Android chief Rubin's response to Android critics misses the point | Hacker News Reader

Android chief Rubin's response to Android critics misses the point

arstechnica.com

36 pointsredacted29 comments

I agree with Ars on this one. And hopefully whether you're pro-Android or pro-iPhone or pro-whatever, you can appreciate some evasive corporate-speak when you see it. E.g.:

    Rubin: What amazes me is that even though the quantity and breadth of Android 
    products being built has grown tremendously, it’s clear that quality and consistency 
    continue to be top priorities.

What does that even mean? Why are your priorities so amazing to you?

I think there have been some legitimate gripes about Android's openness lately (like manufacturer favoritism) and I was hoping for something more direct out of Google.

I think he's claiming to be amazed by the manufacturers' prioritising quality and consistency. His next sentence is:

"Miraculously, we are seeing the platform take on new use cases, features and form factors as it’s being introduced in new categories and regions while still remaining consistent and compatible for third party applications."

> I think there have been some legitimate gripes about Android's openness lately (like manufacturer favoritism)

Android has always done that, it did it with the G1, nexus1, nexus S and now xoom. In some case it took them a month to release the source, other cases two months. In this case it will take a bit more (probably 4), so what? Big deal, Android is Apache license, this is completely fair game and as for manufacturer favoritism, here is the list of manufacturers who already have access to Honeycomb source:

* Motorola

* Samsung

* LG

* HTC

* Acer

* Toshiba

* Asus

* Dell

* Archos

Sure Motorola got it first, but the same happened with every Android release, again, big deal. Sounds like FUD to me.

Ya, and in order to get that primary access you have to be willing to play by Google's rules (stock experience, google apps, etc...). They've also spread things out. HTC, Samsung, and Motorola have all gotten their shot.

I always thought "open source" meant that I, the user, got access to the source code, and I was able to make changes and share them. I don't like seeing the meaning of open source progressively reduced to nothing. We already have a category for "corporate manufacturing partners can pay to access the source" - that's proprietary software. It's not OK to use openness just as a marketing term and claim that a product being distributed now is still open just because the source will be released at some unspecified time in the future.

> We already have a category for "corporate manufacturing partners can pay to access the source" - that's proprietary software.

No, even stallman approves of selling source code. Free software and open source have never been about price, it's about being able to get the source:

> Commercial software is software being developed by a business which aims to make money from the use of the software. “Commercial” and “proprietary” are not the same thing! Most commercial software is proprietary, but there is commercial free software, and there is noncommercial nonfree software.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html

You are misconstruing my statements and ignoring the context. I am well aware that you can sell free software for money. However, if I purchase a Xoom with Honeycomb, I have been given a copy of the Android software, and I will not be given a copy of the source code if I request it. That is the issue here, and the general issue of charging money for software is not relevant. If you are linking and quoting from gnu, you are surely aware that free software is about the user of the software being able to access the source code, modify it, and redistribute it. None of these freedoms (which are also part of the open source definition) are currently given to purchasers of Honeycomb tablets. Your attempt to conflate the issue of access to source code by users with that of a distributor charging a price for software is either disingenuous or the result of a misunderstanding.

But, Android (except for the kernel) isn't free software, it's mainly Apache and BSD licensed, neither of these licenses requires source to distributed for compliance.

Google is doing something bad, but it is not against the license.

He never said that it was illegal, just that it's wrong (while continuing to claim that Android is "open").

Even Stallman said in several interviews that it was ok to make money that way, release a free/open version of your software and charge for the latest version by making it proprietary but just for a few months/years before releasing it as free/open too (I'll let you google the interviews). So I take it you're either more extreme than stallman or you're just being disingenuous to make a point against google, but if you're just more extreme than stallman, do you use gnewsense or something on your pc? Thought so.

You are completely wrong about what "open source" means then. "Free Software" was designed to guarantee that you, the user, always got access to the source code, and was able to make changes and share them.

"Open Source" was specifically intended to sell a similar idea to corporations, and less idealistic programmers, mostly by dropping that key requirement. I'm surprised you've not noticed the last 20 years of GPL vs. BSD flame wars which should have made this obvious.

Google went out of their way to drop "free software" from the top of their stack in Android, ironically, because the manufacturers and carriers wouldn't play ball without it. At this point, the Businessweek story (well, the few bits that haven't been entirely refuted as false) sounds similar to record labels that demanded Apple add DRM to their music, then wondered why Apple suddenly had such great lock-in power over the market.

Except... nothing about even GPL'd Free Software compels you to release the source until after you ship to consumers. Even then you could add a few months delay by forcing people to buy the product then write you a letter then post it in the least helpful form you think you could get away with. Absolutely nothing would prevent you from signing corporate agreements and giving sneak peeks to your favored manufacturing partners. Basically, if you're writing the code, you have power. You have the power to write what you want, mostly under the licence you want, with whatever priorities you have. This applies as much to a Linux dev who decides to quit and become a monk as it does to Ubuntu ditching Gnome 3 to try their Unity stuff. It might suit you if they did something else, but people making petulant demands on developers is only commonly associated with open source, not actually part of the definition.

