Hacker News Reader

Comment by mycroftiv | Hacker News Reader

I don't understand all the justifications for Google's behavior being posted. I chose to purchase an Android phone because I believed that Google was committed to a truly open source mobile operating system. To me, that means that when I buy a hardware device that runs the OS, I can also download the source code the device uses, modify it, make use of my customized version, and share my changes with others. I feel that Google is trying to have their cake, and eat it too. At this point in time, I regard the Motorola Xoom and other Honeycomb devices as proprietary platforms that should be avoided by those who care about their software freedom.

View on HN

+1 on this. If I were to make a list of reasons that a FOSS mobile OS is great, then "porting it to devices which it was not originally designed for" would be at the very top of the list! Restricting what people can do with Android because they are worried that they might do something that is ugly -- that is the absolute antithesis of being open, and it's directly harmful to the people who may have very well been interested in using a hacked-up version of Honeycomb on a smaller device, not to mention the people using Honeycomb on the Xoom right now who wish to access source.

Although Google is far more open than their competitors, that doesn't put them beyond criticism. It's not reasonable to compromise a core virtue of your ecosystem because you think you might have a branding problem.

What's not to understand? They don't think Honeycomb is ready for general consumption, and they'd rather wait until Ice Cream (when the tablet and phone versions of Android converge) to release. If you want to hack away at Honeycomb for tablets, you just have to contact them and they'll provide you the full source code.

They've done this to a lesser extent in the past with almost every major version of Android (where the Open Sourcing of it comes after devices already ship). Does it suck that it's taking longer for 3.0? Sure it does. Do they have a valid reason to do so? You bet they do. Avoiding almost certain fiascos of companies trying to shoe-horn Honeycomb onto phones is a definite concern.

I apologize for sounding argumentative, but you are missing the point. I understand Google's motivations, there is nothing mysterious about a company trying to protect its brand by controlling the user experience. I agree their actions are rational given their goals. The problem is that the essence of free open source software, which I believed Android was intended to be, is that users are given the freedom to modify the source code - regardless of whether or not such modifications are beneficial for anyone's brand!

I am not a free software absolutist - people should be free to create and use proprietary software. However, I want to make the personal choice to use free software, and have access to the source code that is not conditional on whether my use is beneficial to any external entity. I understand that Google avoids the GPL for the non linux kernel portions of Android. I was hoping that Google would nonetheless treat Android as a free software OS where you always have access to the source code of any device. I feel like its a "bait and switch" in terms of how it has been portrayed to the community of users who care about software freedom. I don't understand why some people maintain that it doesn't change Android's openness just because Google says it will release the source code "someday".

I think this could all be avoided if Google separated the code from the Android brand. Code releases could be much more common (and include situations like Honeycomb where they don't think it's ready for general consumption) but enforce tighter control on what a vendor is allowed to call "Android".

For instance, anything derived from the Gingerbread line could be used by Samsung/HTC/whoever, and sell it under the Android name, but anyone using the Honeycomb line would be barred from using the Android branding until Google was confident that it was ready (which, really, would happen sooner if it was open for hackers to fix). At the same time, smaller groups and homebrew folks can still get access to all the code they want to hack on and run their devices.

While I do think the article makes valid claims against Android's openness, I think decoupling the branding would go a long way to allowing a community to sprout up around the code.

I think you're over-thinking this. It's clear to me that Honeycomb simply isn't done. You can see it on the xoom. It's just not ready yet. It was shipped incredibly early.

Google is holding it back because their probably just not happy with the state the thing is in. It was rushed and this is their implicit omission of it.I think this is a pride of ownership thing, nothing more.

If they're ready to ship the binaries, they should be ready to ship the source code.

That's an amazingly naive observation.

My simple question to you is: why do you think that?

Shipping a mobile operating system is an impossibly complex task, but surely you can understand a parallel with a simple application: just because you wrote an app that's being successful doesn't mean you're ready to open source it the same day you release it. Maybe you want to clean it up, or refactor it, or make it easier to be reused by the open source community.

>If they're ready to ship the binaries

It's a little more nuanced than that. They believed the binaries were a good product for 10-inch tablets, but would perform badly on smaller screens. If they ship source, though, people will try to get it running on small screens.

