Android OS Putting Up Its Walls...

[kapolani]

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_15/b4223041200216.htm

Playtime is over in Android Land. Over the last couple of months Google (GOOG) has reached out to the major carriers and device makers backing its mobile operating system with a message: There will be no more willy-nilly tweaks to the software. No more partnerships formed outside of Google's purview. From now on, companies hoping to receive early access to Google's most up-to-date software will need approval of their plans. And they will seek that approval from Andy Rubin, the head of Google's Android group.

I guess the controlled approach works...

 

[YosemiteSam]

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_15/b4223041200216.htm





I guess the controlled approach works...

I don't think this means what you think this means.

You should be embarrassed for posting this with such a statement. Google is just preventing some of these shops from highjacking Android and and making it something Android is not.

That said, they *CAN* still do it. They just won't be able to call it Android afterwards. That is the great thing about *OPEN* software.

 

[kapolani]

I don't think this means what you think this means.

You should be embarrassed for posting this with such a statement. Google is just preventing some of these shops from highjacking Android and and making it something Android is not.

That said, they *CAN* still do it. They just won't be able to call it Android afterwards. That is the great thing about *OPEN* software.

You should think before you type.

It means exactly what it means.

They just won't be able to call it Android afterwards

Then it's no longer the Android OS.

It is no different than the requirements that Apple imposes on IOS developers.

No different than what Apple does.

You should be embarrassed for not even understanding the article.

 

[kapolani]

Here, I'll help you out:

Open-source software (OSS) is computer software that is available in source code form for which the source code and certain other rights normally reserved for copyright holders are provided under a software license that permits users to study, change, improve and at times also to distribute the software.

Some open source licenses meet the requirements of the Open Source Definition. Some open source software is available within the public domain.

Open source software is very often developed in a public, collaborative manner. Open-source software is the most prominent example of open-source development and often compared to (technically defined) user-generated content or (legally defined) open content movements.[1]

You should really look into how Google does things.

Android IS NOT developed in an open, collaborative manner.

At one time I actually thought you knew what you were talking about...

 

[YosemiteSam]

You should think before you type.

It means exactly what it means.



Then it's no longer the Android OS.

It is no different than the requirements that Apple imposes on IOS developers.

No different than what Apple does.

You should be embarrassed for not even understanding the article.

Dude, step away from the keyboard.

You don't even seem to realizes that Android is open source and *anyone* can take it and do whatever they want with it. They just have to abide by the license if they want to refer to it as an Android device.

Now that you've been schooled on what open source software is, tell me how I can take Apple's iOS and make it something else and sell it yet still call it an iOS device.

Oh what? You can't? Well damn, and you were acting like you had a clue.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Here, I'll help you out:



You should really look into how Google does things.

Android IS NOT developed in an open, collaborative manner.

At one time I actually thought you knew what you were talking about...

Hi, I am interested in contributing to Android.

Of course they don't just hand out commit rights, but anyone can contribute to Android. They just don't have voting rights like Google and SEVERAL other companies that have direct involvement in Android's development process. ....but I can contribute code.

You act as if it not open because you don't have commit rights. Name a single major application that has wide open commit rights? It doesn't work like that and you as a *claimed* developer know this.

 

[kapolani]

You don't even seem to realizes that Android is open source and *anyone* can take it and do whatever they want with it. They just have to abide by the license if they want to refer to it as an Android device.

***?

Do you actually read what you type?

If Google is now putting strict controls on what is released - i.e. if vendors change the source it can no longer be called Android - then it is against the very definition of open source.

Vendors will not be able to redistribute it and call it Android...

 

[YosemiteSam]

***?

Do you actually read what you type?

If Google is now putting strict controls on what is released - i.e. if vendors change the source it can no longer be called Android - then it is against the very definition of open source.

Vendors will not be able to redistribute it and call it Android...

