Then Welcome To Android | Hacker News Reader

Then Welcome To Android

daringfireball.net

79 pointsmrshoe69 comments

Open-source licenses have nothing to do with trademarks ... and articles from daringfireball.net have zero insight while being biased to extremes.

Why do people read it? Probably because most people search for approval, maybe?

The conditions were pretty clear from the start ... if you want to use the Android trademark and have access to its marketplace, you have to play by Google's rules, which are actually pretty relaxed and many people complain that Android is too open, allowing mobile carriers to load crap on it.

This is the Achile's heel of "Free Software", and GPLv3 won't solve it because you need the cooperation of the mobile carriers / phone makers.

I actually think that personal computing is were it is today because Microsoft/IBM commoditized hardware, with all personal computers running the same OS.

Google is copying the same recipe.

No matter how good iPhones get, people have different needs and different styles. There are always going to be pinkish phones around or phones with physical keyboards, or cheaper phones that you can buy for $100 without a contract.

Creating an OS that attracts phone makers, which in turn drives customers attention towards software, which in turn lowers prices on phones, which in turn sells more Android devices, which in turn makes Google's search engine ubiquitous for mobile phones ... Google is practically solving the chicken/egg problem here :)

> I actually think that personal computing is were it is today because Microsoft/IBM commoditized hardware, with all personal computers running the same OS.

That’s a vacuously true statement.

The question is whether “where it is today” is better (possibly cheaper) or worse (less innovative) for Microsoft’s/Intel’s bullying. Any answer to that is of course completely speculative. Personally I find the speculation behind the “worse” answer most compelling.

Having a super cheap/free software platform ultimately discourages innovation in software platforms (why spend a ton of resources competing with something free and “good enough”), and so I hope that projects like Palm’s, Apple’s, Microsoft’s, etc. continue for a good long time, if only to keep the pressure on Google, a company well known for abandoning projects.

> The question is whether “where it is today” is better (possibly cheaper) or worse (less innovative) for Microsoft’s/Intel’s bullying

I should have expanded on that.

I think it is better because computers got cheap and universal and a standard. A PC used to cost thousands of dollars, and now you can get one for a couple of hundred. I know first-hand what this meant, as I live in Eastern Europe and I could only get one after I found something cheap.

Yeah, it sucked that Windows wasn't particularly innovative, but the software running on top was innovative with lots of competition going on. The hardware running on top was competitive too ... even Intel faced stiff competition.

So there are both good and bad parts about this ... and the environment is certainly a lot better than the waled garden the mobile carriers are keeping us in.

Why do people read it? Probably because most people search for approval, maybe?

Reading the Apple FUD is important, give you an idea of what might be appearing more aggressively a months down the line...

  and articles from daringfireball.net have zero insight
  while being biased to extremes.
  Why do people read it? Probably because most people search
  for approval, maybe?

Perfect example of the comment upvoted by people searching for approval. Articles from daringfireball.net have zero insight? Biased to extremes? Really? Did you even bother to read any of the articles?

  if you want to use the Android trademark and have access to its marketplace,
  you have to play by Google's rules

That's exactly the point of the article: Google acts this way but claims otherwise.

> That's exactly the point of the article: Google acts this way but claims otherwise.

What are you talking about?

Both the compatibility definition (CDD) and the compatibility test-suite (CTS) are public ... http://source.android.com/compatibility/index.html

Devices that are Android-compatible (by the definition above) have to license the Android Market client software separately, complying with the terms available here: http://www.android.com/market/terms.html

The Android branding is subject to these rules: http://www.android.com/branding.html

Here is were they can twist your arm so to speak.

Nothing prevents you from taking their OS, modify it and selling it with your own devices ... surely certain Google properties like the Marketplace will be out of reach, but that was known from version 1.0.

So where does Google claim otherwise?

FUD. Unlike Apple, which mandates only One True App Store, Google does nothing to prevent anyone from creating their own "app store" (or just selling their app from their site, without relying on an "app store" at all).

As far as the Google Location Service claim I have a hard time believing Google bars the use of other location services on the phone. They may require the use of it with their Google branded apps, to maintain quality and prevent the apps from being used to harvest location info (and having fallout from that associated with their brand), but Google's apps are licensed separately from the Android OS itself.

