Google Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week) [LWN.net]

Google Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week)

Posted Mar 24, 2011 22:51 UTC (Thu) by jengelh (guest, #33263) [Link]

Over here, "when it's ready" is reserved for defining tarball states, though not SCM snapshots.

Google Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week)

Posted Mar 24, 2011 23:27 UTC (Thu) by kragil (guest, #34373) [Link] (18 responses)

Another reason to get Meego up and running. Android for tablets is closed source for now. "When it's ready" can take 14 years, just look at Duke Nukem Forever (which was delayed again today)

This really sucks, because Chinese OEMs won't get Honeycomb to put unmodified on their dirt cheap plastic tablets. All current Android tablet are targeting the high end with insane Apple prices. That is not what Android is for IMO. I want dirt cheap super-generic reference designs, with no DRM/TPM/lock-down BS. When you add an dual-core ARM SOC , 512mb RAM, 8GB Flash, LCD screen(1024x600 or more) + touchscreen, a battery and a case you end up having a device that should cost 200 Euro or less. Android can only win when prices go way down.

Google Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week)

Posted Mar 24, 2011 23:43 UTC (Thu) by gfarnum (guest, #61971) [Link] (5 responses)

I'm confused. Is Honeycomb entirely a userspace change from previous Android OSes, or is Google in fact violating the GPL by refusing to release Honeycomb source?

Google Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week)

Posted Mar 24, 2011 23:54 UTC (Thu) by dtlin (subscriber, #36537) [Link]

Android Licenses

Android is mostly ASL 2.0, with some proprietary bits and a GPL 2.0 kernel. As far as I can tell, the kernel sources are published; it's most of the rest of the platform that people are talking about here.

Google Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week)

Posted Mar 25, 2011 1:06 UTC (Fri) by randomguy3 (subscriber, #71063) [Link] (3 responses)

There doesn't seem to have been any suggestion of possible violations, and I don't really see how they could have violated the GPL unless they're distributing a binary version to people that they aren't also providing the source code to.

Google Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week)

Posted Mar 25, 2011 8:37 UTC (Fri) by job (guest, #670) [Link] (2 responses)

I believe you can buy tablets running Honeycomb so they would be distributing binaries here. But I don't know what code the article refers to as being held back, perhaps it is the userspace (under BSD-like license) only. Google probably knows better than blatantly violating the GPL.

Google Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week)

Posted Mar 25, 2011 17:01 UTC (Fri) by b7j0c (guest, #27559) [Link] (1 responses)

or maybe they are just assuming that they can get away with it, which they seem to be doing

any lingering guilt i had over blocking google ads just vanished

Google Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week)

Posted Mar 25, 2011 17:57 UTC (Fri) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]

Google isn't distributing any devices, so they are not even responsible for distributing the source, the device manufacturers (Motorola) are.

Google Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week)

Posted Mar 25, 2011 1:07 UTC (Fri) by xilinx (subscriber, #50617) [Link] (9 responses)

> This really sucks, because Chinese OEMs won't get Honeycomb to put unmodified on their dirt cheap plastic tablets.

With all due respect, many of those 'cheap plastic tablets' are utter trash, and do more harm than good for the Android experience and brand. Some of these things have *standby* battery life under 3 hours - never mind actual usage.

Not saying I support Google's position here in the slightest, but don't be fooled in thinking that these terrible devices are helping the ecosystem.

Google Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week)

Posted Mar 25, 2011 1:58 UTC (Fri) by kragil (guest, #34373) [Link]

There might be those vendors, but as with handsets there will be others like ZTE or Huawei. They make good Android handset for half the price of Motorola (ZTE Blade or Huawei U8800 for example).

You will still have to use your brain and compare product and buy something that suits your needs (I for example would only need 5 hours of battery life) but there will cheap good ones. I am pretty sure about that.

Google Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week)

Posted Mar 25, 2011 3:10 UTC (Fri) by jmm82 (guest, #59425) [Link] (1 responses)

I agree there is definitely fragmentation causing confusion among consumers. I do not see a solution to this problem if google plans to Keep the system open. I am guessing they are trying to delay the crap hardware tablets.