That's what the Ars article is referring to as cutting corners (an inflammatory statement): Honeycomb could have been generic enough to be a good product on all screen sizes, but they needed to save time to let the Xoom meet its ship date.

I'm arguing that Google didn't even believe that the binaries were a good product for 10-inch tablets. My bet is that Motorola forced their hand a bit, as opposed to waiting for the software to actually be complete.

It's a pretty long list of issues with the XOOM software even today.

Right. But they does not claim HoneyComb is open source.

(They does not deny it outright though. That's little devilish (evilish not a word!), but I can sympathy with them)

I agree, which raises the question of whether they should have shipped Honeycomb in its current state at all. It really looks like they decided that the Xoom had to ship before the iPad 2 regardless of the quality of its software, and that seems to have backfired.

Google is acting in bad faith. Google (and others) are using the "positively charged" Open Source words to promote their product, but negating their core principles.

I wonder why it has taken so long for people to realize this. After all, Google's primary business--the search and advertising platform--is as closed source and proprietary as Windows.

I think there was a lot of noise and hyper that obfuscated the real messsage. Same thing happened with "Web APIs"... there is not such thing as a "Web API"... look what Twitter/Facebook and others do when they have enough traction. Web APIs and Open Source commitments seems more like a tactic than a strategy.

The simple truth is that everybody has their own, different definition for "the essence of open source".

When you open source something, it's simply impossible to satisfy everyone. Just be patient, Honeycomb will be opensourced eventually.

In my experience, the problem you describe is non-existent. I don't see manufacturers trying hard to get the latest and greatest onto their devices; what I see is consumers having to complain long and loud before manufacturers and carriers will upgrade to already-obsolete versions. As an owner of a device still running 2.1, I would be happy if we had this problem you're concerned about.

That's exactly what is trying to be avoided. If the latest release is available too soon, manufacturers will put it on devices and then leave people on that unfinished/unpolished version. You make it sound as if this latest version was released that your device that the manufacturer is already ignoring for upgrades would get the latest version.

I'm saying there's a snowball's chance of my device seeing Honeycomb at all; manufacturers are certainly not going to go out of their way to get a broken version.

(They might go out of their way to get a broken version for new mobile devices they're trying to bring to market. But it seems like aside from time-sensitive situations like Motorola trying to compete with the iPad2 by pushing the Xoom out the door, integrating and qualifying a new release is enough trauma that a device maker is unlikely to go to that effort with an immature product).

If you want to hack away at Honeycomb for tablets, you just have to contact them and they'll provide you the full source code

Are they going to provide the source to the ROM modding community? They're supporting the Nook and several other pre-Honeycomb tablets. If Google isn't going to release the code anytime soon those projects are dead. I'm sure Google has good reasons but they really should have figured this stuff out and set some clear guidelines ahead of time. Being secretive about development and tightly controlling access to source, while talking up the virtues of open source, is going to upset the people who are most loyal to the platform.

Isn't this a false dilemma? Can't they release the code and control the branding at the same time? Firefox is open source, but you can't call it Firefox if you change it.

you just have to contact them and they'll provide you the full source code.

Absolutely false. You have to be part of their inner circle of Super Best Friends, which costs a lot of money, and they don't accept everyone.

How exactly do I contact them?

I could not find an email address or link to do that.

If delivering on the promise of a slate/tablet like the iPad is difficult, and any company is its own worst enemy, then I'd say that closed vertical integration is the right strategy and openness is the wrong one. (With regards to winning in the general marketplace, not with regards to software freedom.)

All Apple has to do with iPad is to maintain a tight ship, and wait for their opponent's missteps.

As I commented elsewhere, I wonder if HP or RIM can now make a play for #2 tablet?

EDIT: For those concerned with software freedom, take a cue from Gandhi's playbook: Concentrate on examples of software freedom that are understood by the general marketplace. (Just as he concentrated on the pain of everyday Indians.) Sometimes, there is a place for the unpopular stance. Just be clear on what you're trying to accomplish when you're using that tactic.

What do you think are the examples of software freedom that are understood by everyday Indians?