I imagine if any developer wanted to release a custom rom, they can do whatever they want.. that is the openness. My biggest issue is that people will complain about Google being too open .. for example how Verizon locks down their phone with Bing as search, and how they will start their own app store. Then in this case John is pointing out how google is not being open enough. Either way consumers do have a choice in the end by installing a rom they want that fits their needs, and again this to me seems like the best alternative.. which is one not give with other devises/platforms. [edit: remove trolling remark]

The only time I recall them giving anyone a hard time was in the case of the Cyanogen project, because it distributed Google's branded apps with it. But they backed down even with that.

From a practical standpoint not being allowed into the Android Market is a death sentence. The only way alternative App Stores would catch on is: a) carrier or handset maker replacements b) piracy stores c) increased restrictions on Google's Market that create a demand for a free App Store. None of these options are good for developers so maybe the FUD is somewhat justified if the only solution is making it more difficult for a user to obtain your app.

That being said it hasn't happened yet so making an issue out of it does seem FUD-ish. It comes with the territory though. If you want to dominate a market you have to expect scrutiny. People are endlessly entertained by (perceived) hypocrisy. Google pimped Android as being the open alternative so anything they do, however minor, to distance themselves from that is going to be big news. Android has clearly hit that critical mass where negative stories are becoming more interesting than positive ones.

You can install apps that aren't in an app store. You can just download the app from a website like any other piece of software. You have to check a checkbox in system settings to allow it, but you are prompted to do so upon downloading the app.

You can, and probably just about everyone on HN could do so, but the vast majority of the phone-using public can't/won't. Defaults like this become self-reinforcing and apps that prosper outside of the built-in distribution channels will be very, very rare.

It's really easy to change the default though. You don't have to go deep into a menu to find the setting, it prompts you when you download the app. It's no worse than any other scary warning that users have become inured to on every other platform.

I would be willing to wager the vast majority of users never become "used to" dealing with every other platform. My general understanding is most of them are are completely terrified of computers.

Modern smartphone OSes (iOS and Android at least) have a chance to take all the scary away. So far, iOS is doing well, and Android looks to be too. But really only because they have non-scary user interfaces with stellar defaults. And as far as most users are concerned, defaults are just how the OS works.

Yep. My mom did it, without any instructions. I sent her an apk in an email, thinking I would tell her how to install it later. Then she called and already had it installed.

People have downloaded shareware and freeware for their desktops off websites for years. While people definitely veer towards convenience, I don't think acquiring mobile apps from websites is beyond the capabilities of the layman.

I feel a little silly replying to this comment in every story about Android, but hopefully I won't always have to (as it will become a non-issue);

but you can't download non-market store apps from numerous Android devices (all of the ones sold by ATT for example), as the carrier has disabled the ability to install a non-market application.

Hopefully this trend doesn't spread to other carriers (although if Verizon is launching its own app store, they may very well implement this in the future).

You make your own practicality here.

Somewhere in backroads of the computer world, there's this thing called the Internet where I've heard you can find just about anything if search hard enough. Someone might be searching for what you have to offer even as we speak...

http://www.quickoffice.com/quickoffice_connect_suite_android...

They just started with this. I'll be curious to see how it works out.

I think the point is that if Google is as Open as they say they are then you shouldn't need to create your own app store.

Then the definition of open is pretty open-ended. It means Google has to cater to you? They gave you the platform to do with it what you want. That's a right to do what you want with the OS but not an entitlement to their services.

Or maybe I'm missing the point here?

Why?

Say I own a shopping mall. I decide that I don't want a porn store operating there, so I refuse to rent to them. They go open up shop somewhere else. Everyone is satisfied (although the porn store owners might wish they had a slightly more visible location).

That's the Android world now. In the iOS world now, if Steve doesn't want porn in his mall, they get cut off at the knees because no third-party distribution is allowed. Period.

At the risk of repeating myself:

Google allows third-party app distributors. Google allows third parties to freely use their OS under generous licensing terms, and allows them to use the Android branding and Google app store if they play by Google's rules.

