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

Apple loses German patent court case

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 53 posts

Re: Apple loses German patent court case

#21

Post by staplesowns »

xentronium wrote: post #14
mtgx wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you mean "not very open", as in not community built, or some other type of extreme openness like that (open close is a scale, it's not black or white). But I'd argue that while Android should remain open source (you can use the source once it's ready), it should be even more "closed", in the sense that Google needs to have a lot more control over what the manufacturers/their partners can do with Android. Why?…

They are already exerting control over what their vendors can and can't do. See asus aliyun debacle.

Acer

Re: Apple loses German patent court case

#22

Post by cooldeal »

Tichy wrote: post #18
cooldeal wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sigh, this whole Android is open or not argument is degenerating into the kind of arguments over 'Copyright infringement vs. Stealing'. Here's one good solution, call the open Android as Androidium(on the lines of Chrome vs. Chromium). Very good article on the openness of Android and to implement the above proposal. http://marketingland.com/what-is-the-one-true-android-and-ho... >Some like to claim that since Google…

Cyanogen Mods

Excuse me?

Re: Apple loses German patent court case

#23

Post by kgarten »

mtgx wrote: post #12
kgarten wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, Android is not really open source :( Edit: If you think this statement is not true, please look at Debian or any other REAL open source project compare it to Android. Android uses Open-Source as a marketing term, not in it's original meaning ... (or at least in how I understand open source)

I think you mean "not very open", as in not community built, or some other type of extreme openness like that (open close is a scale, it's not black or white). But I'd argue that while Android should remain open source (you can use the source once it's ready), it should be even more "closed", in the sense that Google needs to have a lot more control over what the manufacturers/their partners can do with Android. Why?…

Yes, I was pointing at the community aspect of open-source. Just to get some source dumps after a while does not mean "open-source" to me. Seems people at Hacker News see this differently.

Yet, I agree with your comments, in general. Why not split it like they did for Chrome (suggestion in the comment below).

Re: Apple loses German patent court case

#24

Post by flatline3 »

deelowe wrote: post #20
flatline3 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point at which Apple's culture significantly shifted away from open source was the point at which they hid all their source code until after the OS was released. This completely breaks the OSS community and contribution model. Back in 2002, it was possible to contribute code to the current in-development version of Mac OS X. Now it's not, and iOS-specific OS code isn't provided at all.

Ok? What's this have to do with android? An anecdote is just that. We can't compare past Apple behavior to that of Google. They are very different companies in many ways.

It means that:

A) closed development breaks the OSS community model -- that's not anecdote, just fact.

B) We have a past example of the slippery slope of closed development.

Re: Apple loses German patent court case

#25

Post by kgarten »

deelowe wrote: post #8
kgarten wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, Android is not really open source :( Edit: If you think this statement is not true, please look at Debian or any other REAL open source project compare it to Android. Android uses Open-Source as a marketing term, not in it's original meaning ... (or at least in how I understand open source)

I stand that it is: http://source.android.com/ Some people like to state that gmail, maps, the play store and other proprietary Google bits are not open source and that is true, but those are not android. Those are separate apps. Some like to claim that since Google gives vendors early access to the source, this somehow makes it not open. For those releases, at that specific date in time, maybe so. But, the source is…

For me "open-source" stands for community driven with open repository. It's a way to develop (not a source dump after a while of closed source development).

Also I argue that Android as a smart phone OS is NOT open-source, as you desperately need binary code for basic OS functionality.

Re: Apple loses German patent court case

#26

Post by deelowe »

cooldeal wrote: post #15
deelowe wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I stand that it is: http://source.android.com/ Some people like to state that gmail, maps, the play store and other proprietary Google bits are not open source and that is true, but those are not android. Those are separate apps. Some like to claim that since Google gives vendors early access to the source, this somehow makes it not open. For those releases, at that specific date in time, maybe so. But, the source is…

Sigh, this whole Android is open or not argument is degenerating into the kind of arguments over 'Copyright infringement vs. Stealing'. Here's one good solution, call the open Android as Androidium(on the lines of Chrome vs. Chromium). Very good article on the openness of Android and to implement the above proposal. http://marketingland.com/what-is-the-one-true-android-and-ho... >Some like to claim that since Google…

I like the androidium idea. It would help with the confusion.

