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

171–180 of 234 posts

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

#171

Post by wes-exp »

vetinari wrote: post #125
x0054 wrote: post #92

I once read an article in 2010 that criticized people for saying that Apple and iOS of the 2000s is like the Microsoft and Windows of the 90s. The article pointed out that Apple IS the Apple of the 90s and Google with its Android platform will become the Windows of the 90s. I think it's happening. In a few years Android is going to be as closed sourced as Windows, probably as ubiquitous, and most likely, just as pron…

Sorry, but some of the things you wrote are about perception, not reality. What does "prone to security issues" mean? And compared to what? When we compare iOS and Android, iOS had 304 vulnerabilities in 2007-2013 (294 in 2009-2013), while Android had 29 in 2009-2013[1]. That's order of magnitude difference, yet Android is blamed to be prone to security holes. Also what does "clunky unless you run it on the latest ha…

Vulnerability numbers alone do not accurately convey the mobile security landscape. To start with, even if those mean something, we must consider that Android devices tend to lag behind in terms of receiving OS updates. By contrast, iOS devices tend to be quickly updated.

It is widely known that iOS is far more secure in the practical sense for the average user. Report: http://www.f-secure.com/static/doc/labs_global/Research/Mobi...

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

#172

Post by icebraining »

apetrovic wrote: post #98
parennoob wrote: post #22

When someone like Github does this (make some parts of their code open-source, but others closed-source), journalists don't write critical pieces about them, do they? I mean, Google leaves a bad taste in my mouth since they started shuttering services like it was Christmas at the Google Service Chopping Block, but I don't see them being actively evil here. It's all according to the previously openly aired plan. Googl…

> Now if they want a hardware platform to run on, go find one outside the Open Handset Alliance ecosystem. Imagine you want to sell a Linux laptop with your own Linux distribution. You're just a small shop in California, and you're shopping around to find a manufacturer for your laptops. And you find that anyone connected to Microsoft (Foxconn, Asus, Acer, Gigabyte, etc) can't do any job with you. Would you say "that…

That's not what they're doing. HTC, Samsung, etc still sell non-Google OSs, like Windows Phone and Bada.

A good analogy would be Microsoft preventing you from selling your fork of Windows on those manufacturers, which happens to be exactly what every big OS maker does, by simply not distributing it under a Free license.

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

#173

Post by AJ007 »

sbuk wrote: post #109
alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can anything other that 99% market share even be considered a monopoly? If it's 80% or 90% then there is obviously choice and thus no monopoly. Anti trust is such bunk...

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.

This sounds like an antitrust issue:

"This makes life extremely difficult for the only company brazen enough to sell an Android fork in the west: Amazon. Since the Kindle OS counts as an incompatible version of Android, no major OEM is allowed to produce the Kindle Fire for Amazon. So when Amazon goes shopping for a manufacturer for its next tablet, it has to immediately cross Acer, Asus, Dell, Foxconn, Fujitsu, HTC, Huawei, Kyocera, Lenovo, LG, Motorola, NEC, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, Toshiba, and ZTE off the list. Currently, Amazon contracts Kindle manufacturing out to Quanta Computer, a company primarily known for making laptops. Amazon probably doesn't have many other choices"

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

#174

Post by icebraining »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #101
Apocryphon wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps there should be a phrase to mean "open source in name only." I wonder if all of this is related to Richard Stallman's dismissal of projects that claim to be open source, saying that it isn't enough unless it's "free software."

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...

Not true, rms has no problem with the BSD license. It's still Free Software, and rms has even supported licensing a particular piece of software (Ogg/Vorbis) under a permissive license instead of the GPL.

http://lwn.net/2001/0301/a/rms-ov-license.php3

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

#176

Post by mooreds »

hahainternet wrote: post #130
guelo wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is it really that obvious? What power are they grabbing? By this reasoning, Google may not augment any 'traditional' AOSP service with improved functionality. That's obviously ridiculous, so what solution would you envisage?

The article was pointing out how Google is moving more and more functionality from open source to closed source. So, one way to counter that would be to augment the "traditional AOSP service with improved functionality", but license the code as open source. The service endpoints can certainly be closed, but the code to access those endpoints could be open. And the license to use those endpoints could be open source friendly.

Now, that may not be a good business decision, but it certainly counters the argument of the post.

An aside: I appreciate what google is doing to fight Android fragmentation, but also see some of the tactics as anti-competitive.

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

#177

Post by r0h1n »

bad_user wrote: post #162
r0h1n wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Because currently it isn't optional, which is a flaw in Android's permissions system that sucks.

Ah. I don't use Facebook, and I haven't installed Twitter's Android app. So I never faced these issues.

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

#178

Post by r0h1n »

fooqux wrote: post #166
bad_user wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because currently it isn't optional, which is a flaw in Android's permissions system that sucks.

Three points: 1) Newer custom ROMs can deny permissions on a per-app basis. I understand this isn't for everyone, but I enjoy having this option very much on my own device. (I also agree with you that it should be baked into the vanilla Android, but I can understand why they wouldn't want to confuse users with that option.) 2) Some apps will give you a choice in their own settings (if you trust that). 3) You always h…

I've been running CM since the Nexus One. I don't think it supports per-app system privileges. Unless it is hidden somewhere deep within (though I could swear I've recursively been through their entire settings tree).

May I ask which ROMs you are referring to?

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

#179

Post by makomk »

justincormack wrote: post #142
guelo wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 standa…

I think the location APIs may also use system-level facilities that aren't open to normal applications, such as the ability to detect nearby access points even when WiFi is off and the device is in standby. So it's not clear that apps can implement it themselves without relying on Google. Also, the APIs for newer stuff like geofencing are Google-proprietary and don't support alternative providers, so mobile phone makers that don't want to rely on Google's services can't substitute a different backend without breaking existing apps.

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

#180

Post by PeterisP »

oscargrouch wrote: post #66
Brakenshire wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, there is a philosophy (or rather, various different philosophies) that go along with the legal structures, and different projects have different levels of adherence to those ideas. It eventually comes down to perception of value. Part of the original attraction of Android was its openness, if Google is now closing off substantial functionality, to head off competition, then it's not unfair for people to re-eval…

> Part of the original attraction of Android was its openness, if Google is now closing off substantial functionality, to head off competition, then it's not unfair for people to re-evaluate their enthusiasm for the product. Very well put! Its not a legal perception that theres something wrong about what they are doing(and nobody are saying that they cannot do it in the legal aspect).. its a betrayal of some part tha…

Android is open source in that sense, that Google can leave the AOSP app versions to rot, but they can't force them to be left alone - in fact, both Amazon and Samsung can work on the AOSP apps instead of their own, and keep them up-to-date and better than Google apps if they are able to.
Post reply on HN