If Apple's mobile OS was, "originally conceived for tablets and secondarily deployed on a phones", then why was it initially called the iPhoneOS and not simply iOS?
Answer: It obviously wasn't, and this 'story' was probably created to mask that fact that the OS' use for the iPad was somehow more than just a light adaptation of an OS originally intended for smaller/screens/smartphones.
I heard Steve Jobs tell this 'story' at All Things D.
Apple's engineers were working on some cool new interfaces... for tablet devices... in the early to mid-2000s. But when Steve saw it... he said "that would be great on a phone"
If you can prove that the idea to make a cell phone did, in fact, come first... and that Steve Jobs is lying... then that's grounds for impeachment!
There may be a simple market-related explanation to this. Honeycomb must have been baking in Google for at least a year. OEM partners asked Google to finish it ASAP, and the preferred partner Motorola was starting to get nervous after seeing how Samsung was getting little traction with the Galaxy Tab, so they pushed Google to get Honeycomb to them early. What resulted was the XOOM, a few weeks ahead of iPad 2, but not fully baked. At my last job, we moved from a quarterly release schedule to three times a year so that we could impose more discipline in the schedule and not have to cut or postpone features so frequently.
If Google had set a hard ship date of late spring or early summer, their partners would have risked being drowned out by Apple, HP, and Blackberry. So they made a tough decision, one that would clearly upset some open source advocates. It's not the first time Google has had to make a tough choice (China, wireless net neutrality, spectrum auction) and in every case not everyone's going to be happy. I'd prefer that Google wait until it's more baked, but everyone knows that Google's perfectly willing to ship beta stuff ad infinitum. The real question is whether or not this appearance of Honeycomb not being fully baked will hurt Motorola, Samsung, etc. in the near term.
In the end the delay may keep the price of tablets up for the rest of the year, since some non-partners may be forced to wait until Honeycomb is ready. Google knows that this is only the start of the game, so to endure a little pain now may be worth it. Apple took 5 months to align iOS for iPhone and iPad. It can be done.
It goes to show how much Apple is setting the bar. I wouldn't be surprised if the next ad campaign for the iPad is, "There is no substitute." It sure looks that way right now.
The above I think says it all. Google on one hand has no control, on the other Android is the best thing since sliced bread - you are definitely in the wrong forum here. Why do you even bother? We like discussion but you offer nothing but a full-on hardcore Android defense here without ceding any ground, despite sound facts being presented.
Android has been bastardized by Google to give them a foothold in mobile advertising, and will be the best babe for Google until something better comes along (ChromeOS) and they put Android out to pasture and languish. It s that simple Google doesn't WANT to own Android - it HAS to own Android - for the time being. And as soon as Google's millions are flowing elsewhere Android's great ideas will become just another footnote in Linux history.
The point of the article is simply a counterpoint to all the diatribe flung at Apple for a curated approach to the user experience - which has proven conclusively to be immensely popular to the average user. Based on your other posts, you simply have no idea what the average user wants or likes and could not frankly care less. And that's fine but it undermines any other offer of information you make because this whole mobile paradigm shift is precisely about the average user - which Apple has nailed down cold. Which is why Android proponents struggle to trumpet big numbers, marketshare, PC vs. Mac, open vs. curated, and then piss and moan when someone simply asks why, when your hallmark of evangelism for the platform is openness, Google executes controls and restrictions arbitrarily and allows the carriers and handset makers to lock-down devices. You apparently have different definition of "open" than the whole rest of the english-speaking world.
You are, of course, completely right. There's no room for different opinions here based on sound facts.
This will be my last post on this forum because every thread I've contributed to has ended the same way. People will continue to believe what they want, it's no skin off my back.
My primary phone is an iPhone 3GS, but I also have a Nexus One that I occasionally use when the mood strikes (disclaimer: I got it for free from Google at a conference). I prefer iOS on the smartphone to Android in its current version, so that's why the iPhone is my primary. I'll likely upgrade it to an iPhone 5 this year.
For tablets, I'm probably going to go Android (the Tab 10.1) because I view tablets as starting to encroach on laptop territory so I demand more out of the functionality of the UI over the simplicity. It's a personal taste.
I've used and developed apps for virtually every smartphone OS out there. I know the field, it's my job and something I have great personal interest in as well. I was hoping to contribute what I know to this forum, but it seems if any point is not wholly praising of Apple it is latched on to by people who can only be described as fanboys. You view it as "attack" and "defense" when in reality I'm only trying to lay it out as I see it.