Apple does not allow third-party application distribution or hardware. Period.

Google does a lot of things with Android that upset me (giving their preferred partners early access to new revisions, for starters) but I'm completely cool with what they're doing here.

Sorry for the rant. :-)

It's not even a mall -- it's a single retailer.

You don't need to create an app store. You can put your app on your own website and give it away or sell it. I can't even put my own app on my iPhone without jailbreaking it or paying Apple $99/year for a dev license.

> Google does nothing to prevent anyone from creating their own "app store"

Neither does RIM.

But Google is marketing Android based on it being "open", when the truth is Android is no more open than BlackBerry or Windows Mobile.

If you're purchasing an Android device on the idea of openness, like I know a lot of people are doing, you're being swindled.

Meanwhile, in the war between carriers and users, Apple is turning out to be a much stronger advocate for their consumers than any other cell phone manufacturer or software provider, whereas with Android it's turning out to be the same old rotten business as usual.

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

"Android is no more open the BlackBerry or Windows Mobile"

Huh??? There are hundreds of thousands of phones out in the wild running Android builds not blessed by Google. If you design a new phone you can install Android on it and sell it. You can download the source. If you try to do any of that with BB or Windows Mobile you'll be sued and/or imprisoned.

And the carriers are gladly taking advantage of that "openness". But to the end user it means nothing, because virtually everyone purchases their Android devices through their carrier, locked to whatever software that carrier has approved. What you end up with is a device that's no more open than a BlackBerry, except that at least RIM can exercise a modicum of control over what the carriers can and cannot do to their devices.

Meanwhile, nobody has to Jailbreak their iPhone to prevent their carrier from pushing garbage onto their device.

Greetings from my corner of the world! We don't normally purchase phones through carriers here, although recently Apple and Blackberry have initiated such programs. That means we can get cheap Chinese Android devices (with predictable quality).

I didn't have to jailbreak my Nexus One either.

Just buy the right phone.

virtually everyone purchases their Android devices through their carrier, locked to whatever software that carrier has approved.

Virtually everyone _in the US_.

Cell phone manufacturers must go through the exact same software approval process with their European carriers as with their North American carriers.

Except for Apple, of course. Their customers can download and install an update directly from Apple as soon as it's released. Apple's the only one who's allowed to do that. Android, on the other hand, is no different than BlackBerry.

Wrong.

I installed all the updates on my Milestone after downloading them from the Motorola website. Mostly because OTA didn't work for me.

And on my Nexus One I built Froyo myself from source and use it ever since.

How do I do that with a Blackberry?

So is it open or isn't it?

There are two successful alternate App Stores for iPhone, and none for Android.

Using alternate App Stores with your iPhone requires jailbreaking your iPhone, complicating updates, etc. Not the case with Android. If you want to use an app store like m.slideme.org, no problem.

Which ones do you mean? There are several app stores for Android already. In fact I am concerned that every vendor will try to push their own App store.

Why would you be concerned? Multiple retailers competing for customers is usually a good thing.

Because the vendors try to tie the phones to their app stores. If you buy a Sony Ericcson Android phone, you will only be able to use the SE app store. And so on.

So I will have to publish my app to a lot of app stores. If it can be done automatically, maybe it is acceptable. But I think it won't be like that. The vendors have different philosophies, too. For example I think Sony Ericcson wants their app store to be more like the Apple app store with harder admission criteria.

What does this have to do with Apple and the App Store?

re: "having a hard time believing"... read the complaint. Apparently Skyhook has a source from "Company X" (educated guesses on that time period place it as Samsung) that complained that Google was leaning on them into dropping Skyhook from its phone launch, despite Skyhook being "superior".

I feel like a lot of the comments here are missing the point in discussing alternative app stores and the importance of side loading. The lawsuit was not filed by Motorola, arguing that they have a right to Google's app store. The allegations come from Skyhook, claiming that Google broke the law by coercing Motorola and Samsung into breaking contracts they had signed.

I'm all for Google being more discriminating in licensing their apps and app store. It would be great if they prevented crap like un-installable apps or disabling tethering as prerequisites for compliance. But here, they allegedly prevented Motorola from using a different location service, a service that in Motorola's mind was better than the one Google provided, on their phones.

