Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Android chief Rubin's response to Android critics misses the point

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 32 posts

Re: Android chief Rubin's response to Android critics misses the point

#11

Post by enjo »

patrickaljord wrote: post #5
greattypo wrote: post #2

I agree with Ars on this one. And hopefully whether you're pro-Android or pro-iPhone or pro-whatever, you can appreciate some evasive corporate-speak when you see it. E.g.: Rubin: What amazes me is that even though the quantity and breadth of Android products being built has grown tremendously, it’s clear that quality and consistency continue to be top priorities. What does that even mean? Why are your priorities so…

> I think there have been some legitimate gripes about Android's openness lately (like manufacturer favoritism) Android has always done that, it did it with the G1, nexus1, nexus S and now xoom. In some case it took them a month to release the source, other cases two months. In this case it will take a bit more (probably 4), so what? Big deal, Android is Apache license, this is completely fair game and as for manufac…

Ya, and in order to get that primary access you have to be willing to play by Google's rules (stock experience, google apps, etc...). They've also spread things out. HTC, Samsung, and Motorola have all gotten their shot.

Re: Android chief Rubin's response to Android critics misses the point

#12

Post by trythis »

beej71 wrote: post #9
greattypo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with what you said, but I don't think that's the part that has people most concerned. It's more about stuff like this: According to the BusinessWeek report, Google has been using its exclusive control over timely source code availability as leverage to block vendors from making customizations that don't align with Google's business interests. For example, the article says that Google attempted to block Verizo…

I can see how that might trouble some people, but the Compatibility Definition Document has always existed, hasn't it? You can't just release anything at all and slap the Android trademark on it and use the store, right? You have always had to operated within Google's restrictions if you wanted to do that. So... why are people surprised?

Does the CDD disallow using a non-Google search engine? A quick perusal of the latest CDD suggests that isn't the case.

My understanding is that you have to use Google's search engine if you want to slap "with Google" on the back of your phone.

Re: Android chief Rubin's response to Android critics misses the point

#13

Post by mycroftiv »

patrickaljord wrote: post #5
greattypo wrote: post #2

I agree with Ars on this one. And hopefully whether you're pro-Android or pro-iPhone or pro-whatever, you can appreciate some evasive corporate-speak when you see it. E.g.: Rubin: What amazes me is that even though the quantity and breadth of Android products being built has grown tremendously, it’s clear that quality and consistency continue to be top priorities. What does that even mean? Why are your priorities so…

> I think there have been some legitimate gripes about Android's openness lately (like manufacturer favoritism) Android has always done that, it did it with the G1, nexus1, nexus S and now xoom. In some case it took them a month to release the source, other cases two months. In this case it will take a bit more (probably 4), so what? Big deal, Android is Apache license, this is completely fair game and as for manufac…

I always thought "open source" meant that I, the user, got access to the source code, and I was able to make changes and share them. I don't like seeing the meaning of open source progressively reduced to nothing. We already have a category for "corporate manufacturing partners can pay to access the source" - that's proprietary software. It's not OK to use openness just as a marketing term and claim that a product being distributed now is still open just because the source will be released at some unspecified time in the future.

Re: Android chief Rubin's response to Android critics misses the point

#14

Post by brisance »

patrickaljord wrote: post #5
greattypo wrote: post #2

I agree with Ars on this one. And hopefully whether you're pro-Android or pro-iPhone or pro-whatever, you can appreciate some evasive corporate-speak when you see it. E.g.: Rubin: What amazes me is that even though the quantity and breadth of Android products being built has grown tremendously, it’s clear that quality and consistency continue to be top priorities. What does that even mean? Why are your priorities so…

> I think there have been some legitimate gripes about Android's openness lately (like manufacturer favoritism) Android has always done that, it did it with the G1, nexus1, nexus S and now xoom. In some case it took them a month to release the source, other cases two months. In this case it will take a bit more (probably 4), so what? Big deal, Android is Apache license, this is completely fair game and as for manufac…

According to the article, the "FUD" is coming from those partners you listed above.

  BusinessWeek attributed complaints about Android's waning openness to "a dozen executives" at companies that are major Android stakeholders, including LG, Samsung, Toshiba, and Facebook.
There are 2 main points in the article.

1) Why does Google feel the need to play favorites? Aside: if shortcuts were taken to get a manufacturer partner's product to market, what does that tell you about the product, from a consumer and developer point-of-view?

2) Why did Andy Rubin not address the fact that Skyhook Wireless was prevented from doing business with Motorola because it competed with Google's geo-location services?

Re: Android chief Rubin's response to Android critics misses the point

#15

Post by patrickaljord »

mycroftiv wrote: post #13
patrickaljord wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think there have been some legitimate gripes about Android's openness lately (like manufacturer favoritism) Android has always done that, it did it with the G1, nexus1, nexus S and now xoom. In some case it took them a month to release the source, other cases two months. In this case it will take a bit more (probably 4), so what? Big deal, Android is Apache license, this is completely fair game and as for manufac…

I always thought "open source" meant that I, the user, got access to the source code, and I was able to make changes and share them. I don't like seeing the meaning of open source progressively reduced to nothing. We already have a category for "corporate manufacturing partners can pay to access the source" - that's proprietary software. It's not OK to use openness just as a marketing term and claim that a product be…

> We already have a category for "corporate manufacturing partners can pay to access the source" - that's proprietary software.