As for your swipes about me not knowing what the average user likes or wants -- that's precisely what I do know. That's why I get paid to do what I do. I've read countless market reports on it from analysts (most of which are bunk), I've attended countless conferences on mobile technology, and I'm extremely informed on every OS out there and every facet of each one, because it's my job to. The fact that you disagree doesn't mean you agree with the market as a whole. And the fact that you (and frankly, most people here) seem flabberghasted by the growth of Android (if you'll check my posts, I said this would happen years ago) it's because you don't understand the market as a whole. The people who line up at Apple stores to buy iOS devices are not your typical user. People mention how important apps are, but they're only very important to a relatively small portion of the demographic. But because that's who you guys are always surrounded by, that's what you see. Android is soaring and people simply don't care as much about apps on them. It's a different kind of user. As smartphones and tablets become more ubiquitous, you're going to see less "hardcores" who download lots of apps and more ma-and-pas who don't.
I apologize if contrarian viewpoints offend you. And I certainly won't make that mistake again. Groupthink is a powerful thing, it was folly to try to combat it.
(PS: This is not entirely directed at you, but in general to many people on here)
OEM partners asked Google to finish it ASAP, and the preferred partner Motorola was starting to get nervous after seeing how Samsung was getting little traction with the Galaxy Tab, so they pushed Google to get Honeycomb to them early. What resulted was the XOOM, a few weeks ahead of iPad 2, but not fully baked.
God bless them if that's what happened.
Would it have worked? Would 2 more weeks.. or even an extra month... have made the Xoom and/or Honeycomb any better?
They were already a YEAR too late.
What was Google workin' on the day before the original iPad was announced? That was 14 months ago...
If you're project depends on GPL code than you're required to distribute the project under the GPL. However Android like most Operating Systems is broken down into different layers.
1. Kernel and Drivers (Any Drivers that require linux code to compile will need to be GPL)
2. The Dalvik VM. (Apache License)
3. System Libraries ( This is a huge mixture of GPL, Apache, etc ...)
3. The UI/Shell/Window Manage (Apache License)
4. Developer APIs (Apache License)
5. Applications (Any Number of different Licenses)
Basically the Kernel is GPL and most of the other components are using the Apache License which gives google more control over who has access to the source.
It very much similar to Running commercial software on Ubuntu. The Kernel, the UI and most of the libraries might be under the GPL, but that doesn't require Adobe Acrobat reader or the Adobe Flash plugin to be released under the GPL. Neither project is sourcing GPL code.
Thanks for the detailed explanation.
It still doesn't make much sense of the situation though. I know I've read several stories and read many articles as well to the effect that if you distribute something containing GPL code, or sell something containing GPL code that you have to release it.
It's seems clearly to be a bit of slight of hand to say that "Android" can be released with GPL code, but not release the source code, because that's in a separate "part" of Android. Android isn't Android without the kernel.
If Honeycomb Android doesn't work without the kernel (and I don't see how it can), then using Honeycomb Android in a selling product pretty much has to be selling something with GPL code. That means that the entire source has to be released.
I'm pretty certain that when it was in their favour, many open source promoters have argued exactly this about other projects. It seems to me that the only reason no one is complaining about this, is that it would make Google, Android and everything associated with it look bad.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain why this is OK when all the other times it was wrong or an abomination of open source etc. Seems like a clear double standard to me.
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.
Yes, the operating system. It's just a small part. But don't forget about WebKit.
Isn't that what Xoom and the other newer Androids are touted to be using? [Edit: works for tablets but not yet ready for other Android devicces).
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
are you really suggesting that "open source" means only the "final product", whatever that is, is public? And how is version 3.0 not a final product? Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of making something open source?
Pretty much at the core of everything Google does to compete with Apple is Apple's open source WebKit. Far from closing it when it's not ready to use, new versions of the compete source and built apps are made available nightly.
If you're project depends on GPL code than you're required to distribute the project under the GPL. However Android like most Operating Systems is broken down into different layers.
1. Kernel and Drivers (Any Drivers that require linux code to compile will need to be GPL)
2. The Dalvik VM. (Apache License)
3. System Libraries ( This is a huge mixture of GPL, Apache, etc ...)
3. The UI/Shell/Window Manage (Apache License)
4. Developer APIs (Apache License)
5. Applications (Any Number of different Licenses)
Basically the Kernel is GPL and most of the other components are using the Apache License which gives google more control over who has access to the source.