Motorola could have taken a stand and forgone Google approval, but that wouldn't have really helped anything. Whatever boon Skyhook presented to Motorola wasn't worth the hassle of rolling their own app store, their own mail and calendar apps, and forgoing whatever other Google assistance comes with a "compliant" handset. So, Skyhook got left by the wayside, and Motorola's new phones are a little bit worse because Google said so.

It's true that if Google's terms become very onerous, all of these handset makers and carriers do have the ability to fork and go their own way which is important and "open". But throwing their weight around like this to prioritize their own services over competitors, especially when they stand idly by as Verizon makes the Android experience worse for their customers, smacks of hypocrisy in the face of their VP's quoted comments.

This is interesting news, worthy of good discussion. I'm disappointed that Gruber's take is the only one that made the front page, it appears people's opinion of him muddy the conversation.

I think what happened is that people read Gruber’s post without stopping to figure out the context (frankly, not all that hard to figure out, but apparently just hard enough). To be fair, he could have been a bit more explicit about what this is all about instead of assuming his readers have been paying attention to the story.

I’m also pretty disappointed in the responses in this discussion though. One of the most knee-jerk lowest signal-to-noise discussions I’ve ever seen here.

In the context of his RSS feed it is pretty clear.

It's a response to a one-note troll, of course the signal to noise ratio is going to be low.

For those not following along at home, Gruber's contention is that Android's problem is that it is open. Not just open, but too open in fact. Except in this post where quotes a Google employee talking about Android being open so he can contrast it with how non-open Google's Android is by competing with Skyhook.

No wonder the comments are confused, he's arguing both sides of this issue.

I'm not sure why all these commenters here are going with the knee jerk, mind-numbing "apple fan boy" response. This isn't about apple or whatever the app store policies are.

The point of the law suit is that Android doesn't give everyone the "choice" that they think. This is a story because Google says that they are unlike Apple and give everyone a choice, but they (allegedly) use their weight to force carriers to use Google software instead of theird party.

(Apple, for the record, doesn't do crap like this. You know up front that you need to join the mothership, and they clearly upfront about shutting you down as soon as you deviate.)

Basically, Google ain't no FSF.

Yes, Google prides themselves on that, and it looks bad when they pull things like this, but their generosity is not unbounded.

But they do an awful lot of stuff with the Android platform that is really "open" without equal in the market, and I'm pretty sure they're still qualified to keep pushing that angle.

I agree with you on why this is a story. But it's not a very compelling one. What are these Android enthusiasts going to do? Go with Apple?

Yes, Google has complete control over the Android Market. Good thing that's not the only way to install apps! Someone could create a competing market if they wanted. That someone hasn't already actually surprises me.

At least one exists (and probably more):

http://slideme.org/

Someone has. There are plenty of 3rd party app stores. They just offer the same software as the Google one.

The real proof in the pudding is if somebody opens an app store with Apple-style curating and rules and search quality, and if that outperforms the more open store Google runs.

(jeez, by some of the comments in this thread, you'd think everybody lives in a town with only one place to shop).

Ugh, much better article here: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/09/skyhook-goog...

This seems like saying that Costco is starving the poor because you have to have a membership to shop there. It's true, you do, but there are plenty of other stores selling the same products that don't require the membership. You don't like Costco's rules, you can go somewhere else.

Archos did this; they couldn't use Google's marketplace on the A5IT, so they made their own market. Now it sucks because they have no clue how to program, but the fact that it's possible shows how open Android is.

Don't like Google's rules? You can completely remove all traces of them from the code they gave you.

True, and I believe Verizon is in the process of doing just that.

Yeah. As a Google fan, I think this is sad, but I don't really care. I don't intend to do business with Verizon, so they can install whatever anti-hacking devices on their phones they like. Is it harmful to users and society? Yes. Can they do it if the want to? Right now, yes.

If people care, they will vote with their wallet. If people don't care, then I guess I'm stuck on T-Mobile. (Actually, I use Sprint. But I vote T-Mobile as least-likely-to-fuck-everyone-for-no-reason.)