What's weird is that I thought I was fairly extreme on the "Free Software" side of things by most standards, and especially HN standards. However, it appears if you dare to use the word "open" in your advertising (and to be frank, I thought they were talking about smartphone stuff, like being able to install software of your choice) the tech hivemind will crucify you if you're not more extreme than RMS, someone who wouldn't use the phrase "open source" never mind the more wishy-washy "open" which basically could mean anything. Bit of strange double-standard there which I think basically reflects Google offering too much competition for Apple.

I cannot believe you accuse me of being "completely wrong" about what open source means. I would suggest you go to http://www.opensource.org/osd.html and read the open source definition. Your claim that "open source" drops the requirement of user access to source code and freedom to redistribute is false. Now look at the official android website at http://www.android.com/about/ and notice the quote "Android is open source". Honeycomb does not currently meet the definition.

The post I replied to which said "I, the user" was ambiguous, though I think I caught your meaning so I'll just quote your other post:

"However, if I purchase a Xoom with Honeycomb, I have been given a copy of the Android software, and I will not be given a copy of the source code if I request it. That is the issue here [...] you are surely aware that free software is about the user of the software being able to access the source code, modify it, and redistribute it. None of these freedoms (which are also part of the open source definition) are currently given to purchasers of Honeycomb tablets."

I think it's clear here that your ignoring the key difference between GPL and Apache software like Android. If Android was GPL (and written at least partly by someone other than Google) then Motorola would need to release the source alongside any product containing it including any changes or improvements they made, as they are required to do for the Linux portion.

But Android isn't GPL, so they don't have to release the code they use. Google have released the code at roughly that time in the past, and it's that release, not the timing, which makes Android in general "Open Source". They say they'll do so with Honeycomb once they've finished the phone parts, and at that point Honeycomb will be Open Source too.

Feel free to say that the diff between Froyo and Honeycomb isn't Open Source until they release it. That's technically correct (the best kind of correct), but it is just plain wrong to bring the timing of the Xoom launch into things, or complain that Android as a whole suddenly stops being open source because more recent changes haven't been published yet.

Neither of those issues are covered by the term Open Source. You might have better luck comparing against a benchmark for open governance as proposed by Simon Phipps, but any issues for Android under those rubrics have been there all along:

http://opensource.com/life/11/2/open-rule-governance-benchma...

I know perfectly well that Android is not under the GPL, and nowhere in my posts have I implied that it is, and I have also not implied that Google is under any legal obligations whatsoever. The article which this entire discussion is based on is simply about whether or not Google is actually following through on their previous statements about Android, and about the fact that, as you just admitted, Honeycomb is not currently open source. I don't understand the distinctions you are trying to draw involving "the timing of the Xoom launch" because that is the essence of the issue: Honeycomb based devices are being sold without the source code being made available to the user, and Google states they are doing this on purpose and the situation will remain that way for some time. This is not compatible with the term "open source". The statement "Android is open source" is not the same as the statement "Older versions of Android are open source, but the most recent version is not."

If the Xoom had been delayed until after Honeycomb was open sourced in say 2 months, would that change the open source status of Honeycomb right now? Obviously no. The timing of the code release is what triggers that change. Honeycomb was exactly as open source the day after the Xoom went on sale as it was the day before.

So why is the timing of the hardware release relevant? I thought you were getting confused with the GPL, in which case it would be relevant. Now that we've cleared up that you know Android isn't GPL I have no idea why you think the timing of the binary release matters. I'd hazard a guess that you think people should act like the GPL applies to their Apache licensed code in order to be considered sufficiently "Open Source" by your definition, which differs from the standard meaning of simply releasing the code under an Open Source licence, which applies to the vast majority of Android code, and will soon apply to the Honeycomb code.

At which point they'll start work on the next version (Jelly?), and presumably you'll once again believe that Android isn't Open Source since having any code in development and not yet released fails your test. Or do they only fail your Open Source test if they ship a Jelly-powered device first? What if they ship a Jelly SDK image to run in a VM? Does your idea of when they have to have released source follow the GPL exactly, or does it differ in any important ways?

According to the article, the "FUD" is coming from those partners you listed above.

  BusinessWeek attributed complaints about Android's waning openness to "a dozen executives" at companies that are major Android stakeholders, including LG, Samsung, Toshiba, and Facebook.

There are 2 main points in the article.

1) Why does Google feel the need to play favorites? Aside: if shortcuts were taken to get a manufacturer partner's product to market, what does that tell you about the product, from a consumer and developer point-of-view?

2) Why did Andy Rubin not address the fact that Skyhook Wireless was prevented from doing business with Motorola because it competed with Google's geo-location services?

> 1) Why does Google feel the need to play favorites?