It very much similar to Running commercial software on Ubuntu. The Kernel, the UI and most of the libraries might be under the GPL, but that doesn't require Adobe Acrobat reader or the Adobe Flash plugin to be released under the GPL. Neither project is sourcing GPL code.
And somehow the Apache 2.0 license is GPLv3 compatible which has always struck me as an interesting relationship.
If Apple's mobile OS was, "originally conceived for tablets and secondarily deployed on a phones", then why was it initially called the iPhoneOS and not simply iOS?
Answer: It obviously wasn't, and this 'story' was probably created to mask that fact that the OS' use for the iPad was somehow more than just a light adaptation of an OS originally intended for smaller/screens/smartphones.
Because it was on a phone and Apple is careful about branding.
Of course, before they called it that, they called "OS X iPhone":
That's the little inconvenient truth folks like you like to ignore: iOS is OS X-- big, badass OS X tailored for touch UI. Honeycomb is, in fact, a cellphone OS, which has been, in face, lightly modified for tablets. The OS in the iPad is OS X for tablets. This will become more and more obvious over the next year, as Apple continues to work to unite the two versions.
Android will have, um, widgets and ad based online services. Which you will champion as the new computing nirvana, because, let's face it, that's just how you roll.
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.
Yup, why bother with open source anyways. Let Google play favourites with who gets access now to Honeycomb for their tablets. And as for smartphones? Guess they'll be stuck for while as Apple improves iOS. All in all, it's been great dealing with Google! At least until they decide to shaft you.
...because, let's face it, that's just how you roll.
LOL you just edited it from a naughtier word just as I replied to your post! Either that or I read the subliminal text. Now everyone back on troll duty! We got our work cut out for us, and be prepared for massive pictures of inordinate amounts of gadgets soon to be posted...!
Huh? The reason none of them are doing this is kind of the point. Obviously some of the makers have expressed interest in trying to do that, which is precisely why Google is not letting them.
I'm completely and utterly baffled why this is a news story on AppleInsider. Google is delaying the release of the non-GPL parts of Android's source until "Icecream Sandwich" comes out (which is supposed to reunify the base so Smartphones + tablets share the same OS) to ensure a consistent level of quality from the handset makers who would jump to try to force Honeycomb onto ill-suited formfactors. Like Samsung did the the Tab 7", which arguably damaged the Android brand.
Are you serious? Please tell me this is some kind of joke.
Google has no control whatsoever what manufacturers do with their phone bootloaders. They have nothing to do with Android. Similarly, they can't control when Motorola and Verizon decide to push updates out to their phones.
If you want an open phone, buy a Nexus One/Nexus S. That is the one phone Google can control from top to bottom, and it most certainly is open.
I simply do not understand the point of this article, or why many of Apple's fans seem to delight in this non-news to a degree. Apple fans don't care about openness, if they did they wouldn't be buying some of the most locked-down, prohibitive devices in consumer electronics and computing history. Time for a reality check, folks.
Did you post that from Chrome browser using WebKit and other open source projects from Apple?
Put this in the browser bar and check them out:- about:credits
Did you post that from Chrome browser using WebKit and other open source projects from Apple?
Put this in the browser bar and check them out:- about:credits
Couldn't resist.
I've committed code to KHTML (which became WebKit once Apple co-opted it, curious how you credit Apple for it when it was created by someone else). I've also committed code to Gecko back when it was powering what was then known as Phoenix. This was posted from the nightly build for Firefox 4.2. (And I also am quite aware that Firefox's new JIT JS engine uses parts from Apple's Nitro). You're not making any coherent point here.
Please don't pretend to lecture me on fundamentals.
Because it was on a phone and Apple is careful about branding.
Of course, before they called it that, they called "OS X iPhone":
That's the little inconvenient truth folks like you like to ignore:
Really...
You do realize that all you did was substantiate my argument that the iPhoneOS begat the version of iOS that currently runs on the iPad (and not the reverse) for the simple fact that the original name of the platform was iPhoneOS not iOS or (while in development) OSX iPhone?
Your little tirade regarding Android 3.x being merely Android 2.x, "lightly modified for tablets" only shows your complete inexperience/ignorance with the platforms themselves. Nothing More.
"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."
ok ... so the "10.1" Galaxy tablet that was unveiled at some trade show in February will never come to market, right? even tho it was hyped on the web a lot and then Samsung denied there would be any delay despite its boss guy commenting that they needed to make changes. now, a new thiner version of that "10.1" Galaxy tab will be released this summer instead.
somehow no one else in the blogsphere seems to have figured this charade out ... or wants to.
