Google closes Android 3.0 Honeycomb source to prevent use on smartphones
Google has closed availability of the source code to Android 3.0 Honeycomb, explaining that the tablet-oriented software was not ready for use on smartphones and that the company didn't want outside developers or enthusiasts experimenting with it in unauthorized ways.
Google redefines open source as closed
Google's Android 3.0 Honeycomb platform was designed exclusively for tablet devices, running initially on Motorola's Xoom and later this summer on Samsung's redesigned Galaxy Tab and similar offerings from Toshiba and Acer. New Honeycomb tablets compete not just against Apple's iPad 2 but also RIM's Playbook and HP's webOS TouchPad.
Honeycomb tablets' key advantage over the iPad 2, Playbook and TouchPad is often cited to be the "openness" of Android, yet Google has decided to suspend open access to Android 3.0 source code for "the foreseeable future," explaining that it "is not yet ready to be altered by outside programmers and customized for other devices, such as phones," according to a report by BusinessWeek.
Google's Andy Rubin still maintains that "Android is an open-source project," saying, "we have not changed our strategy," while also saying that the company "took a shortcut" in deciding that it should prevent developers from putting the software on phones "and creating a really bad user experience. We have no idea if it will even work on phones."
Of course, the primary allure of open source is that other companies can do things that the vendor has "no idea" about, such as when Apple took the KHTML source and created the Safari browser, or when Nokia, RIM and Google took Apple's resulting WebKit browser engine and created subsequent, unanticipated new products based on it.
Google closes open source as needed
Google has regularly taken the leading edge of Android development offline to work exclusively with select partners, leaving the larger community to wait until after a release to observe or contribute to the project. This was done at the original release of Android, again with the release of Android 2.0 (in conjunction with Motorola), and at the release of Android 3.0, which surprised the "community" with software that was developed internally, not in the manner of an community led open source project like Mozilla or Linux.
Apple has similarly delayed releases to its Darwin open source kernel project as it prepares major reference releases of Mac OS X, but Apple doesn't pretend that Darwin is a collaborative, community driven project. Instead, Apple is largely sharing its code with developers so they can better understand how it works and provide feedback.
At the same time, Apple also runs more collaborative open source projects such as the aforementioned WebKit, CUPS, and its Address Book, Calendar and Wiki Severs, which are all openly maintained by a development community larger than Apple itself. Apple does not close down WebKit development to prevent the community from doing things whenever it has "no idea if it will even work."
Rubin's "definition of open" doesn't apply to Android 3.0
Rubin's defense of taking the "open source" Android 3.0 offline is particularly comical given his previous definition of "open," a tweet directed at Apple's chief executive Steve Jobs that said "the definition of open: 'mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make' meaning that "open" explicitly meant being able to download the source code and freely do anything with it.
Jobs had pointed out that "Google loves to characterize Android as 'open' and iOS and iPhone as 'closed.' We find this a bit disingenuous and clouding the real difference between our two approaches."
He added that "many Android OEMs, including the two largest, HTC and Motorola, install proprietary user interfaces to differentiate themselves from the commodity Android experience. The user's left to figure it all out. Compare this with iPhone, where every handset works the same."
Jobs also described various Android app stores as "a mess for both users and developers" and noted that "many Android apps work only on selected handsets, or selected Android versions," alluding to the fact that most Android phones still run an OS release roughly a year old, and often can't be updated for 3 to 6 months after Google makes an update available.
Honeycomb tablets shut off before opening up
The flagship Honeycomb tablet, Motorola's Xoom, hasn't generated much interest in the premise of Android 3.0 being open, instead being ridiculed for its price, incomplete software and missing features it was advertised to have.
The company is reported to be sharply reducing manufacturing orders for the new tablet, with sources blaming its tapered off production on "the unclear market status of iPad-like tablet PCs."
Meanwhile, Motorola is also reported to be working on its own Android OS alternative, motivated by problems related to Android's platform fragmentation, issues with product differentiation and "issues related to Google's support for its partners."
Samsung has delayed its own plans to release a Honeycomb tablet after deciding that its original design was "inadequate" compared to the new iPad 2. It hopes to have its thinner models available by June.
Google redefines open source as closed
Google's Android 3.0 Honeycomb platform was designed exclusively for tablet devices, running initially on Motorola's Xoom and later this summer on Samsung's redesigned Galaxy Tab and similar offerings from Toshiba and Acer. New Honeycomb tablets compete not just against Apple's iPad 2 but also RIM's Playbook and HP's webOS TouchPad.