I can't say I've had much cause to regret my DFB boycott yet. The Google vs Apple fanboy thing has become tedious.

Indeed. I can't even read Gruber anymore because it feels like Steve Jobs is pacing back and forth behind him sipping green tea and telling him what to type.

Could be worse - could be Daniel Eran Dilger.

Open source has nothing to do with it. First of all, these devices ship with Google branding. There is licensing and restrictions involved. Secondly, I'm sure google owns the name "Android", much the way Mozilla owns the name Firefox. You can fork it all you want, but you can't call it Firefox. Third, I'm sure Motorola and company get it under a special negotiated licence. They would never want it as GPL, as that would mean they have to release all their code. I don't know the details, but those seem like three very solid reasons why they would have to play by Google's rules.

It sure has nothing to do with the open source. It's about what Google says and what Google does. Go read the article.

Yes, Google forces OEM to include some of their apps and use some of their service components to carry the Android name. It's an outrage. Not at all open like Apple's dealings with their OE-er, wait

Gruber is definitely consigned to the killfile now - this is the most blindly partisan waste of bytes I've seen yet. We'd all do well to stop pouring so much collective time and energy into divisive, navel-gazing bullshit like this - and the cyclic exchanges that they inevitably spawn.

"Divisive"? You think Gruber's sowing discord among the Android faithful? I think he's highlighting a lawsuit that exposes some hypocrisy in Google's public branding, branding which some people have taken a wee bit too close to heart.

Do like me and flag this post, it'll go away faster.

Because no one in the history of the world (especially not a lawyer) has ever written a legal document that biased facts in any way?

There's no Reality Distortion Field in effect so the author of that blog is in unfamiliar territory.

Didn't Apple just drop skyhook as well? Isn't that worth mentioning?

Of course you can't give up ability to use your name/trademark without making sure that it maintains it's integrity. Why is John surprised or find it remarkable?

I'm surprised Google hasn't gone much further then they have. Looking at the crap AT&T is pulling with their "Android" phones must make Google disgusted but it's the price of free & open source.

Trademark is the only point of control and I'm glad they are exercising their rights. Carriers almost never care about their users. At least with Google their interests are at least semi-aligned with making the users (me) like their experience with Android phones.

Don't forget that in the U.S. legal system, a company is obligated to protect its trademark or loose it.

I don't know about the location thing, that seems a bit against the openness of Android, but qualifying a device/modification of Android to have access to the Marketplace is not. This isn't between the developer and Google, it's between OEMs and Google. Google doesn't want to hold the responsibility when OEMs make some modification to Android and their customers get a bad impression of a service because the OEM decided to make some incompatible change. Android devices and versions are already fragmented enough, and not having some kind of compliance built-in would be a downward spiral. In some cases, some OEMs and carriers have chosen to go with their own marketplace rather than use the Android Marketplace.

This is a fair story (though overstated) because, as with carrier modifications, it's another example of a theoretically open platform being restricted in practice.

Yes OEMs don't need Google's approval to use Android, but will they go against Google's wishes if Google branding helps shift handsets, and if by going along with Google they get closer involvement with the OS development, upgrades and so on?

Yes anyone else can set up another App Store but how much of a benefit is that when Google use their vast might to make it unlikely that 90% of people owning phones will ever know anything but the Google sanctioned one?

I don't think it's a case of Google vs. Apple, more a case of the theory of openness against the practice of it.

You'd be foolish to overstate what this means for Android, but similarly you'd be unwise not to see that the practicalities of the situation mean that it's not quite as perfectly open as many would hope.

Oh McGruber and you're Apple fanaticism, this is the second thing I've read today by highly regarded devs attempting to defecate on Android's stance on "open-ness" and it is simply pathetic.

The Apple fanboys are clinging to desperate tactics when they x-promote garbage like this.

Of course, take statements out of context from Google I/O and match them up with something to the narrative you are trying to portray: Google as a liar and a cheat.

How about Google having some authority on a marketplace THEY host or services THEY offer? Yeah that is totally unreasonable, right?

And yes, you CAN choose to download and install apps from anywhere and you can build your own services and dump them on your devices. So that is a closed system?

Shameful and pathetic...the desperation is deafening...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com