Gotta school you again. Ever heard of CentOS? Got a clue on what the OS actually is? Why is hell did they call it CentOS if it is actually an EXACT CLONE of THIS operating system? (exact clone with the exception of removing the other operating systems trademarks and replacing them with CentOS trademarks)

Your last sentence is the example I used to discredit your earlier post. Why are you changing your story now? I said Android is an open system, but the name ANDROID is trademarked. To use a trademark you have to agree to the license. The OS? You can take for free which earlier you said you couldn't. You said locked down. Which is a damn lie.

 

[kapolani]

Why are you changing your story now?

Changing my story?

Where?

I said Android is an open system

I agree and disagree.

There is no way in hell Google will let anyone modify the BASE CODE i.e. core. It is true however that anyone can take Android, port it to their specific device. Depending on the changes, they may have to publish them in order to be in compliance with the licensing of the anddroid platform. But, it adds the whole fragmentation issue that plagues the Android platform.

You can take for free which earlier you said you couldn't. You said locked down. Which is a damn lie.

Never said you couldn't take it. Never said it was locked down. Although, when vendors release their phones THEY lock them down. It's true you can root the phone - with special tools - but right out of the box you can't.

The main point of the article was that Google is putting stricter controls on what goes INTO, and what is done with Android.

Playtime is over in Android Land. Over the last couple of months Google (GOOG) has reached out to the major carriers and device makers backing its mobile operating system with a message: There will be no more willy-nilly tweaks to the software. No more partnerships formed outside of Google's purview. From now on, companies hoping to receive early access to Google's most up-to-date software will need approval of their plans. And they will seek that approval from Andy Rubin, the head of Google's Android group.

Read it again.

Bottom line: Google is starting to put up its walled garden.

Whether this article is in fact truthful or not remains to be seen. But, if it is true then don't you agree that it's not very different than the approach Apple is taking?

Do you not understand the article? Do you not understand my point?

 

[kapolani]

Now that you've been schooled on what open source software is, tell me how I can take Apple's iOS and make it something else and sell it yet still call it an iOS device.

This is where you derailed the thread...

If you understood the article it wasn't about IOS versus Android as it pertains to open source.

Of course IOS isn't open source.

That wasn't the point of the article.

Google is now controlling (putting stricter controls) on what tweaks are done to the OS. If Google doesn't approve they don't get free/early access.

Controlling. Like. Apple.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

 

[YosemiteSam]

What the hell are you arguing? :bang2:

Never mind, the point is this. Google isn't letting people mangle up Android and then still call it Android. They are protecting their investment. That in no way means people can't hack it all to hell for whatever reason they decide to do it. You claimed Google was pulling an Apple which isn't true. You get what Apple gives you and thats in. You will NEVER find one of these for iOS. (Android's Git source repository)

 

[YosemiteSam]

This is where you derailed the thread...

If you understood the article it wasn't about IOS versus Android as it pertains to open source.

Of course IOS isn't open source.

That wasn't the point of the article.

Google is now controlling (putting stricter controls) on what tweaks are done to the OS. If Google doesn't approve they don't get free/early access.

Controlling. Like. Apple.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

Again, protecting their trademark. Thats it. They aren't controlling the source telling people what they can and can't do with it. They are only protecting their trademark. You are implying that they are doing what Apple does which is completely different. Hell it's not even in the same galaxy as what Apple is doing.

I'm done with this argument because your point is not even a valid one.

 

[kapolani]

Again, protecting their trademark. Thats it. They aren't controlling the source telling people what they can and can't do with it. They are only protecting their trademark. You are implying that they are doing what Apple does which is completely different. Hell it's not even in the same galaxy as what Apple is doing.

I understand what you're saying.

But, that was never my arguement. My assertion is that Google is starting to put stricter control on their environment.

You said they are protecting their trademark. Which is Android, correct? I never said they are holding the source under lock and key! I said they are putting stricter controls on what goes on the devices if they WANT TO USE THE ANDROID OS.

