Seems like Google is learning that user experience becomes much more important than openness. There are always trade-offs, but keeping the customer happy should be the most important.
You can still fork Android, though, can't you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by benanderson89
I see Google have finally realised what a mistake it was to make the system 100% open source.
Since google is now God it has redefined what the word "open" means
Remember the word "free" used to mean free before the Internet came along lol
We are living in George Orwell 1984 after all where the elite redefines language for us
Everyone here complains about the GPL vs. BSD/ASL2. Now that you just witnessed what people can do with this BSD like license, you all are complaining?
I'll remember that the next time someone comes in here calling the FSF a bunch of religious zealots or freetards.
But "open" is Android's claim to fame! Welcome to reality Google! Open leads to fragmentation.
And tomorrow is the first of the month. The day we get the next batch of monthly data on how poorly that strategy is going for them. Can't wait to see them fall on their face as they do every month. Oh wait... \
I am an OLD dude and I remember this fragmentation with DOS (sorry). If you wrote DOS apps and you had an IBM PC it sometimes did not work on a Compaq PC.
All laudable goals. And, truth be told, probably needed. But the very idea of Android "standardization" could backfire.
You can read my blog link for the breakdown, but with no significant differentiation, the majority of Android devices will end up being heavily discounted, or even given away as loss leaders by carriers and others attempting to lock subscribers into subscription plans.
And the end of Android as a truly competitive platform.
All laudable goals. And, truth be told, probably needed. But the very idea of Android "standardization" could backfire.
You can read my blog link for the breakdown, but with no significant differentiation, the majority of Android devices will end up being heavily discounted, or even given away as loss leaders by carriers and others attempting to lock subscribers into subscription plans.
And the end of Android as a truly competitive platform.
An open-source software program is one where the end user has unfettered access to the source code. By contract, a closed-source program is where the user does not have access to the source code. By "unfettered," I mean that access to the source is not encumbered in any way (e.g. license agreements).
Android is "open-source" to OEMs since they can pretty much put whatever skins they want on the products. However, if what Andy Rubin says is true, that Google is not changing the rules and that the custom required approval from Google, then the "open-source" label is questionable. By definition, if a developer distributes a piece of open-source software, the developer relinquishes control over what the end user does with it. When Google gives away Android to OEMs under an open-source license, Google relinquishes control over what OEMs do with it.
If Google is going to require approval for the skins OEMs put on Android devices, then Android is no longer open-source. Android is a closed-source operating system that has a wider range of acceptable uses than Apple's iOS, but it's not open-source.
All the talk by Google about "open" is nothing more than smoke-and-mirrors.
So Google is now moving to make its Android platform more like Apple's iOS platform. How ironical.
What is ironic about that? They aspire to have a mobile platform like Apple's iOS, but they aren't vertically integrated like Apple. What is a company to do? Partner with a few "select" hardware makers, screw the rest. They can have the leftover market share when Google's anointed partners have eaten their fill.
No, no... It's all a dirty lie. [Mary had a little lamb... la la la la la la... Four score and seven versions ago... la la la dee dah...]
Everyone knows Google and Android are Champions of Freedom and Openness and Apple and its diabolical iOS are the Evil Insular Empire. Google wants each and every one of us to get down, get down and boogie however we like, and Apple wants to strap us into their fascist robot exoskeleton and make us all dance to the same monotonous tune.
Google told me so and it must be true. After all, their motto is "Don't Be Evil."
...with finally, if not admitting to, dealing with the issues that their WOS (wide open source) created for them.
They never opened up their critical code of course, and they will leverage this for all their worth against competitors like Facebook, but at least my Android-using friends can see some relief as users of the Android OS. However, as I have mentioned before this may also be the first step in supplanting Android with the ChromeOS - especially for tablets. ChromeOS has much more versatility for a tablet framework than Android if they can nail down a proper touch interface to replace the keyboard/pointing device interface currently native to ChromeOS.
But we still haven't seen the ravening hords of Android apologists trooping in to proclaim this was the plan all along (well except for sprokkets, but since I have him ignored, I can't really use him as an example in good faith now can I?).
Perhaps we need to revisit the Android (Open) Rules:
Whatever is closed, curated or controlled is bad.
Whatever is open unfettered and free is good.
No app shall be fee'd.
No app shall be judged.
No app shall restricted.
No app shall be without ad.
All ads are good.
because they are changing or weren't really what you thought they were:
Android Real Rules:
Open is good in theory and in press, but must be...directed.
Closed curated or controlled is only good when it reinforces Google apps and prevents fragmentation.
Comments
Seems like Google is learning that user experience becomes much more important than openness. There are always trade-offs, but keeping the customer happy should be the most important.
You can still fork Android, though, can't you?
I see Google have finally realised what a mistake it was to make the system 100% open source.
Like WebKit?
You can still fork Android, though, can't you?
Like WebKit?
The open source pre-gingerbread parts yes.
