requirements.

Go ask Facebook about this one. What this means is that when Facebook releases their new killer app for Android, that Google gets to see it first and "approve" it. Facebook doesn't care about the "approval" process - they care about having their secrets/ideas/features/code being scrutinized by Google before they release the app.

If a company modifies Android for a new phone, Google gets to see the modifications first to "approve" them. They require this because they allow companies to modify the source code if they wish. Google gets a free look at all the code for apps before getting approved - something that's been part of their user agreement since day one, but has only started to get enforced.

Imagine if Microsoft told application developers that they couldn't release applications without first letting MS look over and scrutinize the app first? People would be screaming bloody murder. Apple has an approval process as well, but it's mainly geared for content (they don't look at the code to see if it conforms to a set of rules - they don't need to because developers aren't allowed to modify iOS).

So Google gets an army of software developers that they don't have to pay who develop code and tweaks for Android, and they get a first look at these tweaks. And people are going to tell me if they see something really cool that they'll "forget" they saw the code and never try to implement it in some way in the future?

 

[quiggyb]

jon_doe_x is Jason Lomberg?

 

[DaddyW123]

[citation][nom]ericburnby[/nom]If someone wishes to market a device as Android-compatible or include Google applications on the device, we do require the device to conform with some basic compatibility requirements.Go ask Facebook about this one. What this means is that when Facebook releases their new killer app for Android, that Google gets to see it first and "approve" it. Facebook doesn't care about the "approval" process - they care about having their secrets/ideas/features/code being scrutinized by Google before they release the app.[/citation]

Did you even ready the word "Device" above? They are saying they want to make sure the "Device" can handle it. Like not being able to throw honeycomb on 10 year old PDA type hardware and call it new. the sheep would see how badly it runs and assume "Android must not be a good OS"... not knowing that it's the hardware that sucks.

I completely agree with Google making basic requirements for their OS. Have you ever tried running Windows 7 on a computer that originally shipped with windows 98? Yeah, good luck with that one.

 

[house70]

[citation][nom]ericburnby[/nom]So Google gets an army of software developers that they don't have to pay who develop code and tweaks for Android, and they get a first look at these tweaks. And people are going to tell me if they see something really cool that they'll "forget" they saw the code and never try to implement it in some way in the future?[/citation]
Paranoid much?
Why would Google let others include Google Apps on their device without ensuring compatibility? How stupid would that be?
You can launch as many devices as you wish (see all the cheapo tablets that came out before their time, they don't have the Market or Gapps), but if they're not compatible with Android Market you will not get any Google Apps. It's that simple.

 

[scuba dave]

[citation][nom]house70[/nom]Paranoid much? Why would Google let others include Google Apps on their device without ensuring compatibility? How stupid would that be? You can launch as many devices as you wish (see all the cheapo tablets that came out before their time, they don't have the Market or Gapps), but if they're not compatible with Android Market you will not get any Google Apps. It's that simple.[/citation]

I'd hardly say his opinion is "paranoid". Google tends to try to dip it's hand into everything on the internet, and sorry, from personal experience, when I've seen the code some people have used, that I never even thought of.. If it did exactly what I wanted something to do, but better, lighter, or more efficiently, you can bet your arse I used it too. Then again, I work it the Defense Sector, so such stuff isn't really a concern for us, considering the nature of the contracts we deal with.

Compatibility is very much an issue that should be addressed, and handled in an appropriately controlled fashion, however, if any of the code in an app made its way into anything else, that would be wrong.. Which, once again, is a huge difference between the Defense and Civilian sectors.

 

[eddieroolz]

Android wasn't really open to me anyway. Sure, carriers are able to customize, but its like Windows - semi open, but still proprietary. This is clearly evident when users can't do just about anything to Android such as installing tools without having to root it first, or OEMs blocking installations of vanilla ROM.

 

[dalethepcman]

What this means is that when Facebook releases their new killer app for Android

If facebook wanted to release a killer app for android, they should release a widget that is a copy of the website. The facebook app blows.

So Google gets an army of software developers that they don't have to pay who develop code and tweaks for Android

Wow just like every other Linux distribution ever made! I would call this smart business, and yes you are paranoid. If you think your code is so good that a company will steal it the first time they lay eye's on it, perhaps you should patent it before you submit it.

 

[Guest]

Weird, i'm reading the comments and I dont understand why it is soooo important for some people that Android is Open Source or not.

Google does not approve apps for them to be on the market, it's Apple appstore, win7 appstore and amazon appstore who does that.

