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

Android without the mothership

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 167 posts

Re: Android without the mothership

#131

Post by ufmace »

ksk wrote: post #99
DCKing wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to call bullshit on this one. Google has open sourced a fully featured mobile operating system, with an already free kernel, an optimized and secure app runtime for mobile applications that they keep on improving, a completely functional and usually well-liked user interface, open development tools and even a set of open source core applications needed for basic smartphone functionality. As this article demons…

>Google has open sourced a fully featured mobile operating system, Its interesting how Google forces handset makers to ship Google's proprietary software if they wish to use the Android "brand". However, they don't care if handset makers ship device driver code thus crippling the ability of anyone wishing to create a fully working AOSP ROM. I suppose in Googles eyes, Android = more data for Google to mine/sell/profit…

I think, at this point, a big part of it is just maintaining control of the platform. It seems like a selfish goal, but if they didn't, then some other company just might take it over by forking it, making their own proprietary version, and making that version more popular. It arguably came close to happening already with Samsung's market dominance, and Amazon's non-google Kindle Android. With so much money wrapped up in it, somebody is going to be in control of it. Would you rather it be Google, Amazon, Samsung, Microsoft? For all of their faults, at least Google is still maintaining a usable open-source OS.

Re: Android without the mothership

#132

Post by ssprang »

miguelrochefort wrote: post #118
a-priori wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I think to ensure your privacy by never revealing personal information to third parties, through using open source software and strong cryptography, requires too much inconvenience and vigilance and technical knowledge to be applied properly even by experts, never mind the average person. It's a dead end because, if the average person can't do it, then strong privacy will forever be on the fringes of society, so…

I agree that preserving privacy is expensive (almost unsustainable), and that only few select entities are technically capable of keeping a substantial part of their activities secret. However, I don't believe that regulation and laws are solution to anything. I also don't think that it's reasonable to expect entities, even large ones, to be 100% secure and keep your data secret at all time. Ultimately, I'm convinced…

Fundamentally, why shouldn't people have a right to privacy? Are you saying that there isn't any information about yourself that you'd want to keep private? Why are the details of my life anybody's business but my own?

> I don't see many people claiming their right to lie, their right to fraud, their right to steal. What makes privacy so different?

Well, for one thing, privacy is neither immoral nor illegal. How are these things even related?

Re: Android without the mothership

#133

Post by dang »

This article has received an extraordinary number of user flags, and I can't tell why. It relates to some controversial questions, of course, but is there anything terrible about it?

Re: Android without the mothership

#134

Post by miguelrochefort »

ssprang wrote: post #132
miguelrochefort wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that preserving privacy is expensive (almost unsustainable), and that only few select entities are technically capable of keeping a substantial part of their activities secret. However, I don't believe that regulation and laws are solution to anything. I also don't think that it's reasonable to expect entities, even large ones, to be 100% secure and keep your data secret at all time. Ultimately, I'm convinced…

Fundamentally, why shouldn't people have a right to privacy? Are you saying that there isn't any information about yourself that you'd want to keep private? Why are the details of my life anybody's business but my own? > I don't see many people claiming their right to lie, their right to fraud, their right to steal. What makes privacy so different? Well, for one thing, privacy is neither immoral nor illegal. How are…

> Fundamentally, why shouldn't people have a right to privacy? Are you saying that there isn't any information about yourself that you'd want to keep private? Why are the details of my life anybody's business but my own?

You don't own yourself. Everything you do is an interaction with the world (including your own body and mind), which belongs to everyone equally.

Whether or not the imperfect beings we are want to hide things from others doesn't justify it to be right. People want to keep things private because they gain something from it. There's a lot of things I want from this world, but society don't hand them to me in the form of a fundamental right.

> Well, for one thing, privacy is neither immoral nor illegal. How are these things even related?

Says who? I would argue that privacy is actually immoral. Above all, though, what's immoral is to make illegal any non-coercive acquisition of data. Making that illegal is the real mistake here. And I don't suggest we make privacy illegal, that wouldn't be possible.

Re: Android without the mothership

#135

Post by miguelrochefort »

josephlord wrote: post #120
miguelrochefort wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't trust them, nor anyone, to keep any "intimate personal details" (whatever that means) secret. But that's not the point. I don't give them access to information to keep it secure. They shouldn't even need permission to access it. I share information with the world to make it a better place. There's no point in living in the dark. To keep information for yourself is selfish. To expect that others will keep it s…

If you are carrying a Google phone and using the Google systems you are giving them access to where you are going, where you have been, who you have met, who you know. All these can be intimate personal details at times. They may provide information about health, sexual partners and activity. They can also reveal journalistic sources and high level company meetings that might give rise to insider trading. Is this all…

> If you are carrying a Google phone and using the Google systems you are giving them access to where you are going, where you have been, who you have met, who you know.