I was at a launch in Australia 2 nights ago, I had a play with a couple of them, it was funny that there were iPad ads in angry birds, the iPad 2 will sell out here in 1 hour 5 minutes.
Would it have worked? Would 2 more weeks.. or even an extra month... have made the Xoom and/or Honeycomb any better?
They were already a YEAR too late.
What was Google workin' on the day before the original iPad was announced? That was 14 months ago...
2 weeks is not enough time to get rid of showstopper P0 bugs, much less make a difference in whether it ships or not. 2 months? Maybe you have something. I figure that in late 2009/early 2010, Google was thinking that they'd have Android for phones and Chrome OS addressing much of the market, with Android for tablets serving as a gap-filler. They didn't foresee how big the iPad would be and they didn't count on Chrome OS being delayed as it has, so they got caught with their pants down. Things don't automatically scale just because you throw a bunch of man-hours at a project. Besides, I met an Apple employee on the iPad team shortly after the first iPad launched. He had been working on the thing for over 2 years. 14 months is not much time to ship what is essentially a new platform. Microsoft and Nokia are going through that building process right now.
The thing that helped Google and Apple in this case is that everyone in the industry can reasonably guess what Apple's shipping schedule is and market around that. There's a difference between being tactical and being strategic. Right now Google's trying to be strategic whereas its partners have no choice but to be tactical. Apple has the leverage to be both.
Don't give up so easily. You can still state your opinions, just don't get dragged down into extended debates with people that surely just want to argue for the sake of it. Sure we love to bash non-Apple stuff sometimes because well, it's all too easy sometimes... But I do understand if it gets frustrating. I wouldn't go near an Android forum at this stage.
More importantly, your point about apps is pertinent... But I have seen a lot of ma and pa's download apps they are interested in. Some a lot, some not so much...What is the state of apps? Is it the big future we are all led to think it is? What is the app strategy for Android tablets?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian
You are, of course, completely right. There's no room for different opinions here based on sound facts.
This will be my last post on this forum because every thread I've contributed to has ended the same way. People will continue to believe what they want, it's no skin off my back.
My primary phone is an iPhone 3GS, but I also have a Nexus One that I occasionally use when the mood strikes (disclaimer: I got it for free from Google at a conference). I prefer iOS on the smartphone to Android in its current version, so that's why the iPhone is my primary. I'll likely upgrade it to an iPhone 5 this year.
For tablets, I'm probably going to go Android (the Tab 10.1) because I view tablets as starting to encroach on laptop territory so I demand more out of the functionality of the UI over the simplicity. It's a personal taste.
I've used and developed apps for virtually every smartphone OS out there. I know the field, it's my job and something I have great personal interest in as well. I was hoping to contribute what I know to this forum, but it seems if any point is not wholly praising of Apple it is latched on to by people who can only be described as fanboys. You view it as "attack" and "defense" when in reality I'm only trying to lay it out as I see it.
As for your swipes about me not knowing what the average user likes or wants -- that's precisely what I do know. That's why I get paid to do what I do. I've read countless market reports on it from analysts (most of which are bunk), I've attended countless conferences on mobile technology, and I'm extremely informed on every OS out there and every facet of each one, because it's my job to. The fact that you disagree doesn't mean you agree with the market as a whole. And the fact that you (and frankly, most people here) seem flabberghasted by the growth of Android (if you'll check my posts, I said this would happen years ago) it's because you don't understand the market as a whole. The people who line up at Apple stores to buy iOS devices are not your typical user. People mention how important apps are, but they're only very important to a relatively small portion of the demographic. But because that's who you guys are always surrounded by, that's what you see. Android is soaring and people simply don't care as much about apps on them. It's a different kind of user. As smartphones and tablets become more ubiquitous, you're going to see less "hardcores" who download lots of apps and more ma-and-pas who don't.
I apologize if contrarian viewpoints offend you. And I certainly won't make that mistake again. Groupthink is a powerful thing, it was folly to try to combat it.
(PS: This is not entirely directed at you, but in general to many people on here)
I was at a launch in Australia 2 nights ago, I had a play with a couple of them, it was funny that there were iPad ads in angry birds, the iPad 2 will sell out here in 1 hour 5 minutes.
I hope not, at least in Perth, a mate of mine will be landing in a few hours time and heading straight to the Apple Store from the airport. Of course, I asked him to snag one for me ...Well, in any case it is all in the hands of a higher power now. (Steve-o of course, who did ya think I was talking about?)