Google does not steal code : There was accusation who are not proven true so far so like any company, google has the benefit of the doubt

Android is open source, Google has a 6 month delay to publish the code of his OS. Google will never be anything else then open-source because it would be stupid of them to change this

Facebook application sucks because facebook want it to suck

 

[hellwig]

I think the problem here is the old open-source attitude towards trademarks. Phone manufacturers are modifying Android code, and still calling it Android. I think if they were not allowed to do this, their attitude would change. Imagine if HTC couldn't use Android when advertising their HTC sense. Imagine if Motorolla couldn't use Android when advertising their Motoblur. Imagine if AT&T couldn't use Android at all for any of their crippled phones (no untrusted apps, really AT&T?). Without the Android brand name recognition, the OS would crumble to the wayside.

Therefore, I see it as perfectly legitimate for Google to have a vetting process. If you want to say your phone runs the Android OS, and you want to say it interacts with the hundreds of thousands of Apps in the Google Marketplace, then Google gets final approval. If you want to modify the code, and run your own app store, then by all means, modify the code to your hearts content, but you won't get a free-ride on Google's back that way.

You can modify Chrome source code, but you can't call your new browser Chrome anymore. You can modify Firefox source code, but you can't call your new browser Firefox. You can modify your Ubuntu source code, but you can't call it Ubuntu anymore, etc.. etc... I don't see why phone manufacturers think they can modify Android and call it Android.

 

[scuba dave]

[citation][nom]hellwig[/nom]I think the problem here is the old open-source attitude towards trademarks. Phone manufacturers are modifying Android code, and still calling it Android. I think if they were not allowed to do this, their attitude would change. Imagine if HTC couldn't use Android when advertising their HTC sense. Imagine if Motorolla couldn't use Android when advertising their Motoblur. Imagine if AT&T couldn't use Android at all for any of their crippled phones (no untrusted apps, really AT&T?). Without the Android brand name recognition, the OS would crumble to the wayside.Therefore, I see it as perfectly legitimate for Google to have a vetting process. If you want to say your phone runs the Android OS, and you want to say it interacts with the hundreds of thousands of Apps in the Google Marketplace, then Google gets final approval. If you want to modify the code, and run your own app store, then by all means, modify the code to your hearts content, but you won't get a free-ride on Google's back that way.You can modify Chrome source code, but you can't call your new browser Chrome anymore. You can modify Firefox source code, but you can't call your new browser Firefox. You can modify your Ubuntu source code, but you can't call it Ubuntu anymore, etc.. etc... I don't see why phone manufacturers think they can modify Android and call it Android.[/citation]

Now that, is probably the best argument for Android ever.. However, the only problem I see is people still putting the Android name on the box like: "ANDROID based!" or "OS based on ANDROID" and of course, the words "based on" being uber tiny, and Android ridiculously large. The "Market" always finds a way to exploit customers.. Always always always.

 

[cookoy]

fragmentation would be happen if the base started out quite good to generate widespread interest but subsequent updates become too infrequent, too buggy, too mediocre and sloppy, irrelevant, or start to impose crippling restrictions on developers.

 

[Vladislaus]

[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]Android wasn't really open to me anyway. Sure, carriers are able to customize, but its like Windows - semi open, but still proprietary. This is clearly evident when users can't do just about anything to Android such as installing tools without having to root it first, or OEMs blocking installations of vanilla ROM.[/citation]
Windows was never semi open, or whatever. It's a proprietary OS, or do you have access to it's source code?

 

[ericburnby]

[citation][nom]dalethepcman[/nom]If facebook wanted to release a killer app for android, they should release a widget that is a copy of the website. The facebook app blows.

Wow just like every other Linux distribution ever made! I would call this smart business, and yes you are paranoid. If you think your code is so good that a company will steal it the first time they lay eye's on it, perhaps you should patent it before you submit it.[/citation]

Yeah, and we all know Linux is owned by a single for profit company. If you think Linux and Android use the same business model, well I don't really have a word to describe how ignorant that is.

And again, people who don;t develop software making comments like they did. There's more to it than just seeing or copying code.

Let's say you're planning on introducing a new "system", like a cloud based music server, for example. You're keeping it a secret, but you have the underlying code being tested on your device. Someone else sees the device and wonders "hey, why is this code here and what is it doing?". They see underlying menus and screen shots for this new service. Google just got a first look at something you're developing that competes with a service they're also thinking about launching. And you think Google won't use this to their advantage? If you do then you're a fool.

If you were the developer, do you want Google knowing all your plans?

 

[ProDigit10]

It better!
We want an os that is free, and has plenty of free apps.
Let developers wanting money go to apple.

Android was and always should be free!