Do you understand the words coming out of my mouth?

They are becoming more controlling of what goes INTO their OS. Thus, trying to mitigate the fragmentation issue that you so vehemently deny is occurring.

Controlling was my point. Not that they close down their OS like Apple.

Reading comprehension.

I'm done with this argument because your point is not even a valid one.

Because you don't even understand the argument to begin with.

 

[kapolani]

Maybe this will help your inability to understand the argument:

http://www.bgr.com/2011/03/31/android-loses-more-open-cred-as-google-fights-fragmentation/

The report goes on to note that over the past several months, Google has been asking Android distributors to sign a “non-fragmentation clause,” that gives the search giant the “final say” on how manufacturers can “tweak the code.” Bloomberg also casually mentions that Facebook is one of the parties upset about that particular measure, as it has “been working to fashion its own variant of Android for smartphones.”

CONTROLLING

Q.E.D.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Please name any successful product that doesn't have a steering committee where they decide what is and isn't going into their product.

That product doesn't exist. All software projects have steering committees. ALL of them. If you want to add something the committee says isn't going in, then you have to fork and change the name. (trademark) This is true for all open source products. You aren't stating anything new so the point it moot just like the argument.

This article was posted because some idiot company wanted to do something to the source that the committee doesn't so they make a big stink about it. (file lawsuits, etc) Go check out how nasty the Linux kernel has gotten over companies DEMANDING changes be made to the Linux kernel.

As I said, this isn't something new. This happens all the time in the open source world where big businesses ideas clash on open source products they use.

 

[Vtwin]

***?

Do you actually read what you type?

If Google is now putting strict controls on what is released - i.e. if vendors change the source it can no longer be called Android - then it is against the very definition of open source.

Vendors will not be able to redistribute it and call it Android...

Seriously man. You know a heck of alot more than I do about this stuff but even I get this.

This is not even in the same universe as Apple's lock down.

 

[kapolani]

Please name any successful product that doesn't have a steering committee where they decide what is and isn't going into their product.

That product doesn't exist. All software projects have steering committees. ALL of them. If you want to add something the committee says isn't going in, then you have to fork and change the name. (trademark) This is true for all open source products. You aren't stating anything new so the point it moot just like the argument.

This article was posted because some idiot company wanted to do something to the source that the committee doesn't so they make a big stink about it. (file lawsuits, etc) Go check out how nasty the Linux kernel has gotten over companies DEMANDING changes be made to the Linux kernel.

As I said, this isn't something new. This happens all the time in the open source world where big businesses ideas clash on open source products they use.

Irrelevant...

The point is that people beeyotch and moan over Apple's heavy handedness when it comes to the type of apps that get put on the phone. Nevermind the fact that they don't let people modify the base source. But, there's a reason to this approach.

1) limits the amount of crapware.
2) Mitigates fragmentation.

We've argued point number two. Which you have claimed many times doesn't exist or is a non-issue. It seems to me that Google now accepts that this is the case.

From a software engineering standpoint I agree with having control of the source.

I used to see it on a daily basis. More than one agency at one time worked on my project. Sometimes we wouldn't even get their code into CM until days before a release. I can't even begin to explain the types of headaches this can cause. There were times that a customer would complain that something is broken. Long story short - I would have to look at code that isn't mine - and fix the problem. Now, imagine having to support many, many different builds that go to many different customers!!!

Fragmentation is a pain in the okolele... Google and vendors are starting to see that.

 

[kapolani]

Seriously man. You know a heck of alot more than I do about this stuff but even I get this.

This is not even in the same universe as Apple's lock down.

Thanks... But, the argument you think is going on isn't the one that I'm presenting.

 

[ajk23az]

Seriously man. You know a heck of alot more than I do about this stuff but even I get this.

This is not even in the same universe as Apple's lock down.

 

[kapolani]

Thanks... But, the argument you think is going on isn't the one that I'm presenting.

Hakuna matata...