This has always been the case, why complain now? Soon the source will be released and that'll be the end of it (until the next release and the usual FUD). And I doubt the businessweeks article, they didn't give any proofs, meanwhile android devices are being released every weeks so allow me to doubt.

> 2) Why did Andy Rubin not address the fact that Skyhook Wireless was prevented from doing business with Motorola because it competed with Google's geo-location services?

Android the OS is open source, google apps have never been so. So you expect google to make a free operating that will make manufacturers millions of dollars and on top of that you expect google to offer its apps and web services for free? Google is not santa, it's perfectly fair to ask for conditions in exchange of their apps, if the manufacturers doesn't want them, they can always just ship the OS with their own apps.

I guess I fail to see what the big deal is here. Everyone agrees that Google is going to release the source code when it's "done", and that this is going to be some time in the relatively near future.

Terms of open-source licenses have been adhered to.

It sounds like they probably incurred some code debt rushing this out, and they want to clean it up before people start running with it. They themselves have said it doesn't even run on phones--to appreciate why that's bad, just imagine what Gruber would have written about it.

I agree with what you said, but I don't think that's the part that has people most concerned. It's more about stuff like this:

    According to the BusinessWeek report, Google has been using its 
    exclusive control over timely source code availability as leverage
    to block vendors from making customizations that don't align with 
    Google's business interests. For example, the article says that
    Google attempted to block Verizon from shipping an Android 
    device with Microsoft's Bing search engine.

Hmm. They did? Is there a proof to that? Because at Dive into Mobile conference last year Rubin said something totally different on that topic - to the effect of we don't care if some VZW phones are shipped with Bing and the market will sort it out - people will flock to the best experience.

That was before Facebook and Amazon became threats to Google's hegemony.

I can see how that might trouble some people, but the Compatibility Definition Document has always existed, hasn't it? You can't just release anything at all and slap the Android trademark on it and use the store, right? You have always had to operated within Google's restrictions if you wanted to do that.

So... why are people surprised?

Does the CDD disallow using a non-Google search engine? A quick perusal of the latest CDD suggests that isn't the case.

My understanding is that you have to use Google's search engine if you want to slap "with Google" on the back of your phone.

> My understanding is that you have to use Google's search engine if you want to slap "with Google" on the back of your phone.

Well, if your phone comes with Bing and it says "with Google", isn't that kind of lying? Also some phones have been locked on Bing so people couldn't even revert to Google.

Afaik, you're supposedly free to ship a phone with Bing as long as it doesn't say "with Google". I assume the BusinessWeek report is saying that Google's trying to block Bing even if the phone doesn't say "with Google", otherwise this wouldn't be newsworthy. But maybe that's not the case, and Verizon's just trying to raise a stink. Unfortunately, Rubin's response doesn't exactly clarify things.

I don't know what the CDD says about non-Google search engines, but I will point out that Bing is in the Android Market. Exactly how much more open does Google need to be to competitors' products and services?

If Google is going to exploit "open source" as a marketing term and claim at Google IO that it's trying to prevent a "draconian future," it shouldn't be withholding its source code from non-privileged partners and making licensees sign non-fragmentation clauses that give Google final approval over source changes.

In other words, if you're going to position yourself as a champion for openness, expect to get called out for not following the spirit of the idea. Especially if you're obstructing people from modifying your platform to use a competitor's product, such as Bing. That's the most alarming accusation, really, and could land them in hot water.

> If Google is going to exploit "open source" as a marketing term and claim at Google IO that it's trying to prevent a "draconian future," it shouldn't be withholding its source code from non-privileged partners and making licensees sign non-fragmentation clauses that give Google final approval over source changes.

IMHO, for a for-profit company, they're doing a really great job of keeping the source open, especially when compared to their competition. And remember how open they are required to be, which is "not at all". They could stop releasing source tomorrow, and, short of feeling morally superior, there is nothing anyone could do about it.

Is Google open by RMS's standards? If we just jump there, we can settle the terminology issue on the spot. No, they are not open, so now we can just work with what we have, which is "some open source under different licenses, and a lot of closed source".

But if someone doesn't like the restrictions on Android, they do have the option to fork it into a new OS. That's the open source deal, and Rubin spelled out the details in a tweet that a great many people made fun of at the time, but turned out to accurately describe their stance. Use the kernel source under the GPL's terms; use the trademark and store and non-GPL'd source under Google's terms.

When Justice gets involved, there are problems, for sure. But saying, "Hey, you can't use our trademark while pimping our main competitor's product, and if you do pimp our main competitor's product, don't expect us to be in a rush to show you our in-progress code" doesn't strike me as particularly horrific behavior. But that's just my opinion.

The big question is: would Android be a coherent platform without Google's restrictions? And if not, would Google even work on it?

I don't think the issue is whether or not they keep the source open, but whether or not their marketing is dishonest or hypocritical. I, for one, don't care that the iPhone has a completely closed ecosystem. If, however, Apple came out and said that their platform was free and open I'd be pretty annoyed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com