Hello AAA folks

[G+_Yannick Lemin]

Hello AAA folks,

 

I just had a but of a reaction concerning the "android open" debate.

 

Just one thing: there's a difference between an operating systems and the sops that run on them.

The OS is indeed open, all the layers are there, including the drivers (even if sometimes newsworthy ...).

 

I don't remember anyone talking about the suite of Google apps being open sourced!

 

Just my two cents :)

 

Love the show keep it up!!!

[G+_Mark Scholes]

Except that services for apps are also closed, location, games, maps

[G+_Yannick Lemin]

what is ? the whole SDK and the NDK is open source ... everything is in there !

[G+_Mark Scholes]

Did you read the article?

[G+_Yannick Lemin]

Yes I did, and still my point is about the fact that everything in the OS itself is indeed opensource. What has been closed with Google Play Services is the way it handles certain things all related to the communication with Google services themselves. Everything else is still available from what's open source.

 

In other words: check out the code from AOSP, build it and run it, you have a fully functionnal and complete operating system, with file system, driver layer, kernel, even a graphic layer (which unix doesn't have out of the box by the way), and more ... and that with a well documented SDK allowing you to write all the apps in the world that run on this system. 

Nowhere was it said that the access to the google services themselves (gmail, calendar, whatever) was supposed to be open.

 

I agree with some of the points of that article, I just wanted to point out that the OS as it is IS INDEED open. And I want to undeline the difference between the OS and the apps ... which are 2 different things! :)

[G+_Mark Scholes]

Well, some of those things were open source and now the new versions aren't, eg location.

 

Run it on what? There are missing drivers. Pretty sure every unix that's come in a box in the past 10 years has had graphics.

 

The OS vs the services vs the apps has always been a continuum, there's no hard line. Kernel, drivers, services, gui, libraries, toolkits, built in apps, app store.

 

Android was never that open source, the main reason to be open source is to get other people to help you, reduce development costs, but that was never the case for google, they made it open source to get marketshare.

 

You can't make what normal people would consider and Android phone without doing a deal with Google. You can make a Windows computer without dealing with Microsoft, except for going to the store and buying a copy of Windows.

 

You can make a new OS based on Android, as long as you don't want anyone in the AOSP to help you. Similar to when Microsoft told companies to only sell Windows computers.

[G+_Joseph Hurtsellers]

Yannick Lemin I'm not very tech savvy but I like your points. I think it's a thin line - but it is an accurate one you are drawing. 

 

Google must find a way to differentiate itself and insulate itself from other companies. By leaving the front end of Android open I think they are keeping their promise.

 By creating compelling apps and hooking them deep into Google services (EXPENSIVE SERVICES) - they are differentiating themselves from their competitors.

 

If Google were to open those services up to the very companies they are competing with it wouldn't make sense. (I can see a new app now - "BING Navigation" - featuring Google Maps!)

 

Just my thoughts :)

[G+_Mark Scholes]

Which is fine, until you start actively trying to stop other people, instead of just making something better. Things you can't do without promising not to fork android: use google services, google apps, the play store, google payments.

 

If Sony invents a new, better, location service, can they offer it on their phones? Can they sell it to other android manufacturers. If Bing maps is better in your country, can you sell android phones with it?

 

In imaginary news: Microsoft says all Windows apps must use Bing, Bing Maps, Microsoft payment, Windows app store.

[G+_Yannick Lemin]

To come back on the graphical layer of Unix : it is called x11 and it is a separate software which is not part of the stack.

And no, Unix or Linux do not come in a box and you need drivers from manufacturers for that as well, no difference there!

 

To answer your questions: yes you can sell an android phone with bing or bing maps on it (but seriously why would you do that? ;) ).

 

All in all, no matter how you turn it around, the Google apps make the Google experience. They don't make the android operating system.

 

Again, this is my opinion of course, and again, I agree with some of the points in the article and some made during the show, but I feel like the difference must be made and it's not!

[G+_Joseph Hurtsellers]

Mark Scholes can you help me understand this better. (I should have read the article) But is Google saying you must use Google maps if you are using Android? My impression was that they are saying IF you want to use the Play Services then you have to use Google's stuff.

No one would stop Sony from starting there own store and putting any kind of map they develop in it. (or creating there own mapping system and software and navigation app) But I may be in WAY over my head here.

[G+_Yannick Lemin]

That's exactly right, it's already the case, best example: the kindle, irks android for the os only, they built everything else :)

[G+_Mark Scholes]

Linux distros ships with X11 and drivers.

 

"OEMs that wanted the Google Apps were not allowed to use Skyhook"

 

Not sure about shipping a phone that defaults to Bing maps specifically, all these things are secret, but they'd also have to ship the google maps service for apps that use it to work.

 

Google is saying you must provide all Google services if you want any one Google service. If you want to use your own location service you also have to provide your own store, payment, email, calendar, etc etc.

 

They're also saying if you want to provide any google service you can't work with anyone else who wants to use Android without google services.

 

The first is lock in, the second is monopoly abuse, and what Microsoft went to trial for.

 

More imaginary breaking news: Canonical bans kubuntu for fragmenting the market. Also bans Dell from selling Windows PCs if they also wish to ship Ubuntu PCs.

[G+_Yannick Lemin]

Linux distributions are packaged group of software that allows you to have an installable system on most machines, with some software that allows you to have the feeling it's not empty.

 

Nothing different here, if you create your own phone, you want to put Android on it, you will have to provide the drivers for that particular phone's components and you can run Android as is on it, with a graphical interface and very very few apps. This is the first step. And so far, everything you've done is fully open.

 

Now what you are saying is different. Now you want to put Google Services on there, and then you have to sign a contract with Google. That's a fact, and I never said I agreed with that, that never was my point. 

Whether you want to do this or not, it doesn't matter because at this point you have your very own phone with an operating system which didn't cost you anything and on which you can change as many things as you want because you have the source code.

 

Nothing prevent you for writing your own email client that goes to your own email system, and your own map client that uses your own mapping services, and so on. This has NOTHING to do with the fact the OPERATING SYSTEM is open or not. This is a question of using one's services, and that is all.

 

You can however sell your newly created phone with Android on it and your own ecosystem of stuff and Google will not stop you nor bother you with it. 

 

What you are saying though, is that it seems like an Android phone WITHOUT the google services is not attractive to the users. I agree with you, and no indeed that is not very nice of Google to put conditions in their contracts but to me that's the way the game is played. Now I don't like it, I don't know anything about whether they should be sued for it, and I don't really care, because again, this has nothing to do with the fact that the OS is open or not.

 

Do you see what I mean?