I don't understand all the justifications for Google's behavior being posted. I chose to purchase an Android phone because I believed that Google was committed to a truly open source mobile operating system. To me, that means that when I buy a hardware device that runs the OS, I can also download the source code the device uses, modify it, make use of my customized version, and share my changes with others. I feel that Google is trying to have their cake, and eat it too. At this point in time, I regard the Motorola Xoom and other Honeycomb devices as proprietary platforms that should be avoided by those who care about their software freedom.
+1 on this. If I were to make a list of reasons that a FOSS mobile OS is great, then "porting it to devices which it was not originally designed for" would be at the very top of the list! Restricting what people can do with Android because they are worried that they might do something that is ugly -- that is the absolute antithesis of being open, and it's directly harmful to the people who may have very well been interested in using a hacked-up version of Honeycomb on a smaller device, not to mention the people using Honeycomb on the Xoom right now who wish to access source.
Although Google is far more open than their competitors, that doesn't put them beyond criticism. It's not reasonable to compromise a core virtue of your ecosystem because you think you might have a branding problem.
What's not to understand? They don't think Honeycomb is ready for general consumption, and they'd rather wait until Ice Cream (when the tablet and phone versions of Android converge) to release. If you want to hack away at Honeycomb for tablets, you just have to contact them and they'll provide you the full source code.
They've done this to a lesser extent in the past with almost every major version of Android (where the Open Sourcing of it comes after devices already ship). Does it suck that it's taking longer for 3.0? Sure it does. Do they have a valid reason to do so? You bet they do. Avoiding almost certain fiascos of companies trying to shoe-horn Honeycomb onto phones is a definite concern.
I apologize for sounding argumentative, but you are missing the point. I understand Google's motivations, there is nothing mysterious about a company trying to protect its brand by controlling the user experience. I agree their actions are rational given their goals. The problem is that the essence of free open source software, which I believed Android was intended to be, is that users are given the freedom to modify the source code - regardless of whether or not such modifications are beneficial for anyone's brand!
I am not a free software absolutist - people should be free to create and use proprietary software. However, I want to make the personal choice to use free software, and have access to the source code that is not conditional on whether my use is beneficial to any external entity. I understand that Google avoids the GPL for the non linux kernel portions of Android. I was hoping that Google would nonetheless treat Android as a free software OS where you always have access to the source code of any device. I feel like its a "bait and switch" in terms of how it has been portrayed to the community of users who care about software freedom. I don't understand why some people maintain that it doesn't change Android's openness just because Google says it will release the source code "someday".
I think this could all be avoided if Google separated the code from the Android brand. Code releases could be much more common (and include situations like Honeycomb where they don't think it's ready for general consumption) but enforce tighter control on what a vendor is allowed to call "Android".
For instance, anything derived from the Gingerbread line could be used by Samsung/HTC/whoever, and sell it under the Android name, but anyone using the Honeycomb line would be barred from using the Android branding until Google was confident that it was ready (which, really, would happen sooner if it was open for hackers to fix). At the same time, smaller groups and homebrew folks can still get access to all the code they want to hack on and run their devices.
While I do think the article makes valid claims against Android's openness, I think decoupling the branding would go a long way to allowing a community to sprout up around the code.
I think you're over-thinking this. It's clear to me that Honeycomb simply isn't done. You can see it on the xoom. It's just not ready yet. It was shipped incredibly early.
Google is holding it back because their probably just not happy with the state the thing is in. It was rushed and this is their implicit omission of it.I think this is a pride of ownership thing, nothing more.
My simple question to you is: why do you think that?
Shipping a mobile operating system is an impossibly complex task, but surely you can understand a parallel with a simple application: just because you wrote an app that's being successful doesn't mean you're ready to open source it the same day you release it. Maybe you want to clean it up, or refactor it, or make it easier to be reused by the open source community.
It's a little more nuanced than that. They believed the binaries were a good product for 10-inch tablets, but would perform badly on smaller screens. If they ship source, though, people will try to get it running on small screens.
That's what the Ars article is referring to as cutting corners (an inflammatory statement): Honeycomb could have been generic enough to be a good product on all screen sizes, but they needed to save time to let the Xoom meet its ship date.
I'm arguing that Google didn't even believe that the binaries were a good product for 10-inch tablets. My bet is that Motorola forced their hand a bit, as opposed to waiting for the software to actually be complete.