Since google is now God it has redefined what the word "open" means
Remember the word "free" used to mean free before the Internet came along lol
We are living in George Orwell 1984 after all where the elite redefines language for us
Everyone here complains about the GPL vs. BSD/ASL2. Now that you just witnessed what people can do with this BSD like license, you all are complaining?
I'll remember that the next time someone comes in here calling the FSF a bunch of religious zealots or freetards.
But "open" is Android's claim to fame! Welcome to reality Google! Open leads to fragmentation.
Open/Closed whatever
a new word - Android is Clopen
You can still fork Android, though, can't you?
Like WebKit?
I?m not sure I follow. Is WebKit closed in any way?
Why doesn't Sony, Toshiba, Dell, or any other computer manufacturer create their own OS for their computers and phones?
I think it's bc they would produce something like Symbian. Ugh!
But "open" is Android's claim to fame! Welcome to reality Google! Open leads to fragmentation.
And tomorrow is the first of the month. The day we get the next batch of monthly data on how poorly that strategy is going for them. Can't wait to see them fall on their face as they do every month. Oh wait...
Like WebKit?
History repeats itself.
You can read my blog link for the breakdown, but with no significant differentiation, the majority of Android devices will end up being heavily discounted, or even given away as loss leaders by carriers and others attempting to lock subscribers into subscription plans.
And the end of Android as a truly competitive platform.
http://www.iSights.org/2011/03/googl...a-mistake.html
What happens to google when apple makes a bold new move into the cloud?
Since google is now God it has redefined what the word "open" means
Remember the word "free" used to mean free before the Internet came along lol
We are living in George Orwell 1984 after all where the elite redefines language for us
This God promises all believers - seven virgins - that you now have to keep virgins.
All laudable goals. And, truth be told, probably needed. But the very idea of Android "standardization" could backfire.
You can read my blog link for the breakdown, but with no significant differentiation, the majority of Android devices will end up being heavily discounted, or even given away as loss leaders by carriers and others attempting to lock subscribers into subscription plans.
And the end of Android as a truly competitive platform.
http://www.iSights.org/2011/03/googl...a-mistake.html
Uh, maybe instead of competing with themselves they will compete with WP7, RIM, Apple, webOS???
Android is "open-source" to OEMs since they can pretty much put whatever skins they want on the products. However, if what Andy Rubin says is true, that Google is not changing the rules and that the custom required approval from Google, then the "open-source" label is questionable. By definition, if a developer distributes a piece of open-source software, the developer relinquishes control over what the end user does with it. When Google gives away Android to OEMs under an open-source license, Google relinquishes control over what OEMs do with it.
If Google is going to require approval for the skins OEMs put on Android devices, then Android is no longer open-source. Android is a closed-source operating system that has a wider range of acceptable uses than Apple's iOS, but it's not open-source.
All the talk by Google about "open" is nothing more than smoke-and-mirrors.
So Google is now moving to make its Android platform more like Apple's iOS platform. How ironical.
What is ironic about that? They aspire to have a mobile platform like Apple's iOS, but they aren't vertically integrated like Apple. What is a company to do? Partner with a few "select" hardware makers, screw the rest. They can have the leftover market share when Google's anointed partners have eaten their fill.
Everyone knows Google and Android are Champions of Freedom and Openness and Apple and its diabolical iOS are the Evil Insular Empire. Google wants each and every one of us to get down, get down and boogie however we like, and Apple wants to strap us into their fascist robot exoskeleton and make us all dance to the same monotonous tune.
Google told me so and it must be true. After all, their motto is "Don't Be Evil."
Open/Closed whatever
a new word - Android is Clopen
Great.
I'm adding it to my other new vocabulary word of the month ? "fugly".
Who says English is a dead language?
You can still fork Android, though, can't you?
It remains to be seen. Adding a few interface flourishes isn't a meaningful fork.
They never opened up their critical code of course, and they will leverage this for all their worth against competitors like Facebook, but at least my Android-using friends can see some relief as users of the Android OS. However, as I have mentioned before this may also be the first step in supplanting Android with the ChromeOS - especially for tablets. ChromeOS has much more versatility for a tablet framework than Android if they can nail down a proper touch interface to replace the keyboard/pointing device interface currently native to ChromeOS.
But we still haven't seen the ravening hords of Android apologists trooping in to proclaim this was the plan all along (well except for sprokkets, but since I have him ignored, I can't really use him as an example in good faith now can I?).
Perhaps we need to revisit the Android (Open) Rules:
Whatever is closed, curated or controlled is bad.
Whatever is open unfettered and free is good.
No app shall be fee'd.
No app shall be judged.
No app shall restricted.
No app shall be without ad.
All ads are good.
because they are changing or weren't really what you thought they were:
Android Real Rules:
Open is good in theory and in press, but must be...directed.
Closed curated or controlled is only good when it reinforces Google apps and prevents fragmentation.
No app shall compete with a Google app.
Some apps are bad.
Some apps need to be restricted
Google's needs trump user's needs, handset makers' needs and carriers' needs.
(credit to Animal Farm)
Palm slaps head - I wonder, how does Amazons App Market factor into this decision - after all, this sort of thing rarely happens in a vaccuum?