The acer problem is an interesting thing to examine closer. The issue is that of android fragmentation. Vendors want to ship hardware asap (to their own detriment at times). Google is more interested in the long term viability of the OS. I think the acer threat is a good thing. It's good that Google maintains this leverage. Otherwise, android will fragment and die. Vendors were pushing hard to get a tablet OS out before it was ready. Google capitulated and offered up honeycomb, but soon learned that wasn't viable. They had to do something to give themselves more time to present a unified strategy.

I disagree that CM would die without pirated roms. I do agree however, that this has a lot to do with it's popularity. Keep in mind that the play store, maps, and other services aren't open for a reason. Sometimes it's because the technology uses proprietary bits that Google expects to monetize (maps) and other times it has to do with legal concerns (the play store, which allows in store purchases).

Re: Apple loses German patent court case

#28

Post by fluidcruft »

xentronium wrote: post #14
mtgx wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you mean "not very open", as in not community built, or some other type of extreme openness like that (open close is a scale, it's not black or white). But I'd argue that while Android should remain open source (you can use the source once it's ready), it should be even more "closed", in the sense that Google needs to have a lot more control over what the manufacturers/their partners can do with Android. Why?…

They are already exerting control over what their vendors can and can't do. See asus aliyun debacle.

That's a pretty extreme example and really more of a Google vs carrier battle than a Google vs Asus battle. Aliyun was trying to establish a Play competitor and lock Google out--you can't expect Google to play along. Since Honeycomb Google's been pretty strong relative to manufacturers. The biggest pre-Honeycomb threat was Motorola that was thrashing to cut Google out and get back in control (Skyhook, BlurOS) and... well you can see how the constellations happened to align there. What Google was threatening to yank wasn't access to Android, but access to the Platform Development Kit and possibly unannounced Nexus projects--i.e. access to the pre-Open Source drops. Someone like Amazon can pull that off because they don't care, but certainly Asus doesn't have the muscle. Asus was free to choose Aliyun or Google, it's not Asus's fault that Aliyun isn't as valuable.

Re: Apple loses German patent court case

#29

Post by cooldeal »

Tichy wrote: post #27
cooldeal wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excuse me?

They are possible because Android is open source. Edit: overlooked that you already mentioned them. The argument "nobody uses them without Play and Maps" is invalid, though.

>The argument "nobody uses them without Play and Maps" is invalid, though.

Why? CM is legally prohibited from bundling Play Store, Google apps like Mail, Youtube, Maps, Currents, Now etc. etc.

In fact, Google sent them a C&D for doing so.

http://phandroid.com/2009/09/25/cyanogen-gets-cd-from-google...

If users cannot obtain them from (sometimes shady) filesharing sites, how many using CM currently would have installed it?

Re: Apple loses German patent court case

#30

Post by bryanlarsen »

cooldeal wrote: post #15
deelowe wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I stand that it is: http://source.android.com/ Some people like to state that gmail, maps, the play store and other proprietary Google bits are not open source and that is true, but those are not android. Those are separate apps. Some like to claim that since Google gives vendors early access to the source, this somehow makes it not open. For those releases, at that specific date in time, maybe so. But, the source is…

Sigh, this whole Android is open or not argument is degenerating into the kind of arguments over 'Copyright infringement vs. Stealing'. Here's one good solution, call the open Android as Androidium(on the lines of Chrome vs. Chromium). Very good article on the openness of Android and to implement the above proposal. http://marketingland.com/what-is-the-one-true-android-and-ho... >Some like to claim that since Google…

What's the difference between "Androidium" and AOSP?
Post reply on HN