It's a pretty long list of issues with the XOOM software even today.
I agree, which raises the question of whether they should have shipped Honeycomb in its current state at all. It really looks like they decided that the Xoom had to ship before the iPad 2 regardless of the quality of its software, and that seems to have backfired.
Google is acting in bad faith. Google (and others) are using the "positively charged" Open Source words to promote their product, but negating their core principles.
I wonder why it has taken so long for people to realize this. After all, Google's primary business--the search and advertising platform--is as closed source and proprietary as Windows.
I think there was a lot of noise and hyper that obfuscated the real messsage. Same thing happened with "Web APIs"... there is not such thing as a "Web API"... look what Twitter/Facebook and others do when they have enough traction. Web APIs and Open Source commitments seems more like a tactic than a strategy.
In my experience, the problem you describe is non-existent. I don't see manufacturers trying hard to get the latest and greatest onto their devices; what I see is consumers having to complain long and loud before manufacturers and carriers will upgrade to already-obsolete versions. As an owner of a device still running 2.1, I would be happy if we had this problem you're concerned about.
That's exactly what is trying to be avoided. If the latest release is available too soon, manufacturers will put it on devices and then leave people on that unfinished/unpolished version. You make it sound as if this latest version was released that your device that the manufacturer is already ignoring for upgrades would get the latest version.
I'm saying there's a snowball's chance of my device seeing Honeycomb at all; manufacturers are certainly not going to go out of their way to get a broken version.
(They might go out of their way to get a broken version for new mobile devices they're trying to bring to market. But it seems like aside from time-sensitive situations like Motorola trying to compete with the iPad2 by pushing the Xoom out the door, integrating and qualifying a new release is enough trauma that a device maker is unlikely to go to that effort with an immature product).
If you want to hack away at Honeycomb for tablets, you just have to contact them and they'll provide you the full source code
Are they going to provide the source to the ROM modding community? They're supporting the Nook and several other pre-Honeycomb tablets. If Google isn't going to release the code anytime soon those projects are dead. I'm sure Google has good reasons but they really should have figured this stuff out and set some clear guidelines ahead of time. Being secretive about development and tightly controlling access to source, while talking up the virtues of open source, is going to upset the people who are most loyal to the platform.
Isn't this a false dilemma? Can't they release the code and control the branding at the same time? Firefox is open source, but you can't call it Firefox if you change it.
If delivering on the promise of a slate/tablet like the iPad is difficult, and any company is its own worst enemy, then I'd say that closed vertical integration is the right strategy and openness is the wrong one. (With regards to winning in the general marketplace, not with regards to software freedom.)
All Apple has to do with iPad is to maintain a tight ship, and wait for their opponent's missteps.
As I commented elsewhere, I wonder if HP or RIM can now make a play for #2 tablet?
EDIT: For those concerned with software freedom, take a cue from Gandhi's playbook: Concentrate on examples of software freedom that are understood by the general marketplace. (Just as he concentrated on the pain of everyday Indians.) Sometimes, there is a place for the unpopular stance. Just be clear on what you're trying to accomplish when you're using that tactic.
Thanks, smartass. The real question would be, what are the examples of software freedom that are understood by the average user. There are plenty of those.
Android has never been that open. If Google was committed to a truly open source mobile operating system, they would have released it under the GPLv3.
Something like most of Motorola's recent phones with locked down bootloader, those aren't in any meaningful sense running an open source OS. At least not any meaningful sense for the average consumer. For a business with the money to roll their own hardware, they can take advantage of the source, but for me, I can't get that kind of touchscreen hooked up to that kind of battery, CPU, and GPU unless I'm willing to accept a closed OS.
Of course the point is moot, since Motorola would never use a GPLv3-licensed Android. I don't really see why, since, as I said, it's not the software but the hardware that I want to pay them for. (Though there's a good chance I would leave the software unmodified.)
I want the ability to run an arbitrary operating system on hardware that has as effective production and quality control as Motorola's hardware, with the same form-factors. If I can't get that sort of hardware without a locked bootloader for something resembling the same price as Motorola's line, the openness of the code is basically meaningless to me.
But surely for Honeycomb this isn't necessary. If Motorola wants to lock the bootloader then they can do so. This doesn't prevent Samsung or Archos from using the Honeycomb code. It just prevents people from rooting and modifying code that runs on Motorola's device, which is their perogative given that there is no end to HW manufacturers for Android products.
