Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Android Google Open Source

Google's Definition of 'Open' 168

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This discussion has been archived.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

Google's Definition of 'Open'

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 15, 2014 @11:46AM (#46254611)

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

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

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

  • my turn (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 15, 2014 @12:20PM (#46254781)

    fuck beta

  • Re:The Plague (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Saturday February 15, 2014 @12:33PM (#46254837) Homepage Journal

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

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 15, 2014 @12:34PM (#46254843)

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

  • by Luthair (847766) on Saturday February 15, 2014 @12:35PM (#46254849)

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

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

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

  • by 0123456 (636235) on Saturday February 15, 2014 @01:05PM (#46254955)

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

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

  • by whoever57 (658626) on Saturday February 15, 2014 @01:15PM (#46255003) Journal

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

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

  • by jader3rd (2222716) on Saturday February 15, 2014 @02:16PM (#46255247)

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

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

  • Re: Works for me (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Karlt1 (231423) on Saturday February 15, 2014 @04:23PM (#46255825)

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

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

Uncompensated overtime? Just Say No.

Working...