I've committed code to KHTML (which became WebKit once Apple co-opted it, curious how you credit Apple for it when it was created by someone else). I've also committed code to Gecko back when it was powering what was then known as Phoenix. This was posted from the nightly build for Firefox 4.2. (And I also am quite aware that Firefox's new JIT JS engine uses parts from Apple's Nitro). You're not making any coherent point here.
Please don't pretend to lecture me on fundamentals.
Apple IS one of the contributors AS it quite plainly says in the license agreement.
Comments
If Apple's mobile OS was, "originally conceived for tablets and secondarily deployed on a phones", then why was it initially called the iPhoneOS and not simply iOS?
Answer: It obviously wasn't, and this 'story' was probably created to mask that fact that the OS' use for the iPad was somehow more than just a light adaptation of an OS originally intended for smaller/screens/smartphones.
I heard Steve Jobs tell this 'story' at All Things D.
Apple's engineers were working on some cool new interfaces... for tablet devices... in the early to mid-2000s. But when Steve saw it... he said "that would be great on a phone"
If you can prove that the idea to make a cell phone did, in fact, come first... and that Steve Jobs is lying... then that's grounds for impeachment!
If Google had set a hard ship date of late spring or early summer, their partners would have risked being drowned out by Apple, HP, and Blackberry. So they made a tough decision, one that would clearly upset some open source advocates. It's not the first time Google has had to make a tough choice (China, wireless net neutrality, spectrum auction) and in every case not everyone's going to be happy. I'd prefer that Google wait until it's more baked, but everyone knows that Google's perfectly willing to ship beta stuff ad infinitum. The real question is whether or not this appearance of Honeycomb not being fully baked will hurt Motorola, Samsung, etc. in the near term.
In the end the delay may keep the price of tablets up for the rest of the year, since some non-partners may be forced to wait until Honeycomb is ready. Google knows that this is only the start of the game, so to endure a little pain now may be worth it. Apple took 5 months to align iOS for iPhone and iPad. It can be done.
It goes to show how much Apple is setting the bar. I wouldn't be surprised if the next ad campaign for the iPad is, "There is no substitute." It sure looks that way right now.
The above I think says it all. Google on one hand has no control, on the other Android is the best thing since sliced bread - you are definitely in the wrong forum here. Why do you even bother? We like discussion but you offer nothing but a full-on hardcore Android defense here without ceding any ground, despite sound facts being presented.
Android has been bastardized by Google to give them a foothold in mobile advertising, and will be the best babe for Google until something better comes along (ChromeOS) and they put Android out to pasture and languish. It s that simple Google doesn't WANT to own Android - it HAS to own Android - for the time being. And as soon as Google's millions are flowing elsewhere Android's great ideas will become just another footnote in Linux history.
The point of the article is simply a counterpoint to all the diatribe flung at Apple for a curated approach to the user experience - which has proven conclusively to be immensely popular to the average user. Based on your other posts, you simply have no idea what the average user wants or likes and could not frankly care less. And that's fine but it undermines any other offer of information you make because this whole mobile paradigm shift is precisely about the average user - which Apple has nailed down cold. Which is why Android proponents struggle to trumpet big numbers, marketshare, PC vs. Mac, open vs. curated, and then piss and moan when someone simply asks why, when your hallmark of evangelism for the platform is openness, Google executes controls and restrictions arbitrarily and allows the carriers and handset makers to lock-down devices. You apparently have different definition of "open" than the whole rest of the english-speaking world.
You are, of course, completely right. There's no room for different opinions here based on sound facts.
This will be my last post on this forum because every thread I've contributed to has ended the same way. People will continue to believe what they want, it's no skin off my back.
My primary phone is an iPhone 3GS, but I also have a Nexus One that I occasionally use when the mood strikes (disclaimer: I got it for free from Google at a conference). I prefer iOS on the smartphone to Android in its current version, so that's why the iPhone is my primary. I'll likely upgrade it to an iPhone 5 this year.
For tablets, I'm probably going to go Android (the Tab 10.1) because I view tablets as starting to encroach on laptop territory so I demand more out of the functionality of the UI over the simplicity. It's a personal taste.
I've used and developed apps for virtually every smartphone OS out there. I know the field, it's my job and something I have great personal interest in as well. I was hoping to contribute what I know to this forum, but it seems if any point is not wholly praising of Apple it is latched on to by people who can only be described as fanboys. You view it as "attack" and "defense" when in reality I'm only trying to lay it out as I see it.