It's necessary if it's GPLv3. The anti-Tivolization clause means that the manufacturer needs to provide the ability for the user to sign their code.
From a support point of view, I cannot see any reason why any hardware manufacturer would go along with GPLv3 software. It adds a level of complexity that just doesn't make much sense to deal with, because it's not the manufacturer's best interest to support ANY code, just the code that they have put on the device.
The GPLv3 doesn't require you to support custom builds. It just requires you to let people use them. The code doesn't have to be signed at the hardware level. Heck, all you have to do is replace the splash screen on bootup with a "warning unsigned code detected, this device may have been compromised."
And as far as supporting any code, most manufacturers of processors do in fact support running any code you like on them. Especially the dominant Intel-compatible personal computer, where Apple themselves support running any operating system you like.
> Android has never been that open. If Google was committed to a truly open source mobile operating system, they would have released it under the GPLv3.
Maybe, but then it would have failed in the market place.
Unfortunately it appears that in the common case, "open" for Android has to do more with how much carriers can "customize" the OS, and is not about an end-user's experience.
I think this is in part because the primary customers of Android as a business are carriers (this is where Google makes money).
At this point in time, I regard the Motorola Xoom and other Honeycomb devices as proprietary platforms that should be avoided by those who care about their software freedom.
Agreed. I'm now even more glad that I went with the Nook Color instead, which is currently running a Cyanogen build of 2.3.
This is bad, but it's not new. While it seems the Honeycomb source will be kept secret longer than usual, Google has always withheld source code from the community while providing it to privileged partners.
For example, the Android 2.0 Eclair source code was not released to the Android Open Source Project until after it was already shipping on the Motorola Droid.
Even carriers and manufacturers who were part of the Open Handset Alliance did not have access to it before then. I know, because I once worked with some of these companies on Android customization projects.
I guess, the only reason why Google took this bold step was the incomplete OS. Honeycomb is still under development and they jumped the wagon pretty fast and released it already just to beat other Tablets and steal their market.
People already have the belief on Android devices and know how fast it grew, under the same pretext many would buy Honeycomb tablets but everyone fails to understand Honeycomb is far far different from the smartphone OS. It would really take time to make it work efficiently.
...Google has made the decision to keep the Honeycomb source code under wraps because it doesn't want hardware vendors to adapt it to run on other form factors where it might not function properly.
This is completely bullshit. If code is really open, it allows everybody to use the code as they see fit, however unfit other users might think it is.
The Apache webserver is really open: I can modify it and use it without any restriction from the Apache Foundation just because they might think my modifications "don't function properly".
This ignores the difference in technical competence of consumers versus Apache users. If some vendor makes a crappy tablet that runs Android, users will associate that crappiness with the Android trademark because they are unable to tell whose fault it is. There is no similar risk of the Apache trademark being tarnished because some guy sets up a crappy webserver with it.
> "This ignores the difference in technical competence of consumers versus Apache users."
No, it doesn't.
It insists that "Open" retain some reasonable meaning.
The difference in technical competence is what makes this move understandable and in Google's best interests. But that doesn't mean it makes any sense to continue calling the project "Open".
Honeycomb is closed. The reasons are irrelevant to whether "Open" is an acceptable descriptor. Google may one day make Honeycomb "Open". But that too is irrelevant to whether "Open" is an acceptable descriptor today.
"This ignores the difference in technical competence of consumers versus Apache users."
And Google's behavior ignores the spirit of open source, which expects the source to actually be available regardless of whether or not somebody's trademark might look bad.
I'm not sure the comparison to Apache was able to develop at a time when things were different and was not a project created by a massive for-profit corporation. Particularly given that Apache is not an operating system and does not have to address hardware diversity in the way that Android does.
Well I don't think Google has any choice about releasing their Kernel modifications, Android will still meet this openness criteria.
Or is that what you were saying? If so, that's kind of a silly definition of openness--If you care about the kernel being open source, you probably also care about the rest of the OS. I'm disappointed about the delay, but Android is still way more open than iOS in the ways I care about, i.e., I can run any app I want.
The article states that "Google's evangelists touted it as an open ecosystem" and seems to be taking the position that Google have not lived up to this claim.
