That's not true. Amazon forked Android and made their own version. Because of that Google no longer allows access to Google Play. Amazon isn't member of the OHA, so they are allowed to do this with Android. Amazon made the choice to fork Android, but they didn't "deny" access to Google Play - their right to access Google Play was termiated when they forked Android. Quit trying to make it sound like Amazon closed it off as a choice and could allow access if they desired. Amazon will never get access to Google Play.
Members of the OHA (any major Android phone vendor) has very strict guidelines as to what they can modify in order to maintain compatibility and allow access to Google Play.
And what's the big deal about not accessing the Google Play store? Amazon has their own app store and all the worthwhile apps are on there.
And what's the big deal about not accessing the Google Play store? Amazon has their own app store and all the worthwhile apps are on there.
Your original post claimed Amazon made a choice. They never had a choice - when they forked Android they lost access to Google Play. Now you're trying to change the argument as you were proven wrong.
And it does matter. It shows that Google isn't as open as people claim and they have a different set of rules depending on which version of Android you use.
Maybe you want to take your own advice and read what open source actually means and then compare it to Android. Android is far from open source and is widely regarded as the "least open" of the open source projects out there.
Android used on Samsung, Motorola and other popular devices is not the same version of Android that is free to download and customize any way you want (like Amazon did). Once you do that you're no longer allowed access to Google Play.
Open Source is a buzz word thrown around by fandroids who don't have a clue about software development. But hey, it sounds cool to say you use a product that's "open".
The overarching point you tried to make is that Android is not open. In doing so you gave several reasons why it is open, namely the skins that manufacturers use and Amazon's fork of Android.
Bull. Yet so typical. Take what I said out of context (or outright make something up) so you have something to point out where I made a mistake or contradicted myself. My original post (which in un-edited):
Android used on Samsung, Motorola and other popular devices is not the same version of Android that is free to download and customize any way you want (like Amazon did). Once you do that you're no longer allowed access to Google Play.
Your reading comprehension is poor if you took my original quote and somehow thought I was talking about skins. I'm clearly talking about two versions of Android - the one Samsung and others use and the one Amazon uses.
No matter what company uses Android or what they do to it, the basic software is still Android, which Google allows anyone to download and modify. You're trying to say that because Google restricts access to it's app store to versions of Android that have a limited amount of differentiation from the base it is not open.
Your original post claimed Amazon made a choice. They never had a choice - when they forked Android they lost access to Google Play. Now you're trying to change the argument as you were proven wrong.
And it does matter. It shows that Google isn't as open as people claim and they have a different set of rules depending on which version of Android you use.
Of course they made a choice, they chose to make their own forked version of Android and make a app store where they get the 30% cut from their customers and anyone else who wants to use their app store.
No matter what company uses Android or what they do to it, the basic software is still Android, which Google allows anyone to download and modify.
AOSP = Android Open Source Project is Open Source (which is the kernel that Amazon is able to modify and build from)
"Android" itself is Google Proprietary Software. Google Compatibility Testing, Branding, Private API's, UI interface guidelines, Modified Kernel, Google Services and Play Store. AKA, Google wants to Mine the end users data, and in return provides a fully functional OS with its services. A Manufacture is even allowed to change out or Add duplicating services, as long as Google is still able to acquire end user data points with provided services (which is the Google Compatibility Testing). But in no way is a Manufacture able to inhibit the flow of user data back to Google.
Android is NOT Open Source. You (as an end user) do not have the ability to change or modify/Omit Google's data Logging API's or modify the Kernel to restrict Particular services.
AOSP is a free micro kernel that you are free to do with what you please. It is similar to Android only in parts of the Kernel, but that is all.
For every Fandroid who has ever uttered the term "walled garden" to refer to the iTunes app store, that crow has to taste pretty bitter right about now.
The Apple App Store is still a walled garden, with no alternative unless we jailbreak. That hasn't changed.
And Google's Play store is now a walled garden with no alternative unless you sideload. See what I did there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B
Why allow those apps into their store to begin with?
Lots of us used to ask that about Apple, back when they were letting all sorts of crap in just to build the number of apps.
Finally, Apple had enough, and did several purges of thousands of apps that were just web page pointers, fart and flashlight apps, were "too sexy", and so forth. Of course, sometimes they went a bit too far, like when they banned that Pulitzer Prize satirist at first. Or the other way, when they approved that "baby shaker" killer app.
As long as they fix things up, then for both Google or Apple, better late than never.
For the record, IMO it's no better when Apple does it. (Or no worse.)
