11–20 of 221 posts
It's worth noting how closely Android's apparent path going forward mirror's Apple's strategy with both OS X and iOS: closed end-user components built on top of an open source core. I guess Google's realized that "openness" isn't a meaningful market differentiator for the average consumer.
Notably, Play services is totally closed. So Google has abandoned the open source part of Android and is now developing the operating system as a completely closed product. Edit: downvotes don't change the truth of the observation. Android is no longer meaningfully open, other than a years old core of basic functions. Just like OSX and Darwin.
Not sure what's new here.. Play always came with strings attached. OEMs can choose Play or use AOSP and roll their own Play analogue like Meizu or Xiaomi or Amazon.
Notably, Play services is totally closed. So Google has abandoned the open source part of Android and is now developing the operating system as a completely closed product. Edit: downvotes don't change the truth of the observation. Android is no longer meaningfully open, other than a years old core of basic functions. Just like OSX and Darwin.
Notably, Play services is totally closed. So Google has abandoned the open source part of Android and is now developing the operating system as a completely closed product. Edit: downvotes don't change the truth of the observation. Android is no longer meaningfully open, other than a years old core of basic functions. Just like OSX and Darwin.
Further, what's to stop other vendors doing this, possibly without users knowledge? How many users will click "allow" on a permissions box that gives the vendor a huge amount of permissions like this just so that they can use the latest MyTwitFace?
Notably, Play services is totally closed. So Google has abandoned the open source part of Android and is now developing the operating system as a completely closed product. Edit: downvotes don't change the truth of the observation. Android is no longer meaningfully open, other than a years old core of basic functions. Just like OSX and Darwin.
It's worth noting how closely Android's apparent path going forward mirror's Apple's strategy with both OS X and iOS: closed end-user components built on top of an open source core. I guess Google's realized that "openness" isn't a meaningful market differentiator for the average consumer.
Notably, Play services is totally closed. So Google has abandoned the open source part of Android and is now developing the operating system as a completely closed product. Edit: downvotes don't change the truth of the observation. Android is no longer meaningfully open, other than a years old core of basic functions. Just like OSX and Darwin.
There are still a lot of new features being introduced to the core Android APIs, with fragmentation issues being mitigated by a provided support library [0] which essentially backports the newer APIs to older versions of Android (some new features are only in the support library).
Android as it's sold in most consumer devices obviously isn't entirely open, but Google still seem to be attempting to strike a balance between supporting the open-source platform on the other, and building up a suite of closed userland features on the other. You might disagree with their judgement on where the balance is, but I think it's unfair to say it's being developed as a completely closed product.
[0] http://developer.android.com/tools/support-library/index.htm...
Notably, Play services is totally closed. So Google has abandoned the open source part of Android and is now developing the operating system as a completely closed product. Edit: downvotes don't change the truth of the observation. Android is no longer meaningfully open, other than a years old core of basic functions. Just like OSX and Darwin.
I remember when Android was starting to gain popularity (around 1.6 I suppose), one of the key decisions that I really liked was that Google apps would have no more access to the OS than any other apps. There was no preference to Google. This has now all changed. Further, what's to stop other vendors doing this, possibly without users knowledge? How many users will click "allow" on a permissions box that gives the ve…
The reason I think the Google system is worse is that theoretically any application can achieve this level of control. So while I might trust Google, it seems all too easy to trick users into installing a different process which can take complete control of their phone. With iOS, only Apple is capable of this level of control, thus decreasing the attack vectors.
EDIT: Admittedly it's highly unlikely that Google would ever let such an application into the Play Store, thus limiting its distribution potential.