All Rubin's tweet indicates is that Android is open source.
Google's Andy Rubin hit back at Steve Jobs Monday with a tweet that touted the openness of Google's Android platform.
Rubin, who serves as vice president of engineering at Google, posted a message to the micro-blogging site that might be somewhat confusing to those not familiar with the ins and out of Android coding.
Translation: Rubin's tweet includes the commands needed to start compiling a copy of Android on a home Linux machine. He's stressing that anyone can develop for, hack, or even create their own version of Android.
I remember the tweet, I just wasn't sure what point you were making by quoting it.
But this does say that by Andy Rubin's own definition of "open", Honeycomb is not "open". Unless there is some big part of this discussion/argument I'm missing, it's not available for download/compiling, right?
Right, this contradiction leads to the realization that Google is, to a certain extent, using "open" selectively as a marketing term without full commitment to the idea.
The thing that makes this so blatant is the succinctness of Rubin's definition of "open".
This article strikes me as inflammatory, the underlying actions by Google seem reasonable.
There's a difference between valuing openness, and promising openness at the expense of all other values. To me, Google has demonstrated the first consistently throughout the history of their company.
I'm sure there are good reasons to hold back the source. My guess would be, they don't want people trying to build tablets that can't run the OS properly. If Android gets a reputation for shitty tablets, that would be devastating to the platform.
If we still don't have up to date source in two years, we can start to worry that the Google we loved is dead.
Android is an open-source software stack for mobile devices, and a corresponding open-source project led by Google. We created Android in response to our own experiences launching mobile apps. We wanted to make sure that there was no central point of failure, so that no industry player can restrict or control the innovations of any other. That's why we created Android, and made its source code open.
It doesn't say
Android is a closed-source software stack for mobile devices, and a corresponding closed-source project led by Google. We created Android in response to our own experiences launching mobile apps. We wanted to make sure that there was a central point of control, so that we can protect our brand assets. That's why we created Android, and kept its source code secret.
If to get your open platform to become popular you have to sacrifice any idea of openness, then what was the point?
Your question is ambiguous, depending on how I read the word any... so I'll address both.
1. ...to compromise the idea of openness at all...
The point is not to be open. Openness is a tool that Google uses to create the product and ecosystem that it wants. In sacrificing a little openness, it loses a little bit of the perks of being "open," but probably gains other things, so I can respect that.
2. ...to compromise the idea of openness entirely...
I don't think we can say that they've done this, at least not yet. I'm just look at it as an experimental branch of the code that isn't yet ready to be merged into the trunk. It makes a lot of sense to me that, if they rushed this code out for strategic reasons, that they would want to keep it a little close to the chest until it was more stable. Remember, while to you this is an abstract principle of openness, to them this is a product they ship, and they WILL be judged on its performance.
Honeycomb is a production branch of the code, shipping on hardware already available on store shelves. So the idea of it being withheld as 'not ready' doesn't pass the smell test.
Surely withholding Honeycomb is within Google's rights and likely its best interests. But I don't think you can argue that it fits within any reasonable definition of Open. If "Open" has but one inviolable property, what could it be if not "source code availability"?
Honeycomb may become an Open Source project in the future. Google may have every intention of making that happen. But until the source is released "Open" isn't a property of their project, it's an unrealized goal.
And when evaluating how likely they are to deliver on that, I note the trajectory of the Android project has been away from Open and toward Closed for some time now. This non-release is an acceleration of that trend, not a simple continuation or an aberrant change in direction.
The best-case scenario is that Google does release Honeycomb, merely putting us back to where we were already arguing about whether Android's "Open" was translating into real, practical benefits over the approaches of Microsoft, Apple, RIM and HP.
Whereas the likeliest scenario is that this "eventually-Open" lag between product release and code release becomes a regular fixture. So not only will the practical advantage of Android's Openness be debatable, but the applicability of those contributions will vary within the release cycle.
>I don't think we can say that they've done this, at least not yet. I'm just look at it as an experimental branch of the code that isn't yet ready to be merged into the trunk. It makes a lot of sense to me that, if they rushed this code out for strategic reasons, that they would want to keep it a little close to the chest until it was more stable.
Which would be an acceptable reason if Honeycomb tablets weren't available for purchase. Since the Xoom is running Honeycomb, I cannot see how anyone can say that it's "experimental" at this point. It isn't just a commit that Google isn't done with yet, it is released software.