Publish the guidelines, if the app is in a gray area, publish the changes. But making the changes on the sly without sufficient explanation isn't fair to developers of either the iOS or Android persuasion. My 2¢, anyway.
Here is your entire post.
The overarching point you tried to make is that Android is not open. In doing so you gave several reasons why it is open, namely the skins that manufacturers use and Amazon's fork of Android.
No matter what company uses Android or what they do to it, the basic software is still Android, which Google allows anyone to download and modify. You're trying to say that because Google restricts access to it's app store to versions of Android that have a limited amount of differentiation from the base it is not open.
You are a poor troll. I never once mentioned skins yet you seem determined to try and steer the discussion that way. Skins are irrelevant to the discussion at hand - whether Android is open (which it's not).
I used access to Google Play as an example, but it's not the only one. I see you're carefully avoiding discussion of the OHA and what rules members have to follow. If you read that and come back to say Android is open, well, I want some of what you're smoking. For example, Acer tried to make a phone for Alibaba that ran Aliyun (an Android fork). Google pressured Acer not to release the phone (the day before the announcement) and Acer complied, or else they could lose membership in the OHA (and lose the ability to make and sell Android phones with full access to Google services). Yeah, that sure sounds like open software to me.
The version of Android that Amazon forked isn't really open source either. There are many different aspects that define open source software - it's not black and white. For example, who controls the source code? In many open source projects different companies can modify the source code and submit the modifications back to the project. In this way you have many developers contributing to the software and a system in place where improvements and source code updates (like bug fixes) are checked by multiple parties before being approved to become a part of the software. For Android all the source is controlled by Google. Samsung can't modify Android and then have their modifications added to the Android pool. Neither can Amazon. Google is the one responsible for all of Android and they don't accept outside contributions. All Amazon can do is modify something Google has provided to them and use it as they see fit. It's open source on a one-way street.
I can't tell if people are just being willfully ignorant to try and slam google or if they generally have no idea...
Google Play is a store, but not the only way to acquire apps for an android phone.
iTunes is a store, and the only way to get an app on your phone without jailbreaking.
My wife works for an NGO, and they recently implemented a program in Nepal/Bhutan in which data collection/transmission was performed using smartphones with an application that was specifically programmed for them.
They went with Android for obvious reasons - Their application isn't available on Google Play (probably never will be), and they were able to install it on the phones (some model of samsung) without needing to "jailbreak" the phones. They basically just drag-and-dropped from a hard drive to the phone, and it all worked. Their application on their phones, no need to clear it with google.
If they'd wanted to do the same on iPhones, they would have had to either jailbreak their phones or submit the application to Apple, have it show up on the app store and then download it via iTunes.
Sure, the Google Play store isn't Craig's List, but that doesn't mean that Android is a "walled garden" or a closed platform in the way that the iPhone/iTunes ecosystem is. I think everybody here except for a few mouthbreathers know this and this thread is just a bunch of fanboys on both sides of the fence pretending ignorance to make a point. Another typical day at AI!
I can't tell if people are just being willfully ignorant to try and slam google or if they generally have no idea...
Google Play is a store, but not the only way to acquire apps for an android phone.
iTunes is a store, and the only way to get an app on your phone without jailbreaking.
<span style="line-height:1.231;">My wife works for an NGO, and they recently implemented a program in Nepal/Bhutan in which data collection/transmission was performed using smartphones with an application that was specifically programmed for them.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.231;">They went with Android for obvious reasons - Their application isn't available on Google Play (probably never will be), and they were able to install it on the phones (some model of samsung) without needing to "jailbreak" the phones. They basically just drag-and-dropped from a hard drive to the phone, and it all worked. Their application on their phones, no need to clear it with google.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.231;">If they'd wanted to do the same on iPhones, they would have had to either jailbreak their phones or submit the application to Apple, have it show up on the app store and then download it via iTunes.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.231;">Sure, the Google Play store isn't Craig's List, but that doesn't mean that Android is a "walled garden" or a closed platform in the way that the iPhone/iTunes ecosystem is. I think everybody here except for a few mouthbreathers know this and this thread is just a bunch of fanboys on both sides of the fence pretending ignorance to make a point. Another typical day at AI!</span>
100% Bull Shite! :no:
You DO NOT NEED to jailbreak an iOS device to install in-house developed / business specific Apps for your users.
One of my clients is an NGO, and I feel your need to do things as inexpensive as possible.
However, promoting a platform that exists and continues to propagate from App piracy is a moral deterrent personally... even if I do use other Google services... although I'm constantly looking at other alternatives and implementing them for my clients (Vimeo instead of YouTube for example).
Outside of the US... Android... specifically Samsung and phones with SD card slots are popular, because the "smart and cost-conscious consumer" does not use the Google App Store for anything other than free Apps. Almost all paid apps (games mostly) are side-loaded from other sources, many of which are exact clones with language translation.
As a "content creator" for some 35 years now... yes... I have a problem with that. :grumble:
That's for AOSP. And do you think you're going to be able to submit anything more than bug fixes? You think Google will let you, for example, make a major wholesale change to Android (like adding a new feature)?
Yes, it is somewhat expensive. Although as an NGO, you might consider contacting an Apple Rep to see if any rebates could be negotiated.
Beat me to it. Although I'm not sure how you can say this is expensive. If you're hiring a developer and creating in-house Apps then $299 per year is going to be the least of your expenses.
If they'd wanted to do the same on iPhones, they would have had to either jailbreak their phones or submit the application to Apple, have it show up on the app store and then download it via iTunes.
They could use the Enterprise tools that Apple provides or make a WebApp.
Neither of which require any interaction with Apple's App store at all.
None of this plug in to drag and drop either, custom configurations containing the App can be pushed out to iOS devices.
Comments
And what's the big deal about not accessing the Google Play store? Amazon has their own app store and all the worthwhile apps are on there.
And it does matter. It shows that Google isn't as open as people claim and they have a different set of rules depending on which version of Android you use.
The overarching point you tried to make is that Android is not open. In doing so you gave several reasons why it is open, namely the skins that manufacturers use and Amazon's fork of Android.
No matter what company uses Android or what they do to it, the basic software is still Android, which Google allows anyone to download and modify. You're trying to say that because Google restricts access to it's app store to versions of Android that have a limited amount of differentiation from the base it is not open.
Of course they made a choice, they chose to make their own forked version of Android and make a app store where they get the 30% cut from their customers and anyone else who wants to use their app store.
Quote:
No matter what company uses Android or what they do to it, the basic software is still Android, which Google allows anyone to download and modify.
AOSP = Android Open Source Project is Open Source (which is the kernel that Amazon is able to modify and build from)
"Android" itself is Google Proprietary Software. Google Compatibility Testing, Branding, Private API's, UI interface guidelines, Modified Kernel, Google Services and Play Store. AKA, Google wants to Mine the end users data, and in return provides a fully functional OS with its services. A Manufacture is even allowed to change out or Add duplicating services, as long as Google is still able to acquire end user data points with provided services (which is the Google Compatibility Testing). But in no way is a Manufacture able to inhibit the flow of user data back to Google.
Android is NOT Open Source. You (as an end user) do not have the ability to change or modify/Omit Google's data Logging API's or modify the Kernel to restrict Particular services.
AOSP is a free micro kernel that you are free to do with what you please. It is similar to Android only in parts of the Kernel, but that is all.
So like Apple WebKit?
WebM
Originally Posted by hill60
WebM
Well, open to violating others, at least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B
For every Fandroid who has ever uttered the term "walled garden" to refer to the iTunes app store, that crow has to taste pretty bitter right about now.
The Apple App Store is still a walled garden, with no alternative unless we jailbreak. That hasn't changed.
And Google's Play store is now a walled garden with no alternative unless you sideload. See what I did there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B
Why allow those apps into their store to begin with?
Lots of us used to ask that about Apple, back when they were letting all sorts of crap in just to build the number of apps.
Finally, Apple had enough, and did several purges of thousands of apps that were just web page pointers, fart and flashlight apps, were "too sexy", and so forth. Of course, sometimes they went a bit too far, like when they banned that Pulitzer Prize satirist at first. Or the other way, when they approved that "baby shaker" killer app.
As long as they fix things up, then for both Google or Apple, better late than never.
For the record, IMO it's no better when Apple does it. (Or no worse.)
Publish the guidelines, if the app is in a gray area, publish the changes. But making the changes on the sly without sufficient explanation isn't fair to developers of either the iOS or Android persuasion. My 2¢, anyway.
Edit: Interesting take this morning from Ars: http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/04/apples-recent-app-store-crackdowns-a-sign-of-things-to-come/
I used access to Google Play as an example, but it's not the only one. I see you're carefully avoiding discussion of the OHA and what rules members have to follow. If you read that and come back to say Android is open, well, I want some of what you're smoking. For example, Acer tried to make a phone for Alibaba that ran Aliyun (an Android fork). Google pressured Acer not to release the phone (the day before the announcement) and Acer complied, or else they could lose membership in the OHA (and lose the ability to make and sell Android phones with full access to Google services). Yeah, that sure sounds like open software to me.
The version of Android that Amazon forked isn't really open source either. There are many different aspects that define open source software - it's not black and white. For example, who controls the source code? In many open source projects different companies can modify the source code and submit the modifications back to the project. In this way you have many developers contributing to the software and a system in place where improvements and source code updates (like bug fixes) are checked by multiple parties before being approved to become a part of the software. For Android all the source is controlled by Google. Samsung can't modify Android and then have their modifications added to the Android pool. Neither can Amazon. Google is the one responsible for all of Android and they don't accept outside contributions. All Amazon can do is modify something Google has provided to them and use it as they see fit. It's open source on a one-way street.
I can't tell if people are just being willfully ignorant to try and slam google or if they generally have no idea...
Google Play is a store, but not the only way to acquire apps for an android phone.
iTunes is a store, and the only way to get an app on your phone without jailbreaking.
My wife works for an NGO, and they recently implemented a program in Nepal/Bhutan in which data collection/transmission was performed using smartphones with an application that was specifically programmed for them.
They went with Android for obvious reasons - Their application isn't available on Google Play (probably never will be), and they were able to install it on the phones (some model of samsung) without needing to "jailbreak" the phones. They basically just drag-and-dropped from a hard drive to the phone, and it all worked. Their application on their phones, no need to clear it with google.
If they'd wanted to do the same on iPhones, they would have had to either jailbreak their phones or submit the application to Apple, have it show up on the app store and then download it via iTunes.
Sure, the Google Play store isn't Craig's List, but that doesn't mean that Android is a "walled garden" or a closed platform in the way that the iPhone/iTunes ecosystem is. I think everybody here except for a few mouthbreathers know this and this thread is just a bunch of fanboys on both sides of the fence pretending ignorance to make a point. Another typical day at AI!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
How does google define "crappy"?
"android"
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Google is the one responsible for all of Android and they don't accept outside contributions.
http://source.android.com/source/submit-patches.html
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2013/030813-the-android-malware-problem-is-267526.html
http://www.bitdefender.com/news/user-privacy-plunges-as-android-aggressive-adware-and-malware-rise-2732.html
100% Bull Shite! :no:
You DO NOT NEED to jailbreak an iOS device to install in-house developed / business specific Apps for your users.
You DO need to have an iOS Developer Enterprise Account
Yes, it is somewhat expensive. Although as an NGO, you might consider contacting an Apple Rep to see if any rebates could be negotiated.
One of my clients is an NGO, and I feel your need to do things as inexpensive as possible.
However, promoting a platform that exists and continues to propagate from App piracy is a moral deterrent personally... even if I do use other Google services... although I'm constantly looking at other alternatives and implementing them for my clients (Vimeo instead of YouTube for example).
Outside of the US... Android... specifically Samsung and phones with SD card slots are popular, because the "smart and cost-conscious consumer" does not use the Google App Store for anything other than free Apps. Almost all paid apps (games mostly) are side-loaded from other sources, many of which are exact clones with language translation.
As a "content creator" for some 35 years now... yes... I have a problem with that. :grumble:
Quote:
Originally Posted by iang1234
http://source.android.com/source/submit-patches.html
That's for AOSP. And do you think you're going to be able to submit anything more than bug fixes? You think Google will let you, for example, make a major wholesale change to Android (like adding a new feature)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc
100% Bull Shite!
You DO NOT NEED to jailbreak an iOS device to install in-house developed / business specific Apps for your users.
You DO need to have an iOS Developer Enterprise Account
Yes, it is somewhat expensive. Although as an NGO, you might consider contacting an Apple Rep to see if any rebates could be negotiated.
Beat me to it. Although I'm not sure how you can say this is expensive. If you're hiring a developer and creating in-house Apps then $299 per year is going to be the least of your expenses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass
If they'd wanted to do the same on iPhones, they would have had to either jailbreak their phones or submit the application to Apple, have it show up on the app store and then download it via iTunes.
They could use the Enterprise tools that Apple provides or make a WebApp.
Neither of which require any interaction with Apple's App store at all.
None of this plug in to drag and drop either, custom configurations containing the App can be pushed out to iOS devices.
Thanks for the link. You answered the question I had, and for a company it's really not that expensive.