As for your swipes about me not knowing what the average user likes or wants -- that's precisely what I do know. That's why I get paid to do what I do. I've read countless market reports on it from analysts (most of which are bunk), I've attended countless conferences on mobile technology, and I'm extremely informed on every OS out there and every facet of each one, because it's my job to. The fact that you disagree doesn't mean you agree with the market as a whole. And the fact that you (and frankly, most people here) seem flabberghasted by the growth of Android (if you'll check my posts, I said this would happen years ago) it's because you don't understand the market as a whole. The people who line up at Apple stores to buy iOS devices are not your typical user. People mention how important apps are, but they're only very important to a relatively small portion of the demographic. But because that's who you guys are always surrounded by, that's what you see. Android is soaring and people simply don't care as much about apps on them. It's a different kind of user. As smartphones and tablets become more ubiquitous, you're going to see less "hardcores" who download lots of apps and more ma-and-pas who don't.
I apologize if contrarian viewpoints offend you. And I certainly won't make that mistake again. Groupthink is a powerful thing, it was folly to try to combat it.
(PS: This is not entirely directed at you, but in general to many people on here)
OEM partners asked Google to finish it ASAP, and the preferred partner Motorola was starting to get nervous after seeing how Samsung was getting little traction with the Galaxy Tab, so they pushed Google to get Honeycomb to them early. What resulted was the XOOM, a few weeks ahead of iPad 2, but not fully baked.
God bless them if that's what happened.
Would it have worked? Would 2 more weeks.. or even an extra month... have made the Xoom and/or Honeycomb any better?
They were already a YEAR too late.
What was Google workin' on the day before the original iPad was announced? That was 14 months ago...
If you're project depends on GPL code than you're required to distribute the project under the GPL. However Android like most Operating Systems is broken down into different layers.
1. Kernel and Drivers (Any Drivers that require linux code to compile will need to be GPL)
2. The Dalvik VM. (Apache License)
3. System Libraries ( This is a huge mixture of GPL, Apache, etc ...)
3. The UI/Shell/Window Manage (Apache License)
4. Developer APIs (Apache License)
5. Applications (Any Number of different Licenses)
Basically the Kernel is GPL and most of the other components are using the Apache License which gives google more control over who has access to the source.
It very much similar to Running commercial software on Ubuntu. The Kernel, the UI and most of the libraries might be under the GPL, but that doesn't require Adobe Acrobat reader or the Adobe Flash plugin to be released under the GPL. Neither project is sourcing GPL code.
Thanks for the detailed explanation.
It still doesn't make much sense of the situation though. I know I've read several stories and read many articles as well to the effect that if you distribute something containing GPL code, or sell something containing GPL code that you have to release it.
It's seems clearly to be a bit of slight of hand to say that "Android" can be released with GPL code, but not release the source code, because that's in a separate "part" of Android. Android isn't Android without the kernel.
If Honeycomb Android doesn't work without the kernel (and I don't see how it can), then using Honeycomb Android in a selling product pretty much has to be selling something with GPL code. That means that the entire source has to be released.
I'm pretty certain that when it was in their favour, many open source promoters have argued exactly this about other projects. It seems to me that the only reason no one is complaining about this, is that it would make Google, Android and everything associated with it look bad.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain why this is OK when all the other times it was wrong or an abomination of open source etc. Seems like a clear double standard to me.
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.
Yes, the operating system. It's just a small part. But don't forget about WebKit.
Isn't that what Xoom and the other newer Androids are touted to be using? [Edit: works for tablets but not yet ready for other Android devicces).
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
are you really suggesting that "open source" means only the "final product", whatever that is, is public? And how is version 3.0 not a final product? Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of making something open source?
Pretty much at the core of everything Google does to compete with Apple is Apple's open source WebKit. Far from closing it when it's not ready to use, new versions of the compete source and built apps are made available nightly.
If you're project depends on GPL code than you're required to distribute the project under the GPL. However Android like most Operating Systems is broken down into different layers.
1. Kernel and Drivers (Any Drivers that require linux code to compile will need to be GPL)
2. The Dalvik VM. (Apache License)
3. System Libraries ( This is a huge mixture of GPL, Apache, etc ...)
3. The UI/Shell/Window Manage (Apache License)
4. Developer APIs (Apache License)
5. Applications (Any Number of different Licenses)
Basically the Kernel is GPL and most of the other components are using the Apache License which gives google more control over who has access to the source.
It very much similar to Running commercial software on Ubuntu. The Kernel, the UI and most of the libraries might be under the GPL, but that doesn't require Adobe Acrobat reader or the Adobe Flash plugin to be released under the GPL. Neither project is sourcing GPL code.
