Hacker News Reader

Comment by eknkc | Hacker News Reader

If it happens that the music player, dialer, home screen, messaging app are all closed source Google apps (just like now, or will be in a while), then what? You can create a non-google experience aosp build (meh..) or tweak the filesystem caching parameters or something like that at best.

I think Google is doing what's best for Android, but Android is not open source anymore.

Firefox OS might be a better choice for open source comminity to spend time on. I haven't been following latest development, how's the hardware situation on FF OS?

View on HN

The music player, the messaging app, the home screen ... these are not part of the operating system and are easily replaceable.

I actually have an older phone (a first-gen Galaxy S) on which I installed Cyanogenmod without Google's services, which is basically stock Android. In spite of opinions to the contrary, the phone is quite usable without any of Google's services on it.

I've got Firefox for web browsing, OsmAnd for maps, Apollo for playing music. All 3 are open-source apps. At some point I even installed Amazon's App Store on it, to be able to get some proprietary apps, like Facebook, installed. But then I realized I don't need all that bloatware, as the web versions work fine.

You should try out this experiment if you've got an extra Android lying around. After you find apps suitable for whatever it is you want to do, it really is OK. The level of polish is not the same as with the Google-enabled Android, but it's still much, much better than the experience you get on low-budget non-Android smartphones.

People forget that Amazon already forked Android and that without Android they wouldn't have been able to deliver Kindle Fire. That's the power of open-source, even if you choose to deny it.

I agree with you as a fellow hacker. But I don't think this can be called a solution for end-users, who would just like things to work out of the box. And as an app developer, one needs to consider the problems of the end-user. That is where fully packaged open-source projects could make a difference. However, without a strong backer, it is only going to lead more fragmentation.

I was addressing your comment, that Android is not open-source anymore, with which I disagree.

Your argument above is in the same line as people claiming that end-users do not benefit from open-source. In some sense it is correct, as end-users do not have the technical know-how to assemble their own operating system, to make changes to source-code, etc... But practically speaking, end-users don't have to do it by themselves just like they don't have to fix their cars by themselves (e.g. I helped friends install Cyanogenmod on their phones, which is a PITA to deal with, but once done, it's done).

The power of open-source is in the ability to fork it. Not all people or companies can do it, but if there's demand for it (e.g. Google's stewardship goes awry), then a successful fork will happen. Building an operating system from scratch is hard. Having stock Android available as a base for new operating systems is an incredible gift.

In the meantime, yes, forks of Android are only for hackers wanting to play around. But if this leads to the rise of alternative marketplaces, like F-droid, then this will benefit everybody. Not sure if you notice it, but the biggest problem that Android has in terms of openness and lock-in is Google Play. Fortunately Android allows installing software from third-party sources, but unfortunately there aren't many alternative marketplaces out there.

Looking at this strictly from a user (not developer) POV, I searched for some of the apps you mentioned. OsmAnd looks positively terrible from a UI/UX perspective, and seems borderline unreadable[0].

I'm actually curious as to why F/OSS applications that aren't extremely high profile or commercially backed (Firefox) seemingly tend to have UI/X as what is probably the last possible priority ever.

[0] http://osmand.net/en/screenshots-menu.html

OsmAnd looks positively terrible from a UI/UX perspective, and seems borderline unreadable

Yes, the renderer needs some work both in terms of prettiness and speed. It's not as polished as Google Maps, but it's definitely usable. That the map data is from OSM is a feature by itself, OSM maps are often more detailed than what you get from Google, and you can download all data, which is great for traveling. It even supports navigation.

True, but on the other hand it is very useful. It works offline, really useful when going abroad, and the OSM maps are better in many cities (worse in others).

You are absolutely right. However you comment reminds me this one from original Dropbox announcement on Hacker News:

"For a Linux user, you can already build such a system yourself quite trivially by getting an FTP account, mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and then using SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem. From Windows or Mac, this FTP account could be accessed through built-in software."

This might be a fun experiment for a developer. But for the broad user perspective even replacing launcher is a big deal.

Yes, but the average user is also not going around looking for a Truly Free Version of the OS powering their phones/tablets.

The point is, Android is currently the go-to mobile OS for anyone who wants to scratch their itch. like Linux has been on the desktop. And there have been plenty who have taken up this offer (e.g Amazon, Chinese & Indian manufacturers, Android console makers), except they aren't end-users.

To me, those type of functions (dialer, messaging, music player, etc) are more "app" than "OS" - obviously alternate music, messaging, home screen, etc apps are available, but what about dialers? Is that piece of the system replaceable?

I think it would make a lot of sense if the base Android OS (AOSP, as I understand it?) were only as functional as it needed to be for useful apps to run, and then the "Google app stack" or "Cyanogen app stack" or whoever else's, open source or closed source or anything in between, could be dropped in to provide the user-facing functionality.

The key seems to be getting to a point where important pieces of that underlying functionality aren't wrapped up in the "Google app stack".

Yup. I don't use the stock dialer.

Firefox OS's base, Gonk is pretty much the same as Android's foundation, so both can equally benefit from a fight with blob-drivers of mobile hardware.

I don't use the stock music player, dialer, home screen _or_ messaging app. So I'm fine with that.

I don't think the issue is actually the music player, dialer, home screen, messaging app etc, because Google have done a great job making everything like that replacable. The actual missing piece which is worrying if you want to go this way is Play Services - that provides loads of the APIs apps need (probably including some for those replacements) and is closed source.

android includes an open source music player, dialer, home screen, and messaging app. just because google has replaced them with closed-source alternatives on the nexus devices, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com