Google depreciating open source in Android

[slugg]

Sorry guys, deprecate is the proper term. It specifically means to halt development of a feature to begin phasing it out. Depreciate has to do with value, not functionality.

 

[Belegost]

I think depreciate is a good word here, even if it was a mistake. It's not that the AOSP portions are being EOL'ed, but instead that as features are increasingly loaded on the closed Play Services APIs, the value of the AOSP portions are declining or depreciating.

 

[Skel]

Article reminds me of Microsoft in the 90s..

 

[Ravynmagi]

Apps != Operating System.

I disagree on that. For a lot of shoppers I don't think the OS is really as important as the apps it has and the app selection. Google and Apple have so many apps that it's not even a consideration and it is more about the OS in those two cases. But for Fire OS, Windows Phone, Blackberry, Apps are VERY important for them.

 

[ChronoReverse]

Luckily it's pretty easy to qualify for the GApps then. You can skin Android into the laggy mess Touchwiz is and still have them after all.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

It's really amusing to see Google slowly turning from it's "Don't be evil" days to Microsoft of the 90's.

 

[Jodell88]

I disagree on that. For a lot of shoppers I don't think the OS is really as important as the apps it has and the app selection. Google and Apple have so many apps that it's not even a consideration and it is more about the OS in those two cases. But for Fire OS, Windows Phone, Blackberry, Apps are VERY important for them.

I'm talking in context of the article. Besides, the average user isn't knowledgeable when it comes to the underlying aspects of any platform.

Android and the Applications that run on android are two completely different things. If the article was stating that things in Android such as Project Butter was not available in the ASOP version, then it has a point. As it stands, the article is sensationalized to draw mouse clicks and thus ad revenue.

 

[Jodell88]

Also, the only products I know Google has that is open source is Chromium, Chromium OS, Blink (forked from Webkit), V8 JavaScript engine and Android.

 

[Sid59]

I disagree on that. For a lot of shoppers I don't think the OS is really as important as the apps it has and the app selection. Google and Apple have so many apps that it's not even a consideration and it is more about the OS in those two cases. But for Fire OS, Windows Phone, Blackberry, Apps are VERY important for them.

I think the quoted statement is in relation to AOSP the OS vs AOSP Apps.
While the framework remains open source, the article takes issue with Google not maintaining AOSP apps (email, calendar, search ..) while closing off and add features to their own services.

 

[WelshBloke]

Article reminds me of Microsoft in the 90s..

Microsoft open sourced windows and gave away office for free?

I must have missed that bit of the 90s.

 

[Sid59]

Microsoft open sourced windows and gave away office for free?

I must have missed that bit of the 90s.

Obviously .,. Google is becoming a monopoly and abusing it's power of "not being evil" by not maintaining code and features to OSS apps. /sarcasm

 

[Tsaar]

It's really amusing to see Google slowly turning from it's "Don't be evil" days to Microsoft of the 90's.

I hope this is a joke. Google is trying to protect the Android brand due to OEMs and carriers. I think making Android modular is a great thing.

 

[ChronoReverse]

If anything, this is the opposite of what Microsoft did. By making all this stuff modular, if a vendor actually wanted to build their own (inferior) versions, they're free to replace the apk's.

 

[poofyhairguy]

If anything, this is the opposite of what Microsoft did. By making all this stuff modular, if a vendor actually wanted to build their own (inferior) versions, they're free to replace the apk's.

Exactly. The argument basically is "well Google makes things so nice for developers that its easier to do it the Google Way."

Isn't winning on technical merit what we want the most?

No other major mobile OS let's you do what Amazon did to Android. It is hard to do because its hard to have better solutions than Google.

Android is growing up in its new role as the planet's most dominate user OS.

 

[Graze]

It's really amusing to see Google slowly turning from it's "Don't be evil" days to Microsoft of the 90's.

LOL wat!

Android is still very much open source. God forbid Google tries to control some software aspect of what is theirs to begin with(opensource or not).

The only similarity between the two companies is that they are both corporations with their priority being to make money and not serve idiots for free for the good of serving idiots for free.
You know that might be a pretty big similarity after all :hmm:

 

[Skel]

Microsoft open sourced windows and gave away office for free?

I must have missed that bit of the 90s.

Not what I meant.. The part where OEMs get beneficial stuff if they join Google's Open Handset Alliance. Hell Acer (according to this article) was told to drop development on a version of Android that forked from the standard build.

While it might not be an official requirement, being granted a Google apps license will go a whole lot easier if you join the Open Handset Alliance. The OHA is a group of companies committed to Android—Google's Android—and members are contractually prohibited from building non-Google approved devices.That's right, joining the OHA requires a company to sign its life away and promise to not build a device that runs a competing Android fork.

Acer was bit by this requirement when it tried to build devices that ran Alibaba's Aliyun OS in China. Aliyun is an Android fork, and when Google got wind of it, Acer was told to shut the project down or lose its access to Google apps.

I totally understand the idea of protecting the user experience by creating a standard feel and apps. There are a thousand and one really good reasons for doing this, that I completely stand behind. I totally think Google is right and smart for taking more control over Android. The only thing I won't say is it's totally different than what MS did.

 

[zerocool84]

Not what I meant.. The part where OEMs get beneficial stuff if they join Google's Open Handset Alliance. Hell Acer (according to this article) was told to drop development on a version of Android that forked from the standard build.



I totally understand the idea of protecting the user experience by creating a standard feel and apps. There are a thousand and one really good reasons for doing this, that I completely stand behind. I totally think Google is right and smart for taking more control over Android. The only thing I won't say is it's totally different than what MS did.