And somehow the Apache 2.0 license is GPLv3 compatible which has always struck me as an interesting relationship.
Hmm?
If Apple's mobile OS was, "originally conceived for tablets and secondarily deployed on a phones", then why was it initially called the iPhoneOS and not simply iOS?
Answer: It obviously wasn't, and this 'story' was probably created to mask that fact that the OS' use for the iPad was somehow more than just a light adaptation of an OS originally intended for smaller/screens/smartphones.
Because it was on a phone and Apple is careful about branding.
Of course, before they called it that, they called "OS X iPhone":
That's the little inconvenient truth folks like you like to ignore: iOS is OS X-- big, badass OS X tailored for touch UI. Honeycomb is, in fact, a cellphone OS, which has been, in face, lightly modified for tablets. The OS in the iPad is OS X for tablets. This will become more and more obvious over the next year, as Apple continues to work to unite the two versions.
Android will have, um, widgets and ad based online services. Which you will champion as the new computing nirvana, because, let's face it, that's just how you roll.
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.
Yup, why bother with open source anyways. Let Google play favourites with who gets access now to Honeycomb for their tablets. And as for smartphones? Guess they'll be stuck for while as Apple improves iOS. All in all, it's been great dealing with Google! At least until they decide to shaft you.
...because, let's face it, that's just how you roll.
LOL you just edited it from a naughtier word just as I replied to your post! Either that or I read the subliminal text. Now everyone back on troll duty! We got our work cut out for us, and be prepared for massive pictures of inordinate amounts of gadgets soon to be posted...!
LOL you just changed it from a naughtier word!
Huh? The reason none of them are doing this is kind of the point. Obviously some of the makers have expressed interest in trying to do that, which is precisely why Google is not letting them.
I'm completely and utterly baffled why this is a news story on AppleInsider. Google is delaying the release of the non-GPL parts of Android's source until "Icecream Sandwich" comes out (which is supposed to reunify the base so Smartphones + tablets share the same OS) to ensure a consistent level of quality from the handset makers who would jump to try to force Honeycomb onto ill-suited formfactors. Like Samsung did the the Tab 7", which arguably damaged the Android brand.
Are you serious? Please tell me this is some kind of joke.
Google has no control whatsoever what manufacturers do with their phone bootloaders. They have nothing to do with Android. Similarly, they can't control when Motorola and Verizon decide to push updates out to their phones.
If you want an open phone, buy a Nexus One/Nexus S. That is the one phone Google can control from top to bottom, and it most certainly is open.
I simply do not understand the point of this article, or why many of Apple's fans seem to delight in this non-news to a degree. Apple fans don't care about openness, if they did they wouldn't be buying some of the most locked-down, prohibitive devices in consumer electronics and computing history. Time for a reality check, folks.
Did you post that from Chrome browser using WebKit and other open source projects from Apple?
Put this in the browser bar and check them out:- about:credits
Did you post that from Chrome browser using WebKit and other open source projects from Apple?
Put this in the browser bar and check them out:- about:credits
Couldn't resist.
I've committed code to KHTML (which became WebKit once Apple co-opted it, curious how you credit Apple for it when it was created by someone else). I've also committed code to Gecko back when it was powering what was then known as Phoenix. This was posted from the nightly build for Firefox 4.2. (And I also am quite aware that Firefox's new JIT JS engine uses parts from Apple's Nitro). You're not making any coherent point here.
Please don't pretend to lecture me on fundamentals.
Because it was on a phone and Apple is careful about branding.
Of course, before they called it that, they called "OS X iPhone":
That's the little inconvenient truth folks like you like to ignore:
Really...
You do realize that all you did was substantiate my argument that the iPhoneOS begat the version of iOS that currently runs on the iPad (and not the reverse) for the simple fact that the original name of the platform was iPhoneOS not iOS or (while in development) OSX iPhone?
Your little tirade regarding Android 3.x being merely Android 2.x, "lightly modified for tablets" only shows your complete inexperience/ignorance with the platforms themselves. Nothing More.
"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."
ok ... so the "10.1" Galaxy tablet that was unveiled at some trade show in February will never come to market, right? even tho it was hyped on the web a lot and then Samsung denied there would be any delay despite its boss guy commenting that they needed to make changes. now, a new thiner version of that "10.1" Galaxy tab will be released this summer instead.
somehow no one else in the blogsphere seems to have figured this charade out ... or wants to.