Google Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week)

Posted Mar 25, 2011 3:18 UTC (Fri) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

That, or they are hacking on things that affect application APIs and they don't want developers starting to use them to develop applications.

Google Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week)

Posted Mar 25, 2011 8:43 UTC (Fri) by job (guest, #670) [Link] (4 responses)

Yeah. All those crappy plastic Asian PC-clones that were allowed to run DOS/Windows really tarnished Microsoft's brand. It is brave of Mr. Gates to hide his tears so well.

Irony aside, brand perception isn't everything, no matter what marketing would have you believe. Not if you're aiming for the mass market.

Google Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week)

Posted Mar 30, 2011 14:11 UTC (Wed) by nye (subscriber, #51576) [Link] (3 responses)

>Yeah. All those crappy plastic Asian PC-clones that were allowed to run DOS/Windows really tarnished Microsoft's brand.

It sounds like you meant that sarcastically, but really that's been a problem from which they still haven't escaped, and probably never will.

Google Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week)

Posted Apr 1, 2011 5:19 UTC (Fri) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (2 responses)

Microsoft didn't really have a brand when the PC-clones started arriving. they certainly didn't have a extremely good brand that was hurt by being put on cheap hardware.

but the huge availability of cheap hardware that Microsoft software could run on took the company from being just another software company (there were a large number of different operating system companies at the time) to being the powerhouse it became

Google Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week)

Posted Apr 4, 2011 16:30 UTC (Mon) by nye (subscriber, #51576) [Link] (1 responses)

Certainly, but MS still have a reputation for producing buggy crash-prone systems, when a great deal of the blame is really due to the hodge-podge of systems on which Windows runs.

They may be having to build entire blocks to fit their mountains of cash, but that all comes from being seen as the cheap standard option - the software equivalent of the supermarket brand.

(If you just mean to point out that having a brand that's not too well regarded doesn't preclude a company from raking in the money, then we're in agreement.)

Google Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week)

Posted Apr 4, 2011 16:34 UTC (Mon) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

sorry, I don't see their reliability problems being due to the hardware vendors. If that was the case then sticking strictly to the top-tier vendors who explicitly partner with Microsoft would eliminate the problems, and historically it has not (yes, it reduces it to some extent, but it does not eliminate it)

Google Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week)

Posted Mar 28, 2011 19:46 UTC (Mon) by daniel (guest, #3181) [Link]

<quote>With all due respect, many of those 'cheap plastic tablets' are utter trash, and do more harm than good for the Android experience and brand.</quote>

At the very least, they help to keep the pricing pressure on. And some of that utter trash will mature into real product, look at the history of the PC revolution.

Google Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week)

Posted Mar 27, 2011 21:15 UTC (Sun) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link] (1 responses)

> This really sucks, because Chinese OEMs won't get Honeycomb to put unmodified on their dirt cheap plastic tablets.

Why ? the binaries have been released already. The sources are only useful if you want to do modification. That is why Google excuse is a joke.

Google Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week)

Posted Mar 28, 2011 18:49 UTC (Mon) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]

You're making a big assumption by assuming the binaries will run on these other tablets.

Google Strategy

Posted Mar 25, 2011 1:36 UTC (Fri) by brianomahoney (guest, #6206) [Link] (20 responses)

This is the start of another FUDed up storm in a teacup, there is no-way some idiot would not try to misuse the source code, which is a reason to manage the release. Contrast KDE 4.0 alpha1, there is no way anyone would want that as I dont run Kernel 2.6.x until GKH releases 2.6.x.1, not because I am lazy, I just dont want the hassel. Until manufacturers actually ship Honeycomb devices there is not even moral pressure on Google to release the source and given M$ and FM's efforts I don't blame them being cautious.

If YOU need access for a good reason ask Google, they are very reasonable.

In the mean time I see no gain to helping M$, FM or others talk up another silly set of "patent infringements" with 6 months lead time.

We all know that, with the broken US legal system the existing suits will be in the courts for 10 years long past Android moving on.

This RENT seeking must be stopped.

Google Strategy

Posted Mar 25, 2011 1:58 UTC (Fri) by lambda (subscriber, #40735) [Link] (4 responses)

Um, Honeycomb tablets actually have been released. You can buy them now, and I know developers who have been working on tablet apps who have been frustrated by the lack of source access.