My interpretation is that the OS development has been "spiked" to target certain platforms, as a proof and exploration of the tablet form factor. But, as with most fast, targeted code pushes, some sacrifices have been made in the generalizablility of the code base. They may want a chance to go back and smooth out their hacks before eager vendors get their hands on it and start building the first at large generation of tablets.
This is just one interpretation, but it's an example of a case where I'd be behind Google's actions.
I agree that this is a good reason why Google doesn't want the code released, but I do not believe that it is a good reason not to release the code. If your Open Source software is good enough to be shipped, the code should be good enough to be released. In this case, I think it's more an issue about how Google is managing expectations with the system.
I think it would have made more sense to release a one-off Android branch for the Xoom. In addition, I would have:
1. Made it clear that this code release is a targeted device code release, and will have major issues with other devices.
2. Released a somewhat detailed timeline for when the stable, generalized 3.0 code is expected to be done.
The first keeps the homebrew community happy, because they have something they can hack with on the Xoom. It might boost sales marginally, too.
The second keeps the tablet manufacturers happy, because they now have a timeline for when Google is going to get a generalized tablet OS out the door.
But is it reasonable to say that Google has "sacrificed any idea of openness" by delaying the release of source code for one iteration of its platform?
Yes. Eventually is not now. Right now, Honeycomb is a closed source OS. Allowing politicians to live in the eventually (so they can keep their pet issue alive to get re-elected and not solved) has done us no good. Allowing companies to pull the same trick is not acceptable either. Open should not be a marketing term.
Well, I'd say it was reasonable to say Google sacrificed openness when
* They made sure that many of the most compelling -- to end users -- built-in bits were proprietary (i.e., those sweet Google-branded apps that you can get C&D'd for distributing)
* They began imposing requirements above and beyond software license compliance if you wanted full access
* They made sure their default (and thus, to most users, only) marketplace had the same sort of remote kill switch people complained about in Apple's ecosystem
* etc., etc.
Android is a mobile platform that you can sometimes get source for, sometimes hack on, and sometimes do what you like with. Which, um, isn't any idea of "openness" I'm familiar with.
Yes, because Google's privileged partners like Motorola get to access the source before its official release in order to have it ready on their products immediately, while everyone else has to wait.
This smacks of black/white thinking of extremes to me. Perhaps what they're doing violates the principle of openness, but if Honeycomb is the one exception to Google's "openness", and they end up releasing the code soon, for pragmatic purposes who cares?
I value open source as much as the next guy, but here I agree. The competition is so great (this is Apple we're talking about) that the usability needs to be spot on. Apart from the open source project, Google needs to protect a brand as well.
I hope Android will be open as much as the next guy, but right now Samsung et al have made some decisions that have impacted usability, so I hope that 3.x will be so greatly improved, usability-wise, that there won't be a need to keep the source closed, as nobody will find it necessary to "improve" upon it.
Yeah I think this sort of backlash hurts the overall push towards openness because for example Adobe probably looks at the possibility of publishing Flash player source but they know that instead of being celebrated that move will just create angry blog posts because of the license or that they don't accept patches etc.
Is it possible that there is a much simpler explanation here? For anyone who has touched a XOOM, it's clear that Honeycomb wasn't ready when it was launched. Bugs, incomplete features, and general lack of polish was really evident.
I think this is Google admitting that. They're not releasing it not out of some closed-source conspiracy, but rather because the damn thing isn't ready to be released. Sorry Motorola, but you pushed something out the door you shouldn't have.
It's the simplest explanation, and IMHO most likely the correct one. Google doesn't want this in the wild simply because it shouldn't be. They can't say that, but that sure seems to be what's happening.
Then why did they release it to manufacturers like Motorola?
Edit: To clarify, I think being open means that you either release to everyone or to no one. So arguing that it isn't ready became irrelevant once the xoom shipped.
I think that this hits the nail on the head. If the code is ready to be used by consumers, it should be ready for developers to inspect it.
Imagine if a writer said "I'm ready to publish my book, but I'm not willing to release the manuscript to editors". This isn't a perfect analogy since I'm sure Google do massive amounts of in-house QA, but it seems like the more feedback you're getting on the code, the easier it will be to whip it into shape. Saying you don't want to release the source because it's not ready or not mature is almost nonsensical.