That's great! Profit while it's still free. We'll soon have to pay to get businesses to track us.

> All these can be intimate personal details at times. They may provide information about health, sexual partners and activity. They can also reveal journalistic sources and high level company meetings that might give rise to insider trading.

All of these things are great too! What do you not see?

Re: Android without the mothership

#136

Post by ForHackernews »

kevinflo wrote: post #84
ForHackernews wrote: post #20

If this is something Hacker News users value, please consider contributing development time (or money) to the Replicant Project http://www.replicant.us/

Seems like an awesome project, but at first visit to that site I had absolutely no idea what replicant was. If you're involved with the project or that site, it might be helpful to put a short (one sentence) description of what replicant is somewhere on the front page. Also, sorry if it is there and I'm just missing it.

I'm just a supporter, and I have no control over that page. But FWIW, I absolutely agree, they need a concise "About Replicant" section.

Sadly, good communication for newbies and outsiders has never been the Free Software movement's strong suit.

Re: Android without the mothership

#137

Post by ForHackernews »

zmmmmm wrote: post #3

I am wondering how long it is before we see an effort to do to Google Play Services what Google did to Java - copy all the APIs and create an independent alternative that lets you build apps that use features from Play Services, without tying your app to Google. Ideally one can then choose what to do from just stubbing them out, filling them with 3rd party alternatives, or providing custom implementations. I would th…

> I would think a nice collaboration between Amazon, Microsoft, some Chinese players and maybe even Yahoo could do quite a nice job of this.

There's some indication that Samsung is preparing to do just that:

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24507761/samsung-tryi...

http://gigaom.com/2013/10/28/samsung-is-pulling-another-amaz...

Re: Android without the mothership

#138

Post by clarry »

grey-area wrote: post #68
CmonDev wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Why push for developers to waste time porting between c++ and java" Yes, using something like C# and Mono would be a huge win.

What would be really nice would be seeing a language-agnostic device. Based on linux, with the same APIs available to everyone, so that as on desktop linux, a thousand languages can bloom, and everyone can use the development language of their choice (including yet to be invented languages). GUI bindings would be the issue here of course, but it is not insurmountable. It's a shame that the software landscape is so do…

I'd like to go a step further and have an OS-agnostic device. Carefully documented with free reference drivers that can be ported to any OS. I don't see why hardware devices should be tied to or somehow "based on" a specific operating system. Can a laptop be just a laptop, not a windows laptop or linux laptop or whatever? And a phone a phone, not a linux phone?

Re: Android without the mothership

#139

Post by DominikR »

king_jester wrote: post #116
DominikR wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that an app shouldn't crash, but piracy is a problem. Google In-App purchases are safe, so if that's how you monetize, I don't see why the app should be allowed to work anywhere else but in Google's environment. It's different if the app is open source or you don't need to monetize (sadly, not everyone can afford that luxury), but even there it depends on how important those Play Store API features are to the…

Apps that are provided with for free on Google Play, IAP or no IAP, don't have any fear of piracy from being installed from another source. If Google Play is not available when your app runs, if the user could use that app for some purpose, it is a really good idea to make sure it doesn't crash. Indeed, most free apps with IAPs don't require you to buy the IAP immediately at launch, you can use the app to some degree…

It just depends on how much extra cost is invoked by having more users who never pay. (for example support, server costs)

I just don't think that you can follow some rule dogmatically, because for some it might be worth the exposure, for some the extra costs might outweigh the benefits.

This is something that I would decide on a case by case basis.

Re: Android without the mothership

#140

Post by hackmiester »

kevinflo wrote: post #84
ForHackernews wrote: post #20

If this is something Hacker News users value, please consider contributing development time (or money) to the Replicant Project http://www.replicant.us/

Seems like an awesome project, but at first visit to that site I had absolutely no idea what replicant was. If you're involved with the project or that site, it might be helpful to put a short (one sentence) description of what replicant is somewhere on the front page. Also, sorry if it is there and I'm just missing it.

I completely agree, I had to go to Wikipedia to figure it out.
Post reply on HN