This is not FUD. The most modern released version of Android, which is marketed as open source, does not actually have source code available in the open. While I share your frustration about the Microsoft patents and kernel headers/bionic kerfluffle, there is a real serious concern here that Google is basically only releasing sources at their convenience, and not actually doing anything to make Android a viable free platform.

Google Strategy

Posted Mar 26, 2011 12:24 UTC (Sat) by brianomahoney (guest, #6206) [Link] (3 responses)

As the primary developers Google have the right to release source at their convenience, as you have the right to fork Android, but how you can say that not releasing the source, for say, 3 months, makes it _NOT_ open I dont know.

When M$ release Windows source, inc WP7, or Oracle the Java test suite, you might have a point.

Google Strategy

Posted Mar 26, 2011 20:46 UTC (Sat) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]

The source code of Java (OpenJDK) is available for the public (at development time). It's not an officially stamped release, but you can use it to test your code.

Binaries with that have already been spotted in the wild. The source isn't. So I have no issue with Google calling it "open". "Open" has many meanings (e.g.: "'open' as in Office Open XML"). I just wonder what is it exactly they mean.

And no. He cannot fork Android H. The source has not been released. Others do fork released versions of Android to provide alternative ROMs (up to G). Not for H, I guess.

Google Strategy

Posted Mar 27, 2011 16:07 UTC (Sun) by lambda (subscriber, #40735) [Link] (1 responses)

Given that the Android userland code is under permissive licenses, yes, Google has the right to release the source of new versions at their convenience. That doesn't mean that I have to agree with their decision. It also doesn't mean that those new versions are open source, or free software.

In order to be open source, you need to release the source. It's pretty black and white. Android 2.3 is open source. Android 3.0 is not. A future version of Android might be open source again, or Google might release the source of Android 3.0 in the future, but that's just speculation at this point. It doesn't matter what Microsoft or Oracle does; whether Android 3.0 is open source or not depends only on what Google does, not what other companies do.

Right now, Android 3.0 is not open source. There's nothing to argue there; you can't get your hands on the sources. Do I hope that they release the source in the future? Sure. Do I expect them too? I think there's a good chance, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting. Remember, Solaris used to be open-source, as OpenSolaris, but Oracle later killed the open source project and closed development again. There's nothing preventing Google from doing the same, and while I have higher expectations of them than Oracle, the fact is that at the moment, you cannot get source access to Android 3.0, meaning that it is not open source.

Google Strategy

Posted Mar 27, 2011 18:50 UTC (Sun) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link]

Sorry, as Google is the owner of (most?) of the Android source, they can do as they very well please: Release each single change, or just never release anything. The "develop in the open" model you are implying is very recent, it became popular with Linux and BitKeeker in 2002, and is far from universal even today.

Don't worry about me in the #Honeyclosed context

Posted Mar 25, 2011 7:32 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] (4 responses)

@brianomahoney, don't worry about me here. I don't search for patent infringements -- I just observe what's going on, which is difficult enough in the face of 37 Android-related patent lawsuits. I'll be happy about each patent being invalidated in any of the disputes, but there are too many that are being asserted against Android, so ultimately this will affect the competitiveness of the platform.

If patent holders want to go after #Honeyclosed tablets, they can do so anyway if they find other ways to identify infringements. Once there's a lawsuit, they can ask defendants to produce source code (as part of discovery). If their patents also read on previous versions, they will initially assume that the same infringement pattern is also found in #Honeyclosed.

Don't worry about me in the #Honeyclosed context

Posted Mar 25, 2011 13:56 UTC (Fri) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]

This isn't twitter, making up words and them with # doesn't do jack.

Don't worry about me in the #Honeyclosed context

Posted Mar 25, 2011 14:56 UTC (Fri) by jmm82 (guest, #59425) [Link]

Thank you for adding your "This comment is sponsored by" link to your post. How much were you paid for that?