Honeycomb tablets' key advantage over the iPad 2, Playbook and TouchPad is often cited to be the "openness" of Android, yet Google has decided to suspend open access to Android 3.0 source code for "the foreseeable future," explaining that it "is not yet ready to be altered by outside programmers and customized for other devices, such as phones," according to a report by BusinessWeek.
Google's Andy Rubin still maintains that "Android is an open-source project," saying, "we have not changed our strategy," while also saying that the company "took a shortcut" in deciding that it should prevent developers from putting the software on phones "and creating a really bad user experience. We have no idea if it will even work on phones."
Of course, the primary allure of open source is that other companies can do things that the vendor has "no idea" about, such as when Apple took the KHTML source and created the Safari browser, or when Nokia, RIM and Google took Apple's resulting WebKit browser engine and created subsequent, unanticipated new products based on it.
Google closes open source as needed
Google has regularly taken the leading edge of Android development offline to work exclusively with select partners, leaving the larger community to wait until after a release to observe or contribute to the project. This was done at the original release of Android, again with the release of Android 2.0 (in conjunction with Motorola), and at the release of Android 3.0, which surprised the "community" with software that was developed internally, not in the manner of an community led open source project like Mozilla or Linux.
Apple has similarly delayed releases to its Darwin open source kernel project as it prepares major reference releases of Mac OS X, but Apple doesn't pretend that Darwin is a collaborative, community driven project. Instead, Apple is largely sharing its code with developers so they can better understand how it works and provide feedback.
At the same time, Apple also runs more collaborative open source projects such as the aforementioned WebKit, CUPS, and its Address Book, Calendar and Wiki Severs, which are all openly maintained by a development community larger than Apple itself. Apple does not close down WebKit development to prevent the community from doing things whenever it has "no idea if it will even work."
Rubin's "definition of open" doesn't apply to Android 3.0
Rubin's defense of taking the "open source" Android 3.0 offline is particularly comical given his previous definition of "open," a tweet directed at Apple's chief executive Steve Jobs that said "the definition of open: 'mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make' meaning that "open" explicitly meant being able to download the source code and freely do anything with it.
Jobs had pointed out that "Google loves to characterize Android as 'open' and iOS and iPhone as 'closed.' We find this a bit disingenuous and clouding the real difference between our two approaches."
He added that "many Android OEMs, including the two largest, HTC and Motorola, install proprietary user interfaces to differentiate themselves from the commodity Android experience. The user's left to figure it all out. Compare this with iPhone, where every handset works the same."
Jobs also described various Android app stores as "a mess for both users and developers" and noted that "many Android apps work only on selected handsets, or selected Android versions," alluding to the fact that most Android phones still run an OS release roughly a year old, and often can't be updated for 3 to 6 months after Google makes an update available.
Honeycomb tablets shut off before opening up
The flagship Honeycomb tablet, Motorola's Xoom, hasn't generated much interest in the premise of Android 3.0 being open, instead being ridiculed for its price, incomplete software and missing features it was advertised to have.
The company is reported to be sharply reducing manufacturing orders for the new tablet, with sources blaming its tapered off production on "the unclear market status of iPad-like tablet PCs."
Meanwhile, Motorola is also reported to be working on its own Android OS alternative, motivated by problems related to Android's platform fragmentation, issues with product differentiation and "issues related to Google's support for its partners."
Samsung has delayed its own plans to release a Honeycomb tablet after deciding that its original design was "inadequate" compared to the new iPad 2. It hopes to have its thinner models available by June.
Comments
If they've distributed code, does not the GPL disallow this?
That shows you it is not really as open as touted. But, bear in mind that Open Source initiatives still has a "Core" team that serves as a gatekeeper on what gets included in the final code. If someone begs to disagree, they can fork it and create a different version.
That being said, it is actually prudent of Google to take that step. If it is not ready, why bring it to consumer products. Imagine the impact if some features malfunction. Android detractors would have a field day. Look at how MacDaily News may put a spin on this news.
CGC
Maybe they should have thought about this with Android 1.0 :-)
Okay, troll bait, I know it.
If they've distributed code, does not the GPL disallow this?
To my knowledge, the only GPL component of Android is the kernel (Linux), and yes, they can't legally release a product without making the modifications they've done public. Either it's only a matter of time before Torvalds (or somebody on his behalf) files a suit, or they're actually using an older, already-public kernel (like, say, 2.3's). The latter option would seem likely given performance reviews of the Xoom.
Come on, Apple's business motto is good for some things, but it's not open. In general it is about as closed as you can get.
Are you seriously trying to argue that Apple is more open than Google?
Come on, Apple's business motto is good for some things, but it's not open. In general it is about as closed as you can get.
Who is arguing tha apple isn't closed in some ways? No one. Next!
Are you seriously trying to argue that Apple is more open than Google?
Come on, Apple's business motto is good for some things, but it's not open. In general it is about as closed as you can get.
Has Google ever open sourced, or even allowed anyone to see, their search algorithms? How they do rankings? The particulars of how they harvest user info, and what they do with it?
Apple is "closed" in matters where not to do so would cost them money. Just like Google.
Are you seriously trying to argue that Apple is more open than Google?
Come on, Apple's business motto is good for some things, but it's not open. In general it is about as closed as you can get.
Except for the open bits.
Honeycomb was specifically designed for tablet/larger screen use, and many of the UI features just don't adapt well on these 3.5 to 4.3 inch devices.
Lightly adapting a smartphone UI to a tablet doesn't make for the best user experience at all, and should be avoided.
Smart move...
Honeycomb was specifically designed for tablet/larger screen use, and many of the UI features just don't adapt well on these 3.5 to 4.3 inch devices.
Lightly adapting a smartphone UI to a tablet doesn't make for the best user experience at all, and should be avoided.
Do you mean the Galaxy Tab?
It's open those closed doors.
Has Google ever open sourced, or even allowed anyone to see, their search algorithms? How they do ranki.
Well, Google is sure very open with your personal information -- they were willing to share your personal info to advertisers, and then now they will share your personal info also with publishers.
Not sure if the story is true, but one guy was so mad about this Google policy so what he did was published the personal info of Schmidt, and the "latter wanted his head".
CGC
DaHarder:
Lightly adapting a smartphone UI to a tablet doesn't make for the best user experience at all, and should be avoided.
Weren't you one of the ones who were declaiming that Android was more powerful, scalable and useable than iOS?? Whence the scalability? Why, especially when they could have built Honeycomb as scalable and not gone down the momentary divergent OS path that Apple took when they introduced the iPad and then had to re-converge with a later update, did they do this?? I'll bet you have some excuse but no real information...
I expected a huge inrush of Android apologists here blazing in to defend the platform - but heck - it's still early and we haven't yet heard frm all the DED detractors yet...
Lightly adapting a smartphone UI to a tablet doesn't make for the best user experience at all, and should be avoided.
So, how does this argument jive with those who claim the iPad is just a big iPod touch?
CGC
Smart move...
Not so smart after talking up Android as the open alternative. They don't want SmartPhone makers to use Honeycomb, which none of them are doing anyway, but they don't seem interested in intervening when users get screwed with locked boot loaders and non-existant updates. Big time double standard there. I will hold out some faith this is a sign that Google will be more assertive in controlling Android in the future and stop some of the carrier/manufacture abuses.
So, how does this argument jive with those who claim the iPad is just a big iPod touch?
CGC
That's his point. Fandroids like to pretend that Honeycomb was "designed from the ground up for tablets" (as they have been instructed to say by Google's PR) despite being nonsense on the face of it.
Whereas iOS, despite being generally understood to have originally conceived for tablets and secondarily deployed on a phones, and which is basically a subset of a desktop OS tailored for the touch implementation at hand, is somehow "lightly adapted" for the iPad.
Apparently consumers are pretty cool with that, daHarder's rules notwithstanding.
To my knowledge, the only GPL component of Android is the kernel (Linux), and yes, they can't legally release a product without making the modifications they've done public. Either it's only a matter of time before Torvalds (or somebody on his behalf) files a suit, or they're actually using an older, already-public kernel (like, say, 2.3's). The latter option would seem likely given performance reviews of the Xoom.
Google regularly submits the patches to the Linux kernel, even for the changes that've gone into Honeycomb. Similarly, all of the modifications they make to Webkit are made available also.
The parts they're not yet releasing are not GPLed code, but the other "Android" parts of the OS (dalvik, the APIs, etc).
To my knowledge, the only GPL component of Android is the kernel (Linux), and yes, they can't legally release a product without making the modifications they've done public. Either it's only a matter of time before Torvalds (or somebody on his behalf) files a suit, or they're actually using an older, already-public kernel (like, say, 2.3's). The latter option would seem likely given performance reviews of the Xoom.
This doesn't really answer the question though. Can any of the open source GPL experts tell us what the answer is?
I seem to remember other projects where the existence of a single section of GPL code forced the people using said project to divulge the whole thing. It would seem that making some arbitrary distinction between the kernel and the rest of the code would be a lame explanation by that measure.
If even a single part of Android Honeycomb has GPL code it would seem this is a violation no? I'd love to hear some of the Open source Nazis explain this.