Thanks, smartass. The real question would be, what are the examples of software freedom that are understood by the average user. There are plenty of those.

Everyday Indians are pretty average users; I don't know why you're quibbling with that part of my comment. What examples do you think would be good?

Android has never been that open. If Google was committed to a truly open source mobile operating system, they would have released it under the GPLv3.

Something like most of Motorola's recent phones with locked down bootloader, those aren't in any meaningful sense running an open source OS. At least not any meaningful sense for the average consumer. For a business with the money to roll their own hardware, they can take advantage of the source, but for me, I can't get that kind of touchscreen hooked up to that kind of battery, CPU, and GPU unless I'm willing to accept a closed OS.

Of course the point is moot, since Motorola would never use a GPLv3-licensed Android. I don't really see why, since, as I said, it's not the software but the hardware that I want to pay them for. (Though there's a good chance I would leave the software unmodified.)

Here's Andy Rubin's well-known definition of open:

https://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429

This ("access to source code") is clearly less than GPL, and that's OK, as other commenters point out.

But what they're offering now with Honeycomb is less than Rubin's definition above.

I want the ability to run an arbitrary operating system on hardware that has as effective production and quality control as Motorola's hardware, with the same form-factors. If I can't get that sort of hardware without a locked bootloader for something resembling the same price as Motorola's line, the openness of the code is basically meaningless to me.

Why do they have to use GPLv3 to be open source? Apache, BSD, MIT, are no longer open source licenses?

The GPLv3 has provisions specifically for preventing the locked bootloader deal seen on most phones today.

But surely for Honeycomb this isn't necessary. If Motorola wants to lock the bootloader then they can do so. This doesn't prevent Samsung or Archos from using the Honeycomb code. It just prevents people from rooting and modifying code that runs on Motorola's device, which is their perogative given that there is no end to HW manufacturers for Android products.

It's necessary if it's GPLv3. The anti-Tivolization clause means that the manufacturer needs to provide the ability for the user to sign their code.

From a support point of view, I cannot see any reason why any hardware manufacturer would go along with GPLv3 software. It adds a level of complexity that just doesn't make much sense to deal with, because it's not the manufacturer's best interest to support ANY code, just the code that they have put on the device.

The GPLv3 doesn't require you to support custom builds. It just requires you to let people use them. The code doesn't have to be signed at the hardware level. Heck, all you have to do is replace the splash screen on bootup with a "warning unsigned code detected, this device may have been compromised."

And as far as supporting any code, most manufacturers of processors do in fact support running any code you like on them. Especially the dominant Intel-compatible personal computer, where Apple themselves support running any operating system you like.

> Android has never been that open. If Google was committed to a truly open source mobile operating system, they would have released it under the GPLv3.

Maybe, but then it would have failed in the market place.

Unfortunately it appears that in the common case, "open" for Android has to do more with how much carriers can "customize" the OS, and is not about an end-user's experience.

I think this is in part because the primary customers of Android as a business are carriers (this is where Google makes money).

At this point in time, I regard the Motorola Xoom and other Honeycomb devices as proprietary platforms that should be avoided by those who care about their software freedom.

Agreed. I'm now even more glad that I went with the Nook Color instead, which is currently running a Cyanogen build of 2.3.

This is bad, but it's not new. While it seems the Honeycomb source will be kept secret longer than usual, Google has always withheld source code from the community while providing it to privileged partners.

For example, the Android 2.0 Eclair source code was not released to the Android Open Source Project until after it was already shipping on the Motorola Droid.

Even carriers and manufacturers who were part of the Open Handset Alliance did not have access to it before then. I know, because I once worked with some of these companies on Android customization projects.

I guess, the only reason why Google took this bold step was the incomplete OS. Honeycomb is still under development and they jumped the wagon pretty fast and released it already just to beat other Tablets and steal their market. People already have the belief on Android devices and know how fast it grew, under the same pretext many would buy Honeycomb tablets but everyone fails to understand Honeycomb is far far different from the smartphone OS. It would really take time to make it work efficiently.

"I don't understand all the justifications for Google's behavior being posted."

By catering to the emotional OSS crowd, Google has bred a flock of fanboys even more defensive than Apple's.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com