Don't worry about me in the #Honeyclosed context

Posted Mar 26, 2011 12:18 UTC (Sat) by brianomahoney (guest, #6206) [Link]

We don't worry about you FM, your spin and FUD are so blatent that they are really easy to discount. You are trying to talk up an anti-Google story and calling it "#Honeyclosed" just because some parts, which are not GPL'd arn't released yet, _but_ Google have a commitment to release all versions, and it is clearly in their beneficial interest to do so, probably quite soon.

This is so phony as to be untrue.

If you want developer access ask!

Don't worry about me in the #Honeyclosed context

Posted Mar 26, 2011 12:51 UTC (Sat) by brianomahoney (guest, #6206) [Link]

For once Florian, I will let myself be a little drawn by you, the "37 Android patent" suits are a public disgrace and a shaming inditement of both the US Patent and Legal systems.

First, most of the patents are sham, and should not have been granted on the basis of obviousness, natural law or prior art anyway, and Secondly the legal system should have a way of disposing of these suits in a maximum of 1 working day per suit, from complaint to judgement, and the loser should have to pay all costs of the action.

Finally, that ultimately corrupted institution the US Justice Department should be supporting, not opposing, making the overturning of patents easier.

Now the real story here is Florian is _once_again_ pointing at Android as patent encumbered, that was tried by SCO and the world understands the difference. I for one am very pleased that there is at least one US corporation that has decided not to roll over and play dead to these rent seeking extortionists eg M$, Apple and Nokia.

Google Strategy

Posted Mar 25, 2011 11:03 UTC (Fri) by grantingram (guest, #18390) [Link] (2 responses)

If YOU need access for a good reason ask Google, they are very reasonable.

But one of the primary benefits of open source code is that you don't have to rely on anyone being reasonable. There is no need to beg for permission like a poodle pining for their dog food you can just do stuff....

Google Strategy

Posted Mar 25, 2011 11:47 UTC (Fri) by spaetz (guest, #32870) [Link] (1 responses)

> But one of the primary benefits of open source code is that you don't have to rely on anyone being reasonable.

Oh yes, for anything beyond GPL (and even there to a certain extend) entities have to act reasonable. There is no need to ever give out source code or improvements for most OSS licenses.

Google Strategy

Posted Mar 25, 2011 15:15 UTC (Fri) by grantingram (guest, #18390) [Link]

Well I was going for idea "open source" covered the fact that you have the source code. Otherwise you just have a binary and are at the beck and call of the supplier.

Google Strategy

Posted Mar 25, 2011 14:25 UTC (Fri) by xxiao (guest, #9631) [Link] (5 responses)

no it's not FUD, google has released honeycomb to other "big" players apparently, they just wanna to serve the first few elite members way before the general public, to make sure those have the advantage of "time-to-market".

this sucks, it's worse than closed proprietary code if they keep doing its own opensource this way.

Google Strategy

Posted Mar 25, 2011 15:25 UTC (Fri) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link] (4 responses)

It's bad behavior, no doubt, but *worse* than closed source? That seems a bit of a stretch.

Google Strategy

Posted Mar 25, 2011 17:06 UTC (Fri) by b7j0c (guest, #27559) [Link] (3 responses)

i agree with xxiao. it is worse because google is exploiting the good will of users who are trying to support commercial products which are open source.

Google Strategy

Posted Mar 27, 2011 13:30 UTC (Sun) by alankila (guest, #47141) [Link] (2 responses)

... and to make this claim, you have to prove that such buyers actually exist and matter. As far as I can tell, everyone here (meaning the open source community) already hates Google.

Google Strategy

Posted Mar 27, 2011 15:44 UTC (Sun) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] (1 responses)

Everyone in the Summer of Code hates Google? All the Google engineers being paid to contribute to open source, they hate Google as well?

If you're only referring to Android then it's unlikely but possible I guess. But, open source as a whole?? Not a chance. (and I have nothing at all to do with Google other than being annoyed by their recruiters)

Google Strategy

Posted Mar 27, 2011 19:56 UTC (Sun) by alankila (guest, #47141) [Link]

Don't let facts get in the way of me trying to make a point. The point I was making is that there's been a lot of noise made about Google being an evil company, so I judged that anyone who cares probably knows this already.

