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

Google’s iron grip on Android: Controlling open source by any means necessary

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 234 posts

Re: Google’s iron grip on Android: Controlling open source by any means necessary

#141

Post by throwaway2048 »

tomkarlo wrote: post #52
zobzu wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AOSP is so open that the previous AOSP leader at Google quitted over the lack of openeness.

That's a mischaracterization of his own comments on why he left. It had to do with open sourcing GPU drivers, which is probably an issue with other vendors, not Google. See: https://plus.google.com/112218872649456413744/posts/9HHRURor...

It was Google's choice to put that hardware into the phone, and it was their choice not to pressure qualcomm into being more open.

Your argument itself is also somewhat of a mischaracterization, because at least Google could have wrestled redistribution rights for the binary drivers, thus making AOSP actually usable on the nexus, and they didn't even bother with that.

Vendors are a convenient whipping boy when don't care about openness but wanna look like you do.

Re: Google’s iron grip on Android: Controlling open source by any means necessary

#142

Post by justincormack »

guelo wrote: post #126
grinns wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that you hear whatever you want to hear, but the truth is very different: Google's apps and APIs are just cloud endpoints and weaving them into AOSP doesn't make sense and just delays updates, as the same author previously scribbled: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/09/balky-carriers-and-sl... As for "strong-arm tactics", what is referred to is explained in this post: http://officialandroid.blogspot.com/20…

I think the strongest argument the article makes is the claim about the new Location APIs. Location algorithms are not dependent on Google services and have always been part of the core APIs, but now Google is moving new location algorithms into their closed source app. It's an obvious power grab, they want AOSP to be less and less useful on its own.

Actually location APIs do use core Google backend services (the wifi geolocation database). Even Keyboard does (spelling). In a way they are doing the opposite, building their services into everything, which is a natural googly thing to do to add features/improve them. At that point they close source them as they dont want other people using the services without signing up.

The way to compete is either to make standalone apps that dont require services (ie like the old unmaintained ones) or to build your own services, either open or closed.

Re: Google’s iron grip on Android: Controlling open source by any means necessary

#143

Post by r0h1n »

bad_user wrote: post #139
r0h1n wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't we forgetting about the closed-source elephant in the room - Google Play Services - the "platform behind the platform"? >> Play Services has system-level powers, but it's updatable. It's part of the Google apps package, so it's not open source. OEMs are not allowed to modify it, making it completely under Google's control. Play Services basically acts as a shim between the normal apps and the installed Android…

Google Play Services are not (currently) required for developing and running apps, unless those apps integrate with Google's services, like Google Accounts and Google Maps. Of course nearly every Google App will break if you disable it, since every Google App is proprietary and Google's Play Services is their common framework. The question is - do third-party apps break if you disable Google Play Services? And the an…

> And this is a pain, given that many apps these days (Facebook, Twitter) want to get your current city...

Them wanting, I can understand. But why should you give them that?

Re: Google’s iron grip on Android: Controlling open source by any means necessary

#144

Post by throwaway2048 »

cromwellian wrote: post #24

Most of the examples of Google closed apps that are not part of the AOSP release are in fact apps that are based off of Google data-center services. Would it really help Samsung if the source to the Gmail app was open? Since Google controls the server side, and the client-server protocol, it limits the amount of innovation they can do. The web equivalent would be like claiming that Chrome OS isn't open because the so…

Hypothetically, if you made all parts of android rely on "Google Data center services" would moves to close it off be justified?

This is what Play Services are moving towards.

Re: Google’s iron grip on Android: Controlling open source by any means necessary

#145

Post by rquirk »

bgaluszka wrote: post #114
bad_user wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're partly right, but in regards to the Gmail app, what I don't like about Android is that it doesn't come with a good email client that's not GMail. Android's GMail client is very polished and there's not much in it that's specific to Gmail, it could be a generic email client that works with POP3/IMAP/SMTP and other standards as well. The experience of users that aren't into Android's own services do suffer. But…

> I actually play around with an old Galaxy S on top of which I installed Cyanogenmod without any of Google's Apps. The only problem is that developers only publish their apps on Google Play, which is a shame, given that Android does allow you to install apps from third party sources and you could have a good experience just with stock Android. I went through the same process of installing Cyanogenmod without Google…

Well one theory is that simply setting up a site that you can download an APK from is a hassle. It either costs you bandwidth if it's your own server, or has terrible UX if it is hosted via a share site.