I was at a launch in Australia 2 nights ago, I had a play with a couple of them, it was funny that there were iPad ads in angry birds, the iPad 2 will sell out here in 1 hour 5 minutes.
God bless them if that's what happened.
Would it have worked? Would 2 more weeks.. or even an extra month... have made the Xoom and/or Honeycomb any better?
They were already a YEAR too late.
What was Google workin' on the day before the original iPad was announced? That was 14 months ago...
2 weeks is not enough time to get rid of showstopper P0 bugs, much less make a difference in whether it ships or not. 2 months? Maybe you have something. I figure that in late 2009/early 2010, Google was thinking that they'd have Android for phones and Chrome OS addressing much of the market, with Android for tablets serving as a gap-filler. They didn't foresee how big the iPad would be and they didn't count on Chrome OS being delayed as it has, so they got caught with their pants down. Things don't automatically scale just because you throw a bunch of man-hours at a project. Besides, I met an Apple employee on the iPad team shortly after the first iPad launched. He had been working on the thing for over 2 years. 14 months is not much time to ship what is essentially a new platform. Microsoft and Nokia are going through that building process right now.
The thing that helped Google and Apple in this case is that everyone in the industry can reasonably guess what Apple's shipping schedule is and market around that. There's a difference between being tactical and being strategic. Right now Google's trying to be strategic whereas its partners have no choice but to be tactical. Apple has the leverage to be both.
More importantly, your point about apps is pertinent... But I have seen a lot of ma and pa's download apps they are interested in. Some a lot, some not so much...What is the state of apps? Is it the big future we are all led to think it is? What is the app strategy for Android tablets?
You are, of course, completely right. There's no room for different opinions here based on sound facts.
This will be my last post on this forum because every thread I've contributed to has ended the same way. People will continue to believe what they want, it's no skin off my back.
My primary phone is an iPhone 3GS, but I also have a Nexus One that I occasionally use when the mood strikes (disclaimer: I got it for free from Google at a conference). I prefer iOS on the smartphone to Android in its current version, so that's why the iPhone is my primary. I'll likely upgrade it to an iPhone 5 this year.
For tablets, I'm probably going to go Android (the Tab 10.1) because I view tablets as starting to encroach on laptop territory so I demand more out of the functionality of the UI over the simplicity. It's a personal taste.
I've used and developed apps for virtually every smartphone OS out there. I know the field, it's my job and something I have great personal interest in as well. I was hoping to contribute what I know to this forum, but it seems if any point is not wholly praising of Apple it is latched on to by people who can only be described as fanboys. You view it as "attack" and "defense" when in reality I'm only trying to lay it out as I see it.
As for your swipes about me not knowing what the average user likes or wants -- that's precisely what I do know. That's why I get paid to do what I do. I've read countless market reports on it from analysts (most of which are bunk), I've attended countless conferences on mobile technology, and I'm extremely informed on every OS out there and every facet of each one, because it's my job to. The fact that you disagree doesn't mean you agree with the market as a whole. And the fact that you (and frankly, most people here) seem flabberghasted by the growth of Android (if you'll check my posts, I said this would happen years ago) it's because you don't understand the market as a whole. The people who line up at Apple stores to buy iOS devices are not your typical user. People mention how important apps are, but they're only very important to a relatively small portion of the demographic. But because that's who you guys are always surrounded by, that's what you see. Android is soaring and people simply don't care as much about apps on them. It's a different kind of user. As smartphones and tablets become more ubiquitous, you're going to see less "hardcores" who download lots of apps and more ma-and-pas who don't.
I apologize if contrarian viewpoints offend you. And I certainly won't make that mistake again. Groupthink is a powerful thing, it was folly to try to combat it.
(PS: This is not entirely directed at you, but in general to many people on here)
I was at a launch in Australia 2 nights ago, I had a play with a couple of them, it was funny that there were iPad ads in angry birds, the iPad 2 will sell out here in 1 hour 5 minutes.
I hope not, at least in Perth, a mate of mine will be landing in a few hours time and heading straight to the Apple Store from the airport. Of course, I asked him to snag one for me
Couldn't resist.
I've committed code to KHTML (which became WebKit once Apple co-opted it, curious how you credit Apple for it when it was created by someone else). I've also committed code to Gecko back when it was powering what was then known as Phoenix. This was posted from the nightly build for Firefox 4.2. (And I also am quite aware that Firefox's new JIT JS engine uses parts from Apple's Nitro). You're not making any coherent point here.
Please don't pretend to lecture me on fundamentals.
Apple IS one of the contributors AS it quite plainly says in the license agreement.