G+_Snuffy Sims Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 This is a really long response to a really interesting article about forking Android. I tend to agree more with the original article than the response, but both sides have a certain amount of spin. The TLDR version is: Android is not so open, and all the good stuff is in proprietary Google services. Ars: that's bad. Google: that's good. As the Google response states several times: the vast majority of the work is in the back end services. Also true but not stated: that's where Google makes the vast majority (if not all) of its money off its services. If Google was really interested in helping out small innovators, etc, as they say they are, then they would open up their APIs and open source their services client software. Not only would this earn them good will among developers, it would increase the number of apps using their services and the number of users as well. Originally shared by Ither Seed A Google employee's critic of the Ars technica Android unforkable article http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/neither-microsoft-nokia-nor-anyone-else-should-fork-android-its-unforkable/?comments=1&post=26199423 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Christopher Best Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Google provides good APIs for their services. I don't see the value in open-sourcing their client apps as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Alan Char Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Well, you have to pay to put Google services on devices. You also have to do all or nothing, and they can't be uninstalled. Sound familiear? Manufacturers aren't the only ones who operate this way. And from an API point of view, you can't (for example) use an API to post to G+. The APIs are only open when Google wants them to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Christopher Best Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Alan Char I just checked and I can uninstall Gmail, Google+, and Chrome on my Samsung... Are you sure about what you're saying? I don't know if Samsung had to pay anything or not to get Google Apps, but I fail to see how Google charging for them is a problem. I just opened a random third-party app, and G+ was in the share menu... So again, are you sure you know what you're talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Alan Char Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Manufacturers pay by device for Google Mobile Services. On my phone (GPE, not "pure" Samsung), I cannot uninstall GMail, Search, Play Music, or any other Google app. I can only uninstall updates and disable them. Are you sure you can really uninstall them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Christopher Best Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 I know I have uninstalled Google apps in the past in attempts to fix problems with them, so yes. Regardless, I still fail to see how this affects AOSP. The largest Android market in the world doesn't ship Google apps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Alan Char Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Everything I've read about Google apps indicates you cannot uninstall them without root. The option doesn't even present itself in the spp asettings. You need to hunt down the apk and remove it. Some rooted apps help you do this, like Titatanium backup. As for G+ write APIs, they are not APIs to the service. They are APIs to the app installed on your mobile device. If it was a true write API, an enterprising developer could write an alternative G+ app that you could use instead of G+, even if G+ wasn't installed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Christopher Best Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Actually we should all be thankful there's no direct G+ write API, it keeps the signal-to-noise ratio at a manageable level. No one wants a repeat of Google Buzz. I still fail to see what relevance the ability to uninstall a Google app has to the point of the author of the original article. It doesn't stop someone from forking Android. Like I pointed out, the biggest market for Android devices doesn’t even ship Google apps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_HeCareth M. Wosu Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Alan Char The author is conflating Google Apps and Android the OS. On the Android site it explicitly says Google Apps are not apart of the Android Platform. OEMs have a choice to either use them or not. If OEMs want to use it, like all proprietary services they have to abide by Google's guidlines. Christopher Best is right, All of this has no bearings on the Openness of Android. Android is Open Source. Google Apps are closed source. It is really that simple. I just wrote a post on this same topic on the Verge Forums. http://mobile.theverge.com/2014/2/5/5383296/let-us-settle-this-whole-open-closed-argument Basically compiling all the facts direct from source.android.com. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Alan Char Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I don't believe that either the author or the response was confusing the operating system with apps. AOSP comes with apps. GMS are other apps for using Google services. The debate was primarlily about the proprietary nature of GMS, and secondarily about the not-so-open nature of AOSP. The difference of opinion is over the value of forking Android when you can't get GMS without paying for it and without Google's approval. Look at what Cyanogen had to go through. And the problem with Google apps, is a lot of them are not limited to Google services. Why isn't keyboard, or Mail, or Chrome, for example, offered independent of Google services? If Google really wants to encourage innovation, they could open source their non-service related apps, and even their service-related ones, since, as Google says, the vast majority of work is on the server side. They want more users to use their services, after all, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Christopher Best Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I still don't see the value in open sourcing their apps. You offered up Chrome as an example, but Chromium is open source! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_HeCareth M. Wosu Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Alan Char What exactly is the not so open nature of AOSP? As everyone says this but can never really give a reason and gets into this circular debate about Google's Apps. All AOSP apps are Open Source. If you have ever used CyanogenMod you will see this, as apps like the dialer and gallery do not include Google's back end cloud services. Examples are: AOSP Launcher replaced with Google Now Launcher AOSP Browser replaced with Chrome AOSP Camera replaced with Google Camera (Photosperes) AOSP Gallery be replaced with Google Gallery AOSP Messaging replaced with Hangouts AOSP Dialer replaced with Google Dialer The key here is that the AOSP versions still exist but Google uses their own apps for their Nexus devices. This is why devices like the Moto X did not get the Google Dialer with their Kit Kat update, but it did get a similar dialer without the Google stuff. All of the AOSP versions of apps are independently offered. As they are part AOSP and open source. If an OEM wanted to take the mail app or keyboard app and modify it for their use it is there for them to do that.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Alan Char Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Google publishes the source as open, but development is more closed than traditional open source systems. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2011/08/study-android-is-least-open-of-open-source-mobile-platforms/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_HeCareth M. Wosu Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Alan Char Development of the OS is not required to be completely in the open. The requirement for open source, by definition from the Open Source Initiative, is that the source code is readily available for developers to modify and distribute as they please. ? That study is about governance and if you read the actual source of the study from Vision mobile they make a point to say all of the projects, including Android, are Open Source Projects. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Alan Char Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 It's not about whether or not the project is open source. No one is claiming that it's not open source. It's about how its development is not openly collaborative as other typical open source projects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts