Why can't anybody here take something at face value? Neither Google nor Apple is in their business to provide products merely for the benefit of humanity, and neither makes that claim. The fact that anybody can interpret "open source" as "charity" is baffling. I don't think even one phone in a thousand sells because Android is open source, so why take issue with the idea? Open is not anti-Apple and Apple is not anti-open. It just happens to suit Apple to be more restrictive with their software and Google to be less restrictive. It's unnecessary to read into it any more than that.
I think the issue is that Google comes out and claims that the reason they're doing Android is to fight the evil mega-corp that is Apple and provide freedom for the users. If they didn't sit there spouting off marketing bs, nobody here would care whether Honeycomb was open or not. Apple makes claims about user experience being better on their devices, not that they're doing anything out of altruism.
This whole "openness" thing is starting to run wild me-thinks.
Why do I think that Google, HTC, Moto and the rest of them are sticking up their noses collectively at licensing, copyrights, etc., and trying to get as much "junk" out there as possible, so that in the end when it makes it to court, the judge wouldn't "dare" to pull the rug out, and the offending devices with it.
I'm thinking "1mil. shards of tech-shrapnel" when this "open" thing explodes... or I mean, "implodes".
Google has ALWAYS been in favor of violating everyone else's copyrights. Look at their effort to scan every book ever printed and make it available on the web - without the authors' permission. When enough people raised an uproar, they went to Congress and tried to get a law passed giving them permission to violate the copyrights unless the authors objected.
Sorry, Google, but you have no right to steal the work of every author in the world. If our government had even a lick of sense, that proposal would have been rejected in microseconds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance
Why can't anybody here take something at face value? Neither Google nor Apple is in their business to provide products merely for the benefit of humanity, and neither makes that claim. The fact that anybody can interpret "open source" as "charity" is baffling. I don't think even one phone in a thousand sells because Android is open source, so why take issue with the idea? Open is not anti-Apple and Apple is not anti-open. It just happens to suit Apple to be more restrictive with their software and Google to be less restrictive. It's unnecessary to read into it any more than that.
I don't know anyone who interprets 'open' as 'charity'. That's a ridiculous straw-man argument.
The issue is that Google is being blatantly hypocritical. They blast Apple for not being open and stir up all the technology 'journalists' and bloggers to create a frenzy around how great openness is - but their own product is not open by any reasonable sense of the word.
I would have thought that 'do no evil' would have precluded someone from blatant lies to the press, but I guess not.
If Google is so open like they say Android is, then they would have put dissenting viewpoints on their "global warming" members. They selected every single member on that based on their belief that global warming is real. Yeah, that's open right there.
I don't know anyone who interprets 'open' as 'charity'. That's a ridiculous straw-man argument.
The issue is that Google is being blatantly hypocritical. They blast Apple for not being open and stir up all the technology 'journalists' and bloggers to create a frenzy around how great openness is - but their own product is not open by any reasonable sense of the word.
I would have thought that 'do no evil' would have precluded someone from blatant lies to the press, but I guess not.
I didn't make any argument there. I did, however, read the rest of the posts before mine and make a reasonable statement about the sentiments of other posters.
The big point of contention seems to be Google's PR, and PR is a slippery topic. For any organization, creating an image is an exercise in deception. You have to tell the truth...just not the whole truth.
That said, I don't think Google is hiding much here. I'm not an expert on open-source software (or software in general, for that matter), but I did look up the requirements for software to be considered open-source according to the Open Source Initiative ( http://opensource.org/docs/osd ), and it seems to me that Android still meets nine of the ten, the one violation coming from Google's recent decision to temporarily restrict Honeycomb distribution. Whether that's good or bad, I don't know, but it sounds like Google is more interested in saving other companies from their own mistakes than they are in locking Android away forever.
Long story short, this stuff should not matter to any of us (assuming we're all basic consumers), but if it does matter to you, at least check up on the facts before you form your own opinion.
Honeycomb is half-baked and not ready for production. Which definition of "open" means you release source code while you're still writing it?
The article makes it clear that Google will be releasing the code to allow anyone to modify freely, but it will need to remain within certain basic requirements to qualify for the "Android" brand. I'm not sure how you can criticize fragmentation and then criticize steps towards fixing it.
Seems to be making people nervous that Google is trying to find some happy middle ground between the wide open mess that fragmentation doomsdayers have been preaching and the Apple closed monopolistic system.
The big point of contention seems to be Google's PR, and PR is a slippery topic. For any organization, creating an image is an exercise in deception. You have to tell the truth...just not the whole truth.
And that's the entire point that you keep missing.
Google is no longer (if they ever did) telling the truth about 'open' or about intellectual property.
It would be one thing if they hadn't yet given Honeycomb to anyone yet. And were waiting to give it to everyone at the same time. They gave it to Motorola and from the sounds of things Sony and Samsung will soon come out with Honeycomb tablets.
The problem is giving the OS to preferred partners before you release it freely to everyone. That is not open source.
The reason it matters to us is because Google markets Android as being the open source alternative to Apple closed iOS.
It is understandable that Google's need to have some control over the direction of Android. But they are playing pretty fast and loose with the semantics. You cannot market something as open source and at the same time attempt to control who gets to have it first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance
That said, I don't think Google is hiding much here. I'm not an expert on open-source software (or software in general, for that matter), but I did look up the requirements for software to be considered open-source according to the Open Source Initiative ( http://opensource.org/docs/osd ), and it seems to me that Android still meets nine of the ten, the one violation coming from Google's recent decision to temporarily restrict Honeycomb distribution. Whether that's good or bad, I don't know, but it sounds like Google is more interested in saving other companies from their own mistakes than they are in locking Android away forever.
Long story short, this stuff should not matter to any of us (assuming we're all basic consumers), but if it does matter to you, at least check up on the facts before you form your own opinion.
I'm not going to defend Google on their Open Source initiative, but you make yourself look like an ass talking out of it as if you know jack about Atmospheric Physics and Geological Physics. Keep talking. Please. Just ignore my comments.
Keep spreadin' the faith that Global Warmin' [no longer even called that as it's Climate Change, or as a Mechanical Engineer I call it Global Heat Redistribution in a Nonlinear Dynamics Model creating pockets of deltas beyond traditional tolerances to such an extreme it's impacting trade winds and seasonal averages well founded since we've become an Industrial World] Faith because I find it ironic that people actually think this Atmospheric Regulated System has some infinite amount of tolerance for subterranean byproducts without damaging the basic cycle of healthy Photosynthesis, etc.
I was going to post some weak defense of Google. Then I was like screw it. Your post is pure gold. I may even repeat that if I am called upon to speak to a group of engineers. I'm vaguely familiar btw with what you're getting at, taking a few eciv courses now. Not going to say I'm even remotely on par with an engineer but I'm starting to get the engineering ethos, concepts and lingo. I just hope I can squeeze that into my sig. That made my day sir, very well played.
Honeycomb is half-baked and not ready for production. Which definition of "open" means you release source code while you're still writing it?
Haven't you heard that Honeycomb is in a shipping product right now.
Quote:
The article makes it clear that Google will be releasing the code to allow anyone to modify freely, but it will need to remain within certain basic requirements to qualify for the "Android" brand. I'm not sure how you can criticize fragmentation and then criticize steps towards fixing it.
Google will release the code for everyone eventually. Open means its released to everyone at the same time.
No one has a problem with Google controlling the fragmentation problem. You cannot control fragmentation and claim to be open source both at the same time.
Quote:
Seems to be making people nervous that Google is trying to find some happy middle ground between the wide open mess that fragmentation doomsdayers have been preaching and the Apple closed monopolistic system.
Which is the point. Open source means that its OPEN. People are free to do with the code whatever they want. It does not mean that the primary contributor to the code controls fragmentation.
Honeycomb is half-baked and not ready for production. Which definition of "open" means you release source code while you're still writing it?
The article makes it clear that Google will be releasing the code to allow anyone to modify freely, but it will need to remain within certain basic requirements to qualify for the "Android" brand. I'm not sure how you can criticize fragmentation and then criticize steps towards fixing it.
Seems to be making people nervous that Google is trying to find some happy middle ground between the wide open mess that fragmentation doomsdayers have been preaching and the Apple closed monopolistic system.
but let's disabuse you of some mistaken notions on this. Honeycomb was fully baked for tablet but not phone. They closed it because they built in shortcuts for the tablet device category that would not allow it to function well on a phone device. gFans argue that this is exactly what Apple did initially with iOS when they introduced iPad, and then reconverged the iOS versions downstream. Subtle difference here is that Apple openly and categorically controls the versioning and the use of iOS, where Google insists that Android is wide open. This has been stated by Google and Rubin time and again as a dunning point against Apple's "draconian, monopolistic, curated locked-down, not-to-be messed-with" approach to delivering iOS and its supported devices to the public.
Open is open except when you restrict that openness, which can be not quite as open as it used to be, not closed but restricted, not everyone but preferred partners, and of course everyone except those who directly compete against one of our proprietary products (Skyhook, Facebook) but categorically is not open in any real sense of the word. Even if you call it "happy middle ground". Google is being taken to task for trying to on one hand flog Apple for controlling the delivery of its product to the consumer, and now 4 years after introducing and screaming at the top of their lungs about how open they are, restricting and controlling it. Some would call this hypocrisy, some call it lying, some call it the evolving reality of commercial platform support for Android.
And let's get something straight here AGAIN. Apple maintains no monopoly in any market, including mp3 players. They are behind most of the major player at 2,3 or 4th place (or further back) in all their current markets except iPods. You keep using that word - it doesn't mean what you think it means.
There is no nervousness here just mild to extreme annoyance and in some cases extreme outrage that Android thinks they can switch gears on public perception about being open and get away with it. Android - the new open.
Android is open as in license-able. Back in the day, open meant you weren't proprietary and sold one's platform software to anyone instead of keeping it in-house, only residing on one company's hardware. Only difference today is that the core AndroidOS license is free and comes with source code. Google add-ons like the Android Market, Google Maps, and other Google service apps are also license-able services that can come at a non-zero cost. Windows Mobile was just as open in this sense, with the obvious difference that MS business model is to license software at a cost.
Android is not open as in open source. In open source, the org controlling the software doesn't keep the source code private until they feel like releasing it. Developers can check-in and contribute to the code. The design decisions are open and discussed. Android has the attributes of open source as users can have the source after the fact, but it violates the spirit of open source by keeping its development process behind Google's OHA. If Android was really all in with open source, Honeycomb source code would have been available when development first started. Seeing the warts, bad decisions, do-overs, etc, are all part of the process.
If you look at Google's statement, they always just say "open". They never say "open source". Users, developers, and bloggers often conflate the two, and it's obvious Google takes advantage of it.
Geez, some of you guys must have gone to the same school as Bill Clinton, arguing over the definition of "is".
How's this for a practical application of "open": If Apple desired to build an Android handset of their own, they're welcome to. The latest handset source-code, code-named "Gingerbread" is free for them to use. They can even modify it as they see fit. Or if an Android tablet is the target, they can do that too using the latest for tablets, "Honeycomb". For all practical purposes, that would be considered open by most normal rational people.
They closed it because they built in shortcuts for the tablet device category that would not allow it to function well on a phone device.
Can't believe hardly anyone called Google out on this line of reasoning or excuse. They don't want companies taking the software and putting it on phones? WTF!? My first thought at this was who the heck would want to put Honeycomb on a phone!? That's a pretty bogus reason.
Second thought is that there's a good reason to release the source code: there are like 30 tablets (5 to 10 inch screen sizes) on the market today that are running Android 1.6 to 2.2. How about letting users and owners of Archos, Advent, Augen, Dell, Viewsonic, Notion Ink, Velocity Micro, Samsung, Toshiba or Viewsonic take the source code and install it on their existing, already in their hands tablets.
Third thought is that Google is afraid of companies putting Honeycomb on phones? WTF!? Companies are having a hard time updating to Gingerbread. There are currently like 2 phones that have 4 month old Gingerbread: Nexus One and Nexus S. By the time any company decides to put Honeycomb on their phone device, it'll be something like August, and Ice Cream would be 3 months old by then.
I don't fault Google for preaching openness while being, as one might say, DRACONIAN. They're a business whose primary interest is to make money, and if they want to take advantage of the people who blindly believe that Google's a humanitarian charity and not a for-profit business, then kudos to them. It's the fanboys who swallow the drivel who annoy me. And people think Apple fans are deluded. I don't think even the most rabid Apple fanboy pretends that people at Apple make awesome products just out of the goodness of their hearts.
Seriously. STFU. You are another mindless poster who has no clue. Let us know when you actually have something intelligent to say.
Care to explain WTH you are actually implying because I can't find any connection to reality, and I've been reading AI comments for years.
Usually, people commenting here like Apple products for what they are, and they pay good money to use them. You can slap all kinds of qualifications on 'people who like Apple products', but none of them imply the typical Apple user thinks Apple is not out there to make money, just like every other business. Over here no-one seems to feel bad about directly filling Apple's pockets, as long as their products are great, which they are, at least in my opinion.
You are really preaching to the wrong choir and being a hypocrite if you try to spin things as if Apple 'fanboys' buy Apple because they like how 'open' it is, or how altruistic Apple is for giving us the privilege of buying their stuff. On the one hand you probably don't have any problem saying that Apple products are 'overpriced', while on the other hand you are now trying to imply that the people who buy these 'overpriced products' with REAL MONEY, yet report insanely high customer satifaction numbers, do so because they think Apple is like a charity. A bit like how fandroids seem to think Google is being 'open' or 'free' just for their own good.
Or summarizing: you are making no sense and you are quickly starting to climb my top-10 of most useless trolls around here.
I didn't say typical apple fan, or even typical AppleInsider reader. I said Typical AI commenter (like you). That's why you don't see what I'm saying, you think Religiously defending a company is just typical behavior and that anyone who dared to suggest that their actions are based on Profit motive is obviously just a troll.
Apple also has the right to charge whatever they want for their products, I've never argued otherwise. In fact, Them making money isn't the problem. The problem is AI (and commenters like you) trying to insist that their profit motive is actually altruism.
---Apple blocks Cross compilers (delaying developers from porting Simple apps between platforms): AI Commenter's insist this is to ensure that the quality of apps remains high, ignoring the Crapps compiled in native code or the fact that some apps (like simple games) don't gain much, if anything from native code.
When Anyone dared to mention that Apple was doing this to help limit competition, by forcing developers to write native code apps, meaning they would have to re-write everything if they wanted to port it out, AI commentors came out in force to insist that Apple was just looking out for their customer base, and that to assume a profit motive was wrong.
Then They relax the regulations, largely in part to allow games based on the Unreal Engine into the marketplace, and suddenly AI commentors were OK with the idea of non-native code, because Apple said it was OK.
--Apple demands a 30% cut of any transaction initiated on a iOS device, even for recurring subscriptions.
AI commenters INSISTED this was mainly for convenience and privacy for the customer, and besides Apple was losing SO MUCH MONEY by not charging that they deserved a part of the income developers (who they actively recruited for YEARS and didn't try and screw them like this).
Nevermind that companies like Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, etc already had developed Ecosystems before they came to iOS, or that this could be (in large part) because they were competing directly against services Apple offered or was planning on offering in the near future. That the hosting and payment for these "In app purchases" was handled by those companies already, and the only burden on Apple was hosting the initial app (which the companies did pay for)
In fact, I even argued that Apple was still in their rights to ask for a finders fee, or a "rental" fee for opening their customer base up to these companies, but a 30% tax was too high, and This wasn't enough for you and others. No, Apple was doing this for YOUR GOOD, so they deserved that 30%
Every move by apple is spun on this site, not as them making smart business moves, but as a move by them to "Look out" for the consumer, or improving user experience. See the pattern? Apple's moves are, according to this site, done for YOUR benefit, and not for the fact that it will make them more money. That's "WTH" I was talking about.
I'm fine with Apple making money. I'm Fine with them making a lot of money and for people, even customers to be happy to give them that money. I still think that their laptops are some of the best around. The problem I have is that people seem to worship their moves and assume that everything they do is for the customers benefit, which is stupid. Apple Makes decisions based on Profit Motive. Insisting otherwise is akin to the Fandroid who answers every question with "But it's open!" (which is why I made my initial post in this thread)
And I don't care what you think of me. I don't write here for you, you're already too far gone. The fact that you think I said that Apple products were "Overpriced" proves that you're not really reading my posts anyway. Why should I care if you ignore me?
I believe the majority of people here understand that Apple is a business. What Apple does is first and foremost to the benefit of Apple's business. At the same time Apple has to compete in the open market. Conversely what Apple's decisions have to have some degree of benefit for the customer who purchases their products and services.
Where this debate has some merit is in the fact that Apple in some instances has championed the consumer over the business interests of other companies. Its true that championing the consumer was to the benefit of Apple. But what is wrong with that?
iTunes is the main example. For years Apple has been fighting record labels, television studios, and movie studios over price points and content rights for iTunes. This fight was a good business move for Apple and ultimately this fight was to the benefit of the consumer.
Apple fought Microsoft and the dominance of Windows and Internet Explorer. Without Apple Microsoft would not have had as much motivation to improve Windows and HTML5 would not have had as much of a fighting chance against Active X. These are all to the benefit of the consumer.
With the iPhone Apple fought the carrier lock on mobile phone manufacturers. The model that Apple has set for the iPhone has become far more common in the mobile phone industry and carriers have far less control than they had perviously. This is to the benefit of the consumer.
Right now Apple is fighting with news and magazine publishers over the control of consumer information. Publishers want to hold on to their old business model of being able to sell consumer information. I cannot see how most of us would prefer to have that option.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno
Every move by apple is spun on this site, not as them making smart business moves, but as a move by them to "Look out" for the consumer, or improving user experience. See the pattern? Apple's moves are, according to this site, done for YOUR benefit, and not for the fact that it will make them more money. That's "WTH" I was talking about.
I believe the majority of people here understand that Apple is a business. What Apple does is first and foremost to the benefit of Apple's business. At the same time Apple has to compete in the open market. Conversely what Apple's decisions have to have some degree of benefit for the customer who purchases their products and services.
Where this debate has some merit is in the fact that Apple in some instances has championed the consumer over the business interests of other companies. Its true that championing the consumer was to the benefit of Apple. But what is wrong with that?
iTunes is the main example. For years Apple has been fighting record labels, television studios, and movie studios over price points and content rights for iTunes. This fight was a good business move for Apple and ultimately this fight was to the benefit of the consumer.
Right now Apple is fighting with news and magazine publishers over the control of consumer information. Publishers want to hold on to their old business model of being able to sell consumer information. I cannot see how most of us would prefer to have that option.
Most of the people who read this site understand that. Most of the people who comment on this site don't.
And the reason people are raising a fuss over the 30% cut isn't privacy issues. It NEVER has been. The issue is that Apple's essentially taking the sellers cut while all their doing is providing the venue. Apple shouldn't get a 30% cut of a magazine subscription I buy simply because I ordered it on my phone initially instead of waiting until I got home to order it online. A finders fee? Maybe. Have those places pay a higher premium for hosting the app? Possibly. a 30% cut? No. On top of that, why not at least allow the app developers to present the option to the customer? EG: two choices for payment: "Pay with itunes account" "Pay with creditcard/check/paypal/giftcard. They're not doing this for the customer's benefit, AT ALL.
They still have all your information, and they have their own advertising platform (iAds) that they used that information for. Not to mention the Genius suggestions. It's a nice idea, but it's basically targeted ads, you know that right?
The whole "Don't you want privacy?" argument is a red herring, but since you brought it up: Advertising keeps the cost of products down. Without that advertising data, the cost of the product will have to increase dramatically and/or the quality of the content will suffer because the venues can't afford to pay the writers what they used to.
Apple is significantly increasing the cost of doing business without offering any incentives to do so. And no, their potential market isn't the incentive because publishers used to have access to them anyway. Apple's removing a feature they used to attract both customers and content creators and demanding that people pay for it now.
Google is cracking down on high-profile developers getting early access to Android. You average fandroid can still run that git/make command Rubin famously tweeted. But the Amazons and Motorolas of the world will need to kiss Rubin's ring before they get the latest version.
And they'll need to kiss something else before they're allowed to release products that use it.
Google is cracking down on high-profile developers getting early access to Android. You average fandroid can still run that git/make command Rubin famously tweeted. But the Amazons and Motorolas of the world will need to kiss Rubin's ring before they get the latest version.
And they'll need to kiss something else before they're allowed to release products that use it.
Actually, this is exactly opposite of what the article (and the blog post it was about) is talking about.
The blog post came out to say that those rumors your quoting are not true, that Google is not changing their policies at all when it comes to access to the software. Honeycomb source will be released, but only after it has phone functionality working.
Now, the argument as to if this is what Google should do (of if they should've withheld all honeycomb products until the code was finalized) is another discussion entirely. One that shouldn't take place on an Apple news site.
Comments
Why can't anybody here take something at face value? Neither Google nor Apple is in their business to provide products merely for the benefit of humanity, and neither makes that claim. The fact that anybody can interpret "open source" as "charity" is baffling. I don't think even one phone in a thousand sells because Android is open source, so why take issue with the idea? Open is not anti-Apple and Apple is not anti-open. It just happens to suit Apple to be more restrictive with their software and Google to be less restrictive. It's unnecessary to read into it any more than that.
I think the issue is that Google comes out and claims that the reason they're doing Android is to fight the evil mega-corp that is Apple and provide freedom for the users. If they didn't sit there spouting off marketing bs, nobody here would care whether Honeycomb was open or not. Apple makes claims about user experience being better on their devices, not that they're doing anything out of altruism.
I found this thread and it's comments quite interesting:
WARNING: Rough language
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/1764.html#comments
This whole "openness" thing is starting to run wild me-thinks.
Why do I think that Google, HTC, Moto and the rest of them are sticking up their noses collectively at licensing, copyrights, etc., and trying to get as much "junk" out there as possible, so that in the end when it makes it to court, the judge wouldn't "dare" to pull the rug out, and the offending devices with it.
I'm thinking "1mil. shards of tech-shrapnel" when this "open" thing explodes... or I mean, "implodes".
Google has ALWAYS been in favor of violating everyone else's copyrights. Look at their effort to scan every book ever printed and make it available on the web - without the authors' permission. When enough people raised an uproar, they went to Congress and tried to get a law passed giving them permission to violate the copyrights unless the authors objected.
Sorry, Google, but you have no right to steal the work of every author in the world. If our government had even a lick of sense, that proposal would have been rejected in microseconds.
Why can't anybody here take something at face value? Neither Google nor Apple is in their business to provide products merely for the benefit of humanity, and neither makes that claim. The fact that anybody can interpret "open source" as "charity" is baffling. I don't think even one phone in a thousand sells because Android is open source, so why take issue with the idea? Open is not anti-Apple and Apple is not anti-open. It just happens to suit Apple to be more restrictive with their software and Google to be less restrictive. It's unnecessary to read into it any more than that.
I don't know anyone who interprets 'open' as 'charity'. That's a ridiculous straw-man argument.
The issue is that Google is being blatantly hypocritical. They blast Apple for not being open and stir up all the technology 'journalists' and bloggers to create a frenzy around how great openness is - but their own product is not open by any reasonable sense of the word.
I would have thought that 'do no evil' would have precluded someone from blatant lies to the press, but I guess not.
If Google is so open like they say Android is, then they would have put dissenting viewpoints on their "global warming" members. They selected every single member on that based on their belief that global warming is real. Yeah, that's open right there.
Wow. Random much?
I don't know anyone who interprets 'open' as 'charity'. That's a ridiculous straw-man argument.
The issue is that Google is being blatantly hypocritical. They blast Apple for not being open and stir up all the technology 'journalists' and bloggers to create a frenzy around how great openness is - but their own product is not open by any reasonable sense of the word.
I would have thought that 'do no evil' would have precluded someone from blatant lies to the press, but I guess not.
I didn't make any argument there. I did, however, read the rest of the posts before mine and make a reasonable statement about the sentiments of other posters.
The big point of contention seems to be Google's PR, and PR is a slippery topic. For any organization, creating an image is an exercise in deception. You have to tell the truth...just not the whole truth.
That said, I don't think Google is hiding much here. I'm not an expert on open-source software (or software in general, for that matter), but I did look up the requirements for software to be considered open-source according to the Open Source Initiative ( http://opensource.org/docs/osd ), and it seems to me that Android still meets nine of the ten, the one violation coming from Google's recent decision to temporarily restrict Honeycomb distribution. Whether that's good or bad, I don't know, but it sounds like Google is more interested in saving other companies from their own mistakes than they are in locking Android away forever.
Long story short, this stuff should not matter to any of us (assuming we're all basic consumers), but if it does matter to you, at least check up on the facts before you form your own opinion.
The article makes it clear that Google will be releasing the code to allow anyone to modify freely, but it will need to remain within certain basic requirements to qualify for the "Android" brand. I'm not sure how you can criticize fragmentation and then criticize steps towards fixing it.
Seems to be making people nervous that Google is trying to find some happy middle ground between the wide open mess that fragmentation doomsdayers have been preaching and the Apple closed monopolistic system.
The big point of contention seems to be Google's PR, and PR is a slippery topic. For any organization, creating an image is an exercise in deception. You have to tell the truth...just not the whole truth.
And that's the entire point that you keep missing.
Google is no longer (if they ever did) telling the truth about 'open' or about intellectual property.
And that's the entire point that you keep missing.
Google is no longer (if they ever did) telling the truth about 'open' or about intellectual property.
I'm guessing you didn't click the link, did you?
The problem is giving the OS to preferred partners before you release it freely to everyone. That is not open source.
The reason it matters to us is because Google markets Android as being the open source alternative to Apple closed iOS.
It is understandable that Google's need to have some control over the direction of Android. But they are playing pretty fast and loose with the semantics. You cannot market something as open source and at the same time attempt to control who gets to have it first.
That said, I don't think Google is hiding much here. I'm not an expert on open-source software (or software in general, for that matter), but I did look up the requirements for software to be considered open-source according to the Open Source Initiative ( http://opensource.org/docs/osd ), and it seems to me that Android still meets nine of the ten, the one violation coming from Google's recent decision to temporarily restrict Honeycomb distribution. Whether that's good or bad, I don't know, but it sounds like Google is more interested in saving other companies from their own mistakes than they are in locking Android away forever.
Long story short, this stuff should not matter to any of us (assuming we're all basic consumers), but if it does matter to you, at least check up on the facts before you form your own opinion.
I'm not going to defend Google on their Open Source initiative, but you make yourself look like an ass talking out of it as if you know jack about Atmospheric Physics and Geological Physics. Keep talking. Please. Just ignore my comments.
Keep spreadin' the faith that Global Warmin' [no longer even called that as it's Climate Change, or as a Mechanical Engineer I call it Global Heat Redistribution in a Nonlinear Dynamics Model creating pockets of deltas beyond traditional tolerances to such an extreme it's impacting trade winds and seasonal averages well founded since we've become an Industrial World] Faith because I find it ironic that people actually think this Atmospheric Regulated System has some infinite amount of tolerance for subterranean byproducts without damaging the basic cycle of healthy Photosynthesis, etc.
I was going to post some weak defense of Google. Then I was like screw it. Your post is pure gold. I may even repeat that if I am called upon to speak to a group of engineers. I'm vaguely familiar btw with what you're getting at, taking a few eciv courses now. Not going to say I'm even remotely on par with an engineer but I'm starting to get the engineering ethos, concepts and lingo. I just hope I can squeeze that into my sig. That made my day sir, very well played.
Honeycomb is half-baked and not ready for production. Which definition of "open" means you release source code while you're still writing it?
Haven't you heard that Honeycomb is in a shipping product right now.
The article makes it clear that Google will be releasing the code to allow anyone to modify freely, but it will need to remain within certain basic requirements to qualify for the "Android" brand. I'm not sure how you can criticize fragmentation and then criticize steps towards fixing it.
Google will release the code for everyone eventually. Open means its released to everyone at the same time.
No one has a problem with Google controlling the fragmentation problem. You cannot control fragmentation and claim to be open source both at the same time.
Seems to be making people nervous that Google is trying to find some happy middle ground between the wide open mess that fragmentation doomsdayers have been preaching and the Apple closed monopolistic system.
Which is the point. Open source means that its OPEN. People are free to do with the code whatever they want. It does not mean that the primary contributor to the code controls fragmentation.
Honeycomb is half-baked and not ready for production. Which definition of "open" means you release source code while you're still writing it?
The article makes it clear that Google will be releasing the code to allow anyone to modify freely, but it will need to remain within certain basic requirements to qualify for the "Android" brand. I'm not sure how you can criticize fragmentation and then criticize steps towards fixing it.
Seems to be making people nervous that Google is trying to find some happy middle ground between the wide open mess that fragmentation doomsdayers have been preaching and the Apple closed monopolistic system.
but let's disabuse you of some mistaken notions on this. Honeycomb was fully baked for tablet but not phone. They closed it because they built in shortcuts for the tablet device category that would not allow it to function well on a phone device. gFans argue that this is exactly what Apple did initially with iOS when they introduced iPad, and then reconverged the iOS versions downstream. Subtle difference here is that Apple openly and categorically controls the versioning and the use of iOS, where Google insists that Android is wide open. This has been stated by Google and Rubin time and again as a dunning point against Apple's "draconian, monopolistic, curated locked-down, not-to-be messed-with" approach to delivering iOS and its supported devices to the public.
Open is open except when you restrict that openness, which can be not quite as open as it used to be, not closed but restricted, not everyone but preferred partners, and of course everyone except those who directly compete against one of our proprietary products (Skyhook, Facebook) but categorically is not open in any real sense of the word. Even if you call it "happy middle ground". Google is being taken to task for trying to on one hand flog Apple for controlling the delivery of its product to the consumer, and now 4 years after introducing and screaming at the top of their lungs about how open they are, restricting and controlling it. Some would call this hypocrisy, some call it lying, some call it the evolving reality of commercial platform support for Android.
And let's get something straight here AGAIN. Apple maintains no monopoly in any market, including mp3 players. They are behind most of the major player at 2,3 or 4th place (or further back) in all their current markets except iPods. You keep using that word - it doesn't mean what you think it means.
There is no nervousness here just mild to extreme annoyance and in some cases extreme outrage that Android thinks they can switch gears on public perception about being open and get away with it. Android - the new open.
Android is open as in license-able. Back in the day, open meant you weren't proprietary and sold one's platform software to anyone instead of keeping it in-house, only residing on one company's hardware. Only difference today is that the core AndroidOS license is free and comes with source code. Google add-ons like the Android Market, Google Maps, and other Google service apps are also license-able services that can come at a non-zero cost. Windows Mobile was just as open in this sense, with the obvious difference that MS business model is to license software at a cost.
Android is not open as in open source. In open source, the org controlling the software doesn't keep the source code private until they feel like releasing it. Developers can check-in and contribute to the code. The design decisions are open and discussed. Android has the attributes of open source as users can have the source after the fact, but it violates the spirit of open source by keeping its development process behind Google's OHA. If Android was really all in with open source, Honeycomb source code would have been available when development first started. Seeing the warts, bad decisions, do-overs, etc, are all part of the process.
If you look at Google's statement, they always just say "open". They never say "open source". Users, developers, and bloggers often conflate the two, and it's obvious Google takes advantage of it.
How's this for a practical application of "open": If Apple desired to build an Android handset of their own, they're welcome to. The latest handset source-code, code-named "Gingerbread" is free for them to use. They can even modify it as they see fit. Or if an Android tablet is the target, they can do that too using the latest for tablets, "Honeycomb". For all practical purposes, that would be considered open by most normal rational people.
They closed it because they built in shortcuts for the tablet device category that would not allow it to function well on a phone device.
Can't believe hardly anyone called Google out on this line of reasoning or excuse. They don't want companies taking the software and putting it on phones? WTF!? My first thought at this was who the heck would want to put Honeycomb on a phone!? That's a pretty bogus reason.
Second thought is that there's a good reason to release the source code: there are like 30 tablets (5 to 10 inch screen sizes) on the market today that are running Android 1.6 to 2.2. How about letting users and owners of Archos, Advent, Augen, Dell, Viewsonic, Notion Ink, Velocity Micro, Samsung, Toshiba or Viewsonic take the source code and install it on their existing, already in their hands tablets.
Third thought is that Google is afraid of companies putting Honeycomb on phones? WTF!? Companies are having a hard time updating to Gingerbread. There are currently like 2 phones that have 4 month old Gingerbread: Nexus One and Nexus S. By the time any company decides to put Honeycomb on their phone device, it'll be something like August, and Ice Cream would be 3 months old by then.
I don't fault Google for preaching openness while being, as one might say, DRACONIAN. They're a business whose primary interest is to make money, and if they want to take advantage of the people who blindly believe that Google's a humanitarian charity and not a for-profit business, then kudos to them. It's the fanboys who swallow the drivel who annoy me. And people think Apple fans are deluded. I don't think even the most rabid Apple fanboy pretends that people at Apple make awesome products just out of the goodness of their hearts.
Seriously. STFU. You are another mindless poster who has no clue. Let us know when you actually have something intelligent to say.
Care to explain WTH you are actually implying because I can't find any connection to reality, and I've been reading AI comments for years.
Usually, people commenting here like Apple products for what they are, and they pay good money to use them. You can slap all kinds of qualifications on 'people who like Apple products', but none of them imply the typical Apple user thinks Apple is not out there to make money, just like every other business. Over here no-one seems to feel bad about directly filling Apple's pockets, as long as their products are great, which they are, at least in my opinion.
You are really preaching to the wrong choir and being a hypocrite if you try to spin things as if Apple 'fanboys' buy Apple because they like how 'open' it is, or how altruistic Apple is for giving us the privilege of buying their stuff. On the one hand you probably don't have any problem saying that Apple products are 'overpriced', while on the other hand you are now trying to imply that the people who buy these 'overpriced products' with REAL MONEY, yet report insanely high customer satifaction numbers, do so because they think Apple is like a charity. A bit like how fandroids seem to think Google is being 'open' or 'free' just for their own good.
Or summarizing: you are making no sense and you are quickly starting to climb my top-10 of most useless trolls around here.
I didn't say typical apple fan, or even typical AppleInsider reader. I said Typical AI commenter (like you). That's why you don't see what I'm saying, you think Religiously defending a company is just typical behavior and that anyone who dared to suggest that their actions are based on Profit motive is obviously just a troll.
Apple also has the right to charge whatever they want for their products, I've never argued otherwise. In fact, Them making money isn't the problem. The problem is AI (and commenters like you) trying to insist that their profit motive is actually altruism.
---Apple blocks Cross compilers (delaying developers from porting Simple apps between platforms): AI Commenter's insist this is to ensure that the quality of apps remains high, ignoring the Crapps compiled in native code or the fact that some apps (like simple games) don't gain much, if anything from native code.
When Anyone dared to mention that Apple was doing this to help limit competition, by forcing developers to write native code apps, meaning they would have to re-write everything if they wanted to port it out, AI commentors came out in force to insist that Apple was just looking out for their customer base, and that to assume a profit motive was wrong.
Then They relax the regulations, largely in part to allow games based on the Unreal Engine into the marketplace, and suddenly AI commentors were OK with the idea of non-native code, because Apple said it was OK.
--Apple demands a 30% cut of any transaction initiated on a iOS device, even for recurring subscriptions.
AI commenters INSISTED this was mainly for convenience and privacy for the customer, and besides Apple was losing SO MUCH MONEY by not charging that they deserved a part of the income developers (who they actively recruited for YEARS and didn't try and screw them like this).
Nevermind that companies like Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, etc already had developed Ecosystems before they came to iOS, or that this could be (in large part) because they were competing directly against services Apple offered or was planning on offering in the near future. That the hosting and payment for these "In app purchases" was handled by those companies already, and the only burden on Apple was hosting the initial app (which the companies did pay for)
In fact, I even argued that Apple was still in their rights to ask for a finders fee, or a "rental" fee for opening their customer base up to these companies, but a 30% tax was too high, and This wasn't enough for you and others. No, Apple was doing this for YOUR GOOD, so they deserved that 30%
Every move by apple is spun on this site, not as them making smart business moves, but as a move by them to "Look out" for the consumer, or improving user experience. See the pattern? Apple's moves are, according to this site, done for YOUR benefit, and not for the fact that it will make them more money. That's "WTH" I was talking about.
I'm fine with Apple making money. I'm Fine with them making a lot of money and for people, even customers to be happy to give them that money. I still think that their laptops are some of the best around. The problem I have is that people seem to worship their moves and assume that everything they do is for the customers benefit, which is stupid. Apple Makes decisions based on Profit Motive. Insisting otherwise is akin to the Fandroid who answers every question with "But it's open!" (which is why I made my initial post in this thread)
And I don't care what you think of me. I don't write here for you, you're already too far gone. The fact that you think I said that Apple products were "Overpriced" proves that you're not really reading my posts anyway. Why should I care if you ignore me?
Where this debate has some merit is in the fact that Apple in some instances has championed the consumer over the business interests of other companies. Its true that championing the consumer was to the benefit of Apple. But what is wrong with that?
iTunes is the main example. For years Apple has been fighting record labels, television studios, and movie studios over price points and content rights for iTunes. This fight was a good business move for Apple and ultimately this fight was to the benefit of the consumer.
Apple fought Microsoft and the dominance of Windows and Internet Explorer. Without Apple Microsoft would not have had as much motivation to improve Windows and HTML5 would not have had as much of a fighting chance against Active X. These are all to the benefit of the consumer.
With the iPhone Apple fought the carrier lock on mobile phone manufacturers. The model that Apple has set for the iPhone has become far more common in the mobile phone industry and carriers have far less control than they had perviously. This is to the benefit of the consumer.
Right now Apple is fighting with news and magazine publishers over the control of consumer information. Publishers want to hold on to their old business model of being able to sell consumer information. I cannot see how most of us would prefer to have that option.
Every move by apple is spun on this site, not as them making smart business moves, but as a move by them to "Look out" for the consumer, or improving user experience. See the pattern? Apple's moves are, according to this site, done for YOUR benefit, and not for the fact that it will make them more money. That's "WTH" I was talking about.
I believe the majority of people here understand that Apple is a business. What Apple does is first and foremost to the benefit of Apple's business. At the same time Apple has to compete in the open market. Conversely what Apple's decisions have to have some degree of benefit for the customer who purchases their products and services.
Where this debate has some merit is in the fact that Apple in some instances has championed the consumer over the business interests of other companies. Its true that championing the consumer was to the benefit of Apple. But what is wrong with that?
iTunes is the main example. For years Apple has been fighting record labels, television studios, and movie studios over price points and content rights for iTunes. This fight was a good business move for Apple and ultimately this fight was to the benefit of the consumer.
Right now Apple is fighting with news and magazine publishers over the control of consumer information. Publishers want to hold on to their old business model of being able to sell consumer information. I cannot see how most of us would prefer to have that option.
Most of the people who read this site understand that. Most of the people who comment on this site don't.
And the reason people are raising a fuss over the 30% cut isn't privacy issues. It NEVER has been. The issue is that Apple's essentially taking the sellers cut while all their doing is providing the venue. Apple shouldn't get a 30% cut of a magazine subscription I buy simply because I ordered it on my phone initially instead of waiting until I got home to order it online. A finders fee? Maybe. Have those places pay a higher premium for hosting the app? Possibly. a 30% cut? No. On top of that, why not at least allow the app developers to present the option to the customer? EG: two choices for payment: "Pay with itunes account" "Pay with creditcard/check/paypal/giftcard. They're not doing this for the customer's benefit, AT ALL.
They still have all your information, and they have their own advertising platform (iAds) that they used that information for. Not to mention the Genius suggestions. It's a nice idea, but it's basically targeted ads, you know that right?
The whole "Don't you want privacy?" argument is a red herring, but since you brought it up: Advertising keeps the cost of products down. Without that advertising data, the cost of the product will have to increase dramatically and/or the quality of the content will suffer because the venues can't afford to pay the writers what they used to.
Apple is significantly increasing the cost of doing business without offering any incentives to do so. And no, their potential market isn't the incentive because publishers used to have access to them anyway. Apple's removing a feature they used to attract both customers and content creators and demanding that people pay for it now.
And they'll need to kiss something else before they're allowed to release products that use it.
Google is cracking down on high-profile developers getting early access to Android. You average fandroid can still run that git/make command Rubin famously tweeted. But the Amazons and Motorolas of the world will need to kiss Rubin's ring before they get the latest version.
And they'll need to kiss something else before they're allowed to release products that use it.
Actually, this is exactly opposite of what the article (and the blog post it was about) is talking about.
The blog post came out to say that those rumors your quoting are not true, that Google is not changing their policies at all when it comes to access to the software. Honeycomb source will be released, but only after it has phone functionality working.
Now, the argument as to if this is what Google should do (of if they should've withheld all honeycomb products until the code was finalized) is another discussion entirely. One that shouldn't take place on an Apple news site.