No, even stallman approves of selling source code. Free software and open source have never been about price, it's about being able to get the source:

> Commercial software is software being developed by a business which aims to make money from the use of the software. “Commercial” and “proprietary” are not the same thing! Most commercial software is proprietary, but there is commercial free software, and there is noncommercial nonfree software.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html

Re: Android chief Rubin's response to Android critics misses the point

#16

Post by patrickaljord »

brisance wrote: post #14
patrickaljord wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think there have been some legitimate gripes about Android's openness lately (like manufacturer favoritism) Android has always done that, it did it with the G1, nexus1, nexus S and now xoom. In some case it took them a month to release the source, other cases two months. In this case it will take a bit more (probably 4), so what? Big deal, Android is Apache license, this is completely fair game and as for manufac…

According to the article, the "FUD" is coming from those partners you listed above. BusinessWeek attributed complaints about Android's waning openness to "a dozen executives" at companies that are major Android stakeholders, including LG, Samsung, Toshiba, and Facebook. There are 2 main points in the article. 1) Why does Google feel the need to play favorites? Aside: if shortcuts were taken to get a manufacturer part…

> 1) Why does Google feel the need to play favorites?

This has always been the case, why complain now? Soon the source will be released and that'll be the end of it (until the next release and the usual FUD). And I doubt the businessweeks article, they didn't give any proofs, meanwhile android devices are being released every weeks so allow me to doubt.

> 2) Why did Andy Rubin not address the fact that Skyhook Wireless was prevented from doing business with Motorola because it competed with Google's geo-location services?

Android the OS is open source, google apps have never been so. So you expect google to make a free operating that will make manufacturers millions of dollars and on top of that you expect google to offer its apps and web services for free? Google is not santa, it's perfectly fair to ask for conditions in exchange of their apps, if the manufacturers doesn't want them, they can always just ship the OS with their own apps.

Re: Android chief Rubin's response to Android critics misses the point

#17

Post by patrickaljord »

trythis wrote: post #12
beej71 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see how that might trouble some people, but the Compatibility Definition Document has always existed, hasn't it? You can't just release anything at all and slap the Android trademark on it and use the store, right? You have always had to operated within Google's restrictions if you wanted to do that. So... why are people surprised?

Does the CDD disallow using a non-Google search engine? A quick perusal of the latest CDD suggests that isn't the case. My understanding is that you have to use Google's search engine if you want to slap "with Google" on the back of your phone.

> My understanding is that you have to use Google's search engine if you want to slap "with Google" on the back of your phone.

Well, if your phone comes with Bing and it says "with Google", isn't that kind of lying? Also some phones have been locked on Bing so people couldn't even revert to Google.

Re: Android chief Rubin's response to Android critics misses the point

#18

Post by trythis »

patrickaljord wrote: post #17
trythis wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the CDD disallow using a non-Google search engine? A quick perusal of the latest CDD suggests that isn't the case. My understanding is that you have to use Google's search engine if you want to slap "with Google" on the back of your phone.

> My understanding is that you have to use Google's search engine if you want to slap "with Google" on the back of your phone. Well, if your phone comes with Bing and it says "with Google", isn't that kind of lying? Also some phones have been locked on Bing so people couldn't even revert to Google.

Afaik, you're supposedly free to ship a phone with Bing as long as it doesn't say "with Google". I assume the BusinessWeek report is saying that Google's trying to block Bing even if the phone doesn't say "with Google", otherwise this wouldn't be newsworthy. But maybe that's not the case, and Verizon's just trying to raise a stink. Unfortunately, Rubin's response doesn't exactly clarify things.

Re: Android chief Rubin's response to Android critics misses the point

#19

Post by mycroftiv »

patrickaljord wrote: post #15
mycroftiv wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always thought "open source" meant that I, the user, got access to the source code, and I was able to make changes and share them. I don't like seeing the meaning of open source progressively reduced to nothing. We already have a category for "corporate manufacturing partners can pay to access the source" - that's proprietary software. It's not OK to use openness just as a marketing term and claim that a product be…

> We already have a category for "corporate manufacturing partners can pay to access the source" - that's proprietary software. No, even stallman approves of selling source code. Free software and open source have never been about price, it's about being able to get the source: > Commercial software is software being developed by a business which aims to make money from the use of the software. “Commercial” and “prop…

You are misconstruing my statements and ignoring the context. I am well aware that you can sell free software for money. However, if I purchase a Xoom with Honeycomb, I have been given a copy of the Android software, and I will not be given a copy of the source code if I request it. That is the issue here, and the general issue of charging money for software is not relevant. If you are linking and quoting from gnu, you are surely aware that free software is about the user of the software being able to access the source code, modify it, and redistribute it. None of these freedoms (which are also part of the open source definition) are currently given to purchasers of Honeycomb tablets. Your attempt to conflate the issue of access to source code by users with that of a distributor charging a price for software is either disingenuous or the result of a misunderstanding.

Re: Android chief Rubin's response to Android critics misses the point

#20

Post by fpgeek »

trythis wrote: post #12
beej71 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see how that might trouble some people, but the Compatibility Definition Document has always existed, hasn't it? You can't just release anything at all and slap the Android trademark on it and use the store, right? You have always had to operated within Google's restrictions if you wanted to do that. So... why are people surprised?

Does the CDD disallow using a non-Google search engine? A quick perusal of the latest CDD suggests that isn't the case. My understanding is that you have to use Google's search engine if you want to slap "with Google" on the back of your phone.

I don't know what the CDD says about non-Google search engines, but I will point out that Bing is in the Android Market. Exactly how much more open does Google need to be to competitors' products and services?
Post reply on HN