Does anyone else have a suspicion that Google is about to completely screw this up?
Prepare for 5 different Google OSes all of which support a slightly different featureset
If that is the case I could imagine that Fuchsia might not become a separate "product" for consumers at all - instead, Google could replace Android's implementation "under the hood" with it but still present it as just another Android version brand/UI wise.
If they managed to do the same with Chrome OS, the'd actually have archieved consolidation on a technical level without causing consumer confusion. (Well, more than there already is)
In that case, the Fuchsia kernel could just be another "client" to that layer.
(just speculating here, no idea if that is in any way what they're planning)
https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2018/11/an-update-...
OEMs got around Treble certification by releasing mostly devices with Android 7 on them.
And given that OEMs were the ones supposed to push Treble updates not Google, even those that released devices with 8 weren't that active pushing them.
Which has finally made Google include some update requirements on the Play Services access.
Did you mean cannot publish?
What GNU heritage? Android has only ever used the Linux kernel to get a leg up on hardware support in the early days. AFAIK there has never been any GNU userspace of any sort in anything Android related, much to the chagrin of the Linux community.
The NDK is constrained in what it can do, as per security concerns.
There is termux as port of GNU on Android, but only applications that rely on plain ISO C, ISO C++ can be ported.
Syscalls support is hit and miss per devices, as it isn't part of official NDKs APIs.
* A response to Java lawsuits
* Something to work on that is interesting
But you raise a good point — why let go of Linux? Seems like a risky case of rewrite-from-scratch.
What are the odds it works out? It's not a sure thing. And what would the benefits be?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Microsoft_operating_sy...
I also don't believe any of their experimental OS projects are still active. ( https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/group/operating-sys... )
At the end of all that, you can argue that there are two operating systems at Microsoft currently. Xbox One and Windows 10. The UI of the XBox is a sufficiently large enough gap in design/functionality that I would concede it to be a separate entity.
Edit: There was a concerted effort at MS to get on to a single OS around the Windows 8/Mobile days. This was also the death of CE and switch to Windows 8 between XBox 360 and XBox one. Granted the backlash of the tablet style interface of Windows 8 was not insignificant, but you see it's refinement in Windows 10 today.
Having said all of that, I’m sick of googles abandoning of products. I loved my 2013 Pixel 7. They essentially sell goods and services only to ignore them when it suits them.
Add Android TV, which has some features and restrictions that differ from Android.
Google's phone lineup for 2022:
- Chrome with Android
- Chrome with Android One
- Chrome Android Pixel
- Fuchsia with Android
- Fuchsia Silver with Android
- Fuchsia Android Nexus
- Fuchsia Android Pixel
It was going to be Android native userspace plus a subset of the Android frameworks redone in C++.
Then suddenly, due to customer feedback as the main official reason, it got rebooted as Android Things, supporting even writing userspace drivers in Java.
Then ChromeOS got to add Android support.
I guess it is kind of clear which group is winning the internal political wars.
It runs the apps I care about, and keeps getting OS updates, unlike my Android devices.
I could see it being the straw that finally breaks the camel's back for Samsung, though. They have their own assistant, web browser... they could just choose to go it alone.
About the only one that will sell the final product in the US is Android with Google's blessing.
With all this cost, who's getting the upside? Google is clearly getting the lion's share.
I should note that I have only glanced at what implementation details are public and it is entirely possible that this is not feasible
This is literally the past 15 years of Google.
What am I being naive about? Do all of the wildly successful Google products not count here?
Other than for Gmail/Chrome[OS]/Android/Photos/Youtube/Music/Maps, I totally agree.
Google has been screwing up EVERYTHING lately. Every recent Google product launch that I can think of has been botched. They're REALLY checked out over there.
Serious question. What's the last major successful Google project that was built within Google and not acquired?
I can't think of one.
Edit: Also Google Home devices, especially the Mini
No friend discovery, funded by ads, people mostly ignore emails I send them, but everyone has it and depend on it being rock solid. It's like air.
If my "major" you mean "more than 100MM users", it's been a while, but then what was the last (new) product launch by any established company that has 100MM users? If you drop that to a smaller number, there are tons though.
If by product you mean "consumer product", again, perhaps a while, but I'd argue that there are tons in the business space. (ML, cloud, etc.)
Oracle wasn't accusing Google of using "stolen" code in Android. They were claiming that Google's complete re-implementation of Oracle's Java APIs was a copyright violation.
The case itself will have long lasting impacts since it has established in US law that API interfaces themselves are a copyright/protected concept. That means that even complete clean room re-implementations or compatibility layers could be threatened.
The ruling is quite problematic, but there's nobody technically literate enough in congress or the courts to do anything to stop it.
Only in the Federal Circuit, which adjudicates cases involving patent law. Copyright cases are typically decided by the other courts of appeal, and there is precedent in those courts (like Lotus v Borland) against the copyrightability of interfaces.
As it stands, Android has pulled a J++ and is a pain for any Java library writer, that now is forced to either write two versions or keep using a common subset.