Actually, it seems like the reverse, "I'm ready for editors to take a look at my book, but not ready to publish everything."
I get what people are complaining about, and I'm not terribly happy about it either, but it's not like I push every commit to github as soon as I've got it running on my server; frequently there is cleanup to be done first.
If you want to make a credible claim to being open source, you have to realize that the code is your product. To say that the code is too bad to be seen and then turn around to say that the product is wonderful and everyone should buy an Android tablet is, while not evil, disappointingly low-class.
(Did I really expect otherwise? No, I'm not naive. Google's products are open source to the extent that it suits them, and no further.)
It feels to me like a lot of people who are complaining so bitterly about this just lack the relevant experience in corporate politics to understand what's going on here. I am not saying this to be inflammatory; please read on and I'll try to explain.
They released it to Mot because the reality of their situation is that Motorola is a very valuable customer who therefore gets special treatment. You can bet that they made commitments to Motorola so that Mot could get their product out on time, and if they don't follow through on those commitments, Mot might decide to go with Win Phone 7 in the future. That is the reality of being a vendor who caters to very powerful customers.
I work in the semiconductor industry, and most of the customers for the chips that I design are far larger companies than the one I work for (note: I'm not claiming that Mot is far larger than Google, only that the relationship dynamics are similar). As a result, those customers get extra special treatment. They get parts before they're released, they get more help from applications engineers, and they get a lot of attention from marketing to be sure that we are meeting their needs and keeping their products on track.
In our case, and in Google's, there are some very important reasons to forge such a relationship. One, you are sure that your product will gain traction in the market quickly, because you've lined up a big customer as an early adopter. Two, part of the deal with giving them pre-release versions is that they end up helping you find bugs in your product. In the case of the Xoom, it's apparent that some bugs have gotten into the initial release versions, but it's almost certain that there's been a lot of bug-finding already on the part of the Xoom team.
If you could get one of the Android devs to be completely honest with you, my bet is that they'd tell you that Honeycomb isn't ready at all, and that they were basically forced to release what they have to Mot despite its condition. I'd also bet a lot of money that the whole team is pretty unhappy with the situation, and they're not going to allow it to spread further by releasing a buggy software package to the world at large. When it's truly ready for release, it'll be available.
> So arguing that it isn't ready became irrelevant once the xoom shipped.
The heart of the matter: "when it ships" and "whether it's ready" become disjoint in a customer relationship like this one. "Is it ready?" is a question about the quality of the code. "When will it ship?" is a question for your manager. Them's the breaks in a situation like this.
I wonder if people would be less upset if it were called Gingerbread-tablet, and described as a temporary closed fork to meet manufacturing deadlines. That's really what it is, but giving it the Honeycomb name makes it look like the future of android, which it isn't.
It was Apple and MS, now Apple and Google. The structure of the market is the same because of the same acting forces. Google fills the same space for mobile non-PC gadgets that MS has filled for PC - the common software platform for hardware manufacturers. As in case of PC, the hardware manufacturers who isn't running the platform will become flushed out (except for Apple :). There is nothing in that situation that requires openness, even more - the openness may put the business at risk.
Sadly Android was never open source; in the past you could get the source but you NEVER had the ability to submit patches, unless you worked at one of Google strategic partners.
I think we should always be skeptical when something appears to be 'free', especially when it comes from a company that is likely to monetize it in the future.
Android was probably started to unseat Apple's dominance and touting it as open was the best strategy to attract developers.
There are probably many of such cases, e.g., Amazon, Twitter changing their stance, leading to products depending on them to suffer. Companies are selfish so they'll do what is best for them.
However, developers mainly have themselves to blame for wanting to believe that such 'free' platforms exist in their own pursuit to monetize it.
Unless something is endorsed by Free Software Foundation, then you should take it as not entirely 'free'.
The idea Google is waiting to have polished this release to open it so device creators don't ship it is flawed.
If such were their concern they would revoke the use of the Android trademark and manufacturers could have to call it by a different name avoiding the issue.
Why doesn't Google instead completely open up the platform and offer Android certificates for hardware that passes muster? That way the platform stays open and their brand doesn't get destroyed by 3rd rate hardware.
Do haters always has to come up with something to say how Google did wrong ? They were complaining that Android is turning into a mess, running out of control, because Google let it FREE in all means. That Google is doing wrong, that they need to take situation under control.
And now ? Again Google did wrong ? Yeah
No one can deny that Android was a HUGE HUGE success. Google is innovating and making money, at the same time keeping customers pleased.
That is what they do best, as one blog here said. They manage to keep their interests along with customer wishes. [Down voters, thank you ! :)]
The most amusing part of your post, other than the strange grammar, is your implication that Google is some target of bias. Google gets more glowing press coverage and free passes than any other technology company. Imagine the red-hot nerd rage if it was Apple who had been caught driving vans through neighborhoods and archiving people's unprotected WiFi data.
And it's not a derivative work of the Linux kernel? I don't know much about how Android is structured, but I thought people were complaining that Google didn't push their changes upstream into the main Linux kernel, which would imply that it's part of the Linux kernel.
Presumably Google has published the Honeycomb kernel (I didn't bother to verify this), but that's not interesting. The other 90% of Android is non-GPL userspace code.
So, by this kind of logic articles about apps rejected or 30% subscription fee were sponsored by Google?
Is the idea that this turn of event (Honeycomb source not being open for indefinite amount of time) being interesting by itself so weird?
This is true and happened with 1.5 and with the Nexus One: new version dev in private, then a big open sourcing effort (by specific team members) after the version is released. I guess the difference here is that for 3.0 they indicated that they made a lot of tablet-specific changes which won't translate well to phones. So the source isn't in a state where they want to release it for phones, and get the opposite of last year's fiasco (when OEMs put 2.x onto tablets).
Try not think of it as being an argument about what Android is, or what Google has done, so much as an argument about what a reasonable definition of "Open" entails.
All along Google has behaved in a way inconsistent with their "Open" marketing. And people have criticized them, not for what they were doing, but for trying to contort the definition of "Open" to still fit what they were doing.
Now that the project doesn't even meet the most-basic definition[1], there is simply no more wiggle room and those who would prefer "Open" still mean something at the end of the day are again pointing out the Emperor is naked [2].
[1] As codified in Rubin's famous tweet.
[2] Not because it's wrong to be naked, but because he insisted he was wearing clothes that he quite clearly is not.
I'm amazed what google's been doing all along hasn't caused this kind of reaction.
Throwing a source dump over the wall to out of date code has always been their operating procedure, but they've never publicly stated, as bald-faced as they have now, that they're not going to be releasing the source because they don't want smaller ODMs to have access to it.
This has nothing to do with hobbyist devs, this has everything to do with keeping Honeycomb limited to the few companies that have paid Google hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars for that access.
These articles are cropping up because Google (quite cleverly) utilized the "We're Open" mantra to gain a lot of momentum very quickly. Since the evolution of Android shows more and more evidence of "We're Open When Convenient/Beneficial", a lot of their most ardent supporters now feel betrayed/played.
If Google had said "We're not as secretive as Apple", there would be less bitterness now, but there also never would have been the sort of momentum/buzz they built early on.
gthank, roc. Very few situations are black and white. Sure Android may not be open as other open source projects but that doesn't mean they it is closed. Also google are not talking about closing it down. They are just talking about a delay in widening who has access.
Perhaps it's because Android is touted by Google fans as an open platform, yet the source is withheld and only given to Google's special partners until an official release.
While I'm sure they aren't, apple vs. google articles are so polarizing, and so many people, journalists included, seem to have portions of their identities wrapped up into the war that it's apparently inevitable some stuff that sounds like this comes out. I'm not wanting to debate how right or wrong google's position might be here (it's clearly not awesome), but it's hard to take this specific article seriously when it's written with such a polarized tone.
I don't understand all the animosity. Google should have never called Android "open-source", which is a loaded word, and called it a "Mobile Platform with Viewable Source" or something. If Google did the exact same thing under a non-loaded name, they would be praised for the fact that they handle all the carrier bullshit/politics and developed an OS that is not a black box. To have a true "Open Source TM" mobile OS, Google would have to stop working with carriers(the definition of a closed ecosystem). I would rather develop on a platform with delayed source code releases that will be on the majority of phones in the world, than an open-source platform that carriers were too afraid to use on their phones.
So as a developer, I'm not really pissed about the fact that the source is delayed for a month or two. I'm more pissed about the shitty Market experience which drives customers away and the many countries that are not allowed to purchase paid apps.