There's always https://f-droid.org - it has somewhat vetted free-as-in-freedom apps that must compile from source.

Re: Google’s iron grip on Android: Controlling open source by any means necessary

#146

Post by devcpp »

afsina wrote: post #105
gibwell wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google used 'Android is open' as a dishonest slogan to convince developers that it wasn't just a power play. That is why they are being criticized. It's not about who is more open. It's that Google misled everyone about their intentions.

Prove that Android is not open.

He meant free (as in freedom), not open. "Proof" of that is in the submission's article. It's not exactly a formal proof but it has convinced most people here.

Unfortunately, this highlights some weaknesses in the GPLv2, which is supposed to guarantee freedom.

Re: Google’s iron grip on Android: Controlling open source by any means necessary

#147

Post by swetland »

stinos wrote: post #113
goggles99 wrote: post #107

Should read more like "Google has an Iron grip on Google Apps (Gapps)" - Not Android. Android is the OS, not the Google service based apps.

Isn't the whle point of the article that it's getting harder and harder to get the OS without being tied to Gapps? Which would justify the title?

The Android platform is open source under Apache/BSD/MIT licenses -- it's no harder to get that than it ever has been (not hard at all). Look at products like Kindle Fire for examples of "uses Android without Google Apps".

Re: Google’s iron grip on Android: Controlling open source by any means necessary

#148

Post by Mikeb85 »

belorn wrote: post #121
Mikeb85 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RMS is satisfied with anything that has a GPL licence. He's always supported creators rights to manage projects however they choose, and sell software as they choose. Google would fall short simply because the BSD licence isn't copyleft, but not for much of what they're being accused of here...

You are perfectly right regarding stallmas posted opinion regarding the GPL license. I doubt however that RMS would be happy with open/free code being replaced by closed one as exemplified in the article. That has of course nothing to do with permissive and copyleft, and all to do with lock-in, proprietary practices, and project management.

He'd likely just say it was never fully free to begin with, because of the license. Not to mention, all the Google apps in question connect to SaaS backends which are closed anyway.

Personally, I don't see the problem with what Google is doing, I would prefer 100% open software myself, but Google would never open-source their services' code, so the fact the apps are closed-source doesn't really make a difference.

Re: Google’s iron grip on Android: Controlling open source by any means necessary

#149

Post by fpgeek »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #141
tomkarlo wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a mischaracterization of his own comments on why he left. It had to do with open sourcing GPU drivers, which is probably an issue with other vendors, not Google. See: https://plus.google.com/112218872649456413744/posts/9HHRURor...

It was Google's choice to put that hardware into the phone, and it was their choice not to pressure qualcomm into being more open. Your argument itself is also somewhat of a mischaracterization, because at least Google could have wrestled redistribution rights for the binary drivers, thus making AOSP actually usable on the nexus, and they didn't even bother with that. Vendors are a convenient whipping boy when don't…

There's a very, very simple problem with your argument:

https://developers.google.com/android/nexus/drivers#razor

Re: Google’s iron grip on Android: Controlling open source by any means necessary

#150

Post by sbuk »

alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #135
sbuk wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Monopoly is not antitrust. Abusing control of a market is. A monopoly (which is usually considered to be dominance if a market place) is not itself unlawful.

Anti trust is the legislation policing monopolies, at least in the US, and it is such legislation which I consider bunk.

Antitrust laws exist to enable greater competition by stopping businesses behaving in an anticompetative manner. They don't necessarily exist for "policing monoploies" anywhere in the world.

>"and it is such legislation which I consider bunk"

Why? Don't you think that Microsoft should have been reprimanded over their abuse of the OS market to gain control of the browser market?

Or is it because it's being held over $favorite_faceless_corp like the proverbial sword of Damocles?

Post reply on HN