31–40 of 122 posts
In the past, I've spent a fair bit of time criticizing Google for calling Android "open source", but not releasing the source. Now that it appears that they are actually doing it, let me be the first to say that this is great. Well done, Google.
Why don't they just tag all of Honeycomb? If the reason is that there's no combination of project commits that can create a building Honeycomb, they should just admit to it and explain why. The current approach seems like a weird attempt to snow something over - I understand that Honeycomb was a rushed, trashy Android release, and that there's some pride involved, but supposedly all of the rushed, trashy code is in t…
There's a new release now that is stable for all kinds of devices, is it worth it to concern ourselves with what exactly is or isn't Honeycomb? I don't think they were trying to snow something over, I think this was their plan. Release Honeycomb after ICS since device manufacturers will use ICS anyway since it's new.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What people criticized about them was the delay of an open source release to sustain their business strategy (commoditize their products' complements via open source but keep a integrated experience by proprietary early-access agreements - see also http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html ). This release doesn't change Google's strategy nor the fact that they will continue to release Android's sour…
ahem if you check mobile dev history you will find Nokia did the same thing with open source Symbian, etc.. No viable successful open source mobile OS gives equal access to public and OEM partners to a private tree
In the past, I've spent a fair bit of time criticizing Google for calling Android "open source", but not releasing the source. Now that it appears that they are actually doing it, let me be the first to say that this is great. Well done, Google.
What people criticized about them was the delay of an open source release to sustain their business strategy (commoditize their products' complements via open source but keep a integrated experience by proprietary early-access agreements - see also http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html ). This release doesn't change Google's strategy nor the fact that they will continue to release Android's sour…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What people criticized about them was the delay of an open source release to sustain their business strategy (commoditize their products' complements via open source but keep a integrated experience by proprietary early-access agreements - see also http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html ). This release doesn't change Google's strategy nor the fact that they will continue to release Android's sour…
ahem if you check mobile dev history you will find Nokia did the same thing with open source Symbian, etc.. No viable successful open source mobile OS gives equal access to public and OEM partners to a private tree
This is a true statement but you've set the bar pretty low there with 4 qualifiers.
Could the slight delay in release simply be due to legal issues such as scrubbing patent issues and verification that OSS code isn't infringing?
Now the only thing missing is a winning strategy for desktops/laptops. :-) Seems like Chrome OS should be folded into Android and many people would be comfortable using it at home. Same apps could run and sync on all devices.
while I found the opportunity that many commenting and interested in this topic, let me ask a question. Can one upgrade any android phone by himself? (I do not own one), or one need to wait for the carrier and or manufacturer need to do it?
If your phone is rooted, or rootable, there's a bunch of devs over @ XDA-developers forum that create custom ROMs for most Android phones. The most famous of these is CyanogenMod, which works across most Android phones out. Once they port it to your phone you can flash the ROM and run ICS on your phone!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What people criticized about them was the delay of an open source release to sustain their business strategy (commoditize their products' complements via open source but keep a integrated experience by proprietary early-access agreements - see also http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html ). This release doesn't change Google's strategy nor the fact that they will continue to release Android's sour…
ahem if you check mobile dev history you will find Nokia did the same thing with open source Symbian, etc.. No viable successful open source mobile OS gives equal access to public and OEM partners to a private tree
Oh, wait...
In the past, I've spent a fair bit of time criticizing Google for calling Android "open source", but not releasing the source. Now that it appears that they are actually doing it, let me be the first to say that this is great. Well done, Google.
Right, no coincidence a year's backlog of updates comes out on the same day Amazon ships their tablet. Good luck to Amazon with merge.
>year's backlog
This is inaccurate, they have been releasing patches and updates for other versions of the platform over the last year.
They did skip Honeycomb, which fits your Amazon theory, mind you, from the reviews I have read the Fire would not benefit greatly from ICS as they Frankensteined the Android experience.