Anybody can use Android, you me, anyone. If you want to use Google's services like Gmail, Maps, etc, then you have to follow a certain set of things. Entirely different than Microsoft.

 

[pm]

One thing that I don't understand is this line from the original article at ArsTechnica:

Samsung does a particularly "good" job of this, going as far as having its own user account system, backend syncing, and app store. It also maintains the most complete set of alternatives to Google apps. A lot of these, like Internet, E-mail, and Calendar, have roots in AOSP, but Samsung continued to add features long after Google abandoned them for closed alternatives.

What I don't understand is that if Samsung's apps are built on top of Android Open Source Project, then are Samsung's apps Open Source? It doesn't seem like they are. I look around Samsung's site for the open source versions of their software for the GS3/GS4 and I couldn't find them.

So how did Samsung create apps that "have roots in AOSP" without them actually being AOSP? As I understand it, you can't adopt a chunk of open source code as a foundation for an app without actually releasing this app as open source... or do I misunderstand open source or the AOSP license? Or is this sloppy terminology by ArsTechnica (a website not known for sloppy writing) by implying a connection between the original AOSP software and Samsung software that doesn't exist?

 

[ChronoReverse]

As I understand it, you can't adopt a chunk of open source code as a foundation for an app without actually releasing this app as open source... or do I misunderstand open source or the AOSP license?

This depends on the open source license. GPL works like the manner your described where derivative works must also be GPL.

Apache is another open source license but it ONLY requires you to preserve the copyright and disclaimer. You are free to use the code and never release source (and even use a different license for your derivative). It's more "free" but less "open".



AOSP is released under Apache so Samsung is free to take the code, modify it for their uses and not release the source code. Given the long term divergence from AOSP, I suspect Samsung's S-Apps likely don't have that much in common with the current AOSP versions anyway.


Nonetheless, it's sloppy work on the part of ArsTechnica to not explain this. But a lot of their work has been rather sloppy as of late (see the truly facepalm-worthy barometer article).

 

[Cerb]

It seems to be providing us with some nice benefits like even faster updates and less reliance on manufactures and carriers.

If Google can work that further into the OS, though, that would be truly awesome. Just imagine if Android could be updated without the manufacturer's and carrier's efforts (IE, many phones will not get newer OSes they could run), regardless of make/model.

FI, I'd like a few features of 4.2, but it probably won't come to my phone officially, so I'm hoping for some 3rd-party ROMs, in the future (not a huge deal, but it would be nice). Oh, and the 4.1 for my phone is buggy, and all I could do about it was root and disable the updater (the not-so-uncommon BT/wifi problems). Forced updates (w/o root) with regressions, and not getting those patched out ASAP is not cool.

--

Google is using Linux much like OS X used Mach. As long as you can run and update official Google APKs on a non-manufacturer open-source Android build (like CM), I don't see any problems. While that can sometimes take a little effort (since such builds will not come with the Google closed apps/services), it generally works well once copied over. If that starts breaking, I don't know...

 

[Jodell88]

One thing that I don't understand is this line from the original article at ArsTechnica:

What I don't understand is that if Samsung's apps are built on top of Android Open Source Project, then are Samsung's apps Open Source? It doesn't seem like they are. I look around Samsung's site for the open source versions of their software for the GS3/GS4 and I couldn't find them.

So how did Samsung create apps that "have roots in AOSP" without them actually being AOSP? As I understand it, you can't adopt a chunk of open source code as a foundation for an app without actually releasing this app as open source... or do I misunderstand open source or the AOSP license? Or is this sloppy terminology by ArsTechnica (a website not known for sloppy writing) by implying a connection between the original AOSP software and Samsung software that doesn't exist?

Not all Open Source licenses are the same. Android is under the Apache licence and so if Google feels like it they don't have to release the source code for Android ever again. However, they have to release the source code for the Linux kernel because it is under the GPL licence.

Other examples are Apple using FreeBSD for OS X and Sony using FreeBSD for the Playstation 4. The Open Source licence that FreeBSD using allows for case like this to happen.

 

[pm]

Thanks for explaining the various open source licenses, Jodell88 and ChronoReverse. I think I had equated GPL with "open source". Thanks.

 

[lothar]

What's the difference between an Apache and a TEA license?
I thought I remembered reading from somewhere that if Google had licensed Android under the TEA license instead of Apache that Oracle wouldn't have any standing in suing Google.

Explain?

 

[lothar]

It's really amusing to see Google slowly turning from it's "Don't be evil" days to Microsoft of the 90's.

How is Google turning to Microsoft of the 90's? Examples?

Can you also provided examples where Microsoft has provided Office and Windows for free and open sourced them in the 90's and closed them off later?

 

[lothar]

Not what I meant.. The part where OEMs get beneficial stuff if they join Google's Open Handset Alliance. Hell Acer (according to this article) was told to drop development on a version of Android that forked from the standard build.



I totally understand the idea of protecting the user experience by creating a standard feel and apps. There are a thousand and one really good reasons for doing this, that I completely stand behind. I totally think Google is right and smart for taking more control over Android. The only thing I won't say is it's totally different than what MS did.

You can't keep one foot in the bucket and the other out.
If Acer wants to fork Android anytime, they're free to do so and leave the Google Open Handset Alliance.

So how is it the same as what MS did then? You won't say that it's totally different from what MS did, but yet you won't any proof that it's the same as what MS did?