Hacker News Reader

Comment by kylec | Hacker News Reader

    Android is "open" to end-users, but not completely "open" to vendors

I think you have this backwards. With the exception of Honeycomb, vendors have a lot of flexibility to do what they want with Android, including skinning it and running it on custom hardware. And if they decide to forego the Google apps, they don't have to get approval to ship a device with Android on it. Conversely, users of Android-based products don't have the ability to update or modify the OS (beyond what the vendor allows) without 'rooting' the device, a process that most non-technical people are unable to perform.

View on HN

If they can't get the next revision of the OS on the same terms as their competitors, it's not open for them. I think you're glossing over the practical realities of shipping products that will cost hundreds of millions of dollars to launch.

If you want to assert that it's not open for end-users either, I won't argue, but I'm not sold on that.

I'll agree that Google is taking steps to make Android less open for vendors, but it's still more open for vendors than it is for end users (largely because of vendors putting restrictions on the devices they sell).

"With the exception of Honeycomb..."

Which fallacy is that, again?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overwhelming_exception

"With notably rare exceptions..."

http://crookedtimber.org/2011/03/30/with-notably-rare-except...

And yet, there are devices sold that don't have to be rooted, which you can't say about iOS.

True, but iOS isn't involved here. What's involved is that Google has repeatedly promoted Android as an 'open' platform, but now has decided that actually being open is no longer in their interest.

I don't think there's any platform that can be used as a distribution medium and that doesn't come with strings attached. Even stuff licensed under GPL comes with strings attached.

And there are inherent disadvantages to being open, which Google is trying to mitigate here, and they have been doing this ever since Android launched (people have short memories or simply bad attitudes -- Android's source code wasn't released from the start).

If anything Google's behavior is actually consistent.

Google's behavior is consistent with their past behavior, but not consistent with what their words. That's pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.

Bullshit -- define "open".

Also, when referring to "their words" some references are required ;)

Here:

"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."

(from: http://source.android.com/)

Are you seriously going to pretend that Google is not now restricting or controlling the innovations of any other industry players?

>Are you seriously going to pretend that Google is not now restricting or controlling the innovations of any other industry players?

Huh? How is delaying the source code release of an incremental update such a big deal? Innovate all you want on top of 2.3(which is barely a few months old), make it tablet friendly or whatever and port it to whatever hardware you build.

Haven't you heard of the concept of forking?

Do you really think that people who have to fork a months old version are at no disadvantage to those who have access to the current source?

"fairness" is a human-invented concept.

Capitalism is open, but unfair; mother-nature is open, but unfair.

I agree. I never said anything about fairness. I simply showed that Google is being hypocritical.

Hypocrisy is a perfectly valid strategy under capitalism.

I am so sorry for those (Dell, Acer) who didn't get what Google built for free when other partners got involved early on. Having to develop your own software and not getting it for free certainly sucks.

If they are so disappointed, they can always launch Windows Phone 7 devices.

Well yes, I'm going to pretend just that :)

If Google never releases Honeycomb, then I'll agree; until then ...

Any other industry player can take Gingerbread and create its own Honeycomb, while keeping compatibility and totally being able to take the market by storm.

That's the very definition of open-source -- when unhappy with a project's governance, you can fork ; and you can fork Gingerbread, or Honeycomb when it will get released. You don't have to trust the company, just the source-code / license of the last release.

So what stops you or any industry players from just doing that? Lunch not free anymore?

Well you said it: Lunch isn't free anymore.

The point is that Google is using Android to do precisely what they claimed they stood against - which is to control other players in the industry. That's what makes it hypocrisy.

I assume you'd agree that someone who forked a months old version would be at an extraordinary disadvantage against a competitor who had access to the current source and ongoing contributions from Google.

    the definition of open: "mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u
    git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make"

-Andy Rubin, Google VP of Engineering

http://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429

Since when did it stop building?

Can you build Honeycomb?

No. I can build whatever is on version control. They didn't release Honeycomb as open-source yet, just like they don't release beta software - mind you, there is no such thing as an Android daily build. The only thing new is that you can buy a device with pre-release Honeycomb software.

I am not overly enthusiastic about that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com