And even if no open source person bought any android device, I doubt it would affect Android's popularity much. We are a tiny minority, and the average user just doesn't care. So what we think is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Android's survival is in hands of Google, who according to the FAQ commits enough professional engineering resources to make it work, so Google doesn't actually need our community's approval. (And hasn't gained it, for what it's worth.)

I also think that a lot of the whining here is going overboard. What if Google releases Honeycomb source next month? Everyone here talking about how this is the end of open Android will just end up looking pretty silly. Their FAQ states that source releases are part of the strategy of maintaining the platform's viability. I expect them to do what is best for the platform as they see it.

Google Strategy

Posted Mar 25, 2011 17:05 UTC (Fri) by b7j0c (guest, #27559) [Link]

but if you read any open source license, they strictly speak to fitness of code, or lack thereof. crappy code does not get an exception from open source licensing requirements. if google felt the code was not ready for people to look at, why is it available for use on released products?

Steve Jobs vindicated: Google Android isn't open (TheRegister)

Posted Mar 25, 2011 7:25 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] (2 responses)

I'd like to recommend two really good articles on this topic:

TheRegister: Steve Jobs vindicated: Google Android isn't open (also puts this into the context of the Skyhook vs. Google dispute and Andy Rubin's famous tweet with a set of commands for downloading and building Android)

Former LinuxFoundation community manager Brian Proffitt accurately notes on ITWorld that this decision by Google comes shortly after the previous GPL compliance debate.

Steve Jobs vindicated: Google Android isn't open (TheRegister)

Posted Mar 25, 2011 10:50 UTC (Fri) by petur (guest, #73362) [Link]

I don't think the article on The Register is good, though....

Steve Jobs vindicated: Google Android isn't open (TheRegister)

Posted Mar 25, 2011 11:54 UTC (Fri) by spaetz (guest, #32870) [Link]

Just unfolded one of your comments to see if you are still you. Yep :-)

> TheRegister: Steve Jobs vindicated: Google Android isn't open

I don't want to defend Google, and calling Honeycomb OSS is certainly not in order either.

But can you take iOS release-1 and put it on cheap competitor's devices? I run an Android version improved by 3rd parties (core code, not only add-ons). How is that possible with Apples stuff again?

Or what about patched versions of Windows for mobiles stuff? Is it being endorsed?

It is certainly still in a different league than any of the others. Pure OSS? Heck no.

Google Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week)

Posted Mar 25, 2011 14:10 UTC (Fri) by emunson (subscriber, #44357) [Link]

I really want a Meego handset, a pox on Nokia for flying right past the opportunity.

I thought control in the name of "user experience" was an Apple thing, I didn't get an Android phone to be treated to the nanny-ing of iOS.

Google Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week)

Posted Mar 25, 2011 16:59 UTC (Fri) by b7j0c (guest, #27559) [Link]

i'd let google off the hook if honeycomb wasn't a released product.

are we going to be in a position where we have to stipulate a version number when we describe "open source" android? my guess is google will eventually migrate to a model whereby the latest version of android remains closed, and only outdated versions are available.

at this point i'm not sure why google bothers with open sourcing android at all beyond the perfunctory requirement that they comply with open source licenses for code they utilize. the only noteworthy accomplishment in their open source mobile exercise is their ability to subvert the ideals of open source.

Google Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week)

Posted Mar 25, 2011 19:41 UTC (Fri) by salimma (subscriber, #34460) [Link]

Did anyone notice that on the last line of the BW article, they credited Google for "providing Hadoop"? They did not. They published some papers on Map-Reduce (they did not invent it; that's another misconception), Yahoo! reimplemented the idea, and bequeathed it to the Apache Foundation.

Google Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week)

Posted Mar 26, 2011 3:32 UTC (Sat) by xxiao (guest, #9631) [Link]

been doing android these days, this is indeed shocking, and I'm at a loss.

meego sadly is a non-starter, its rpm/opensuse/qt mixture is doomed the first day.

yocto/oe + jvm? debian?

back to the drawing board.

Google Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week)

Posted Mar 26, 2011 6:49 UTC (Sat) by swetland (guest, #63414) [Link]

http://source.android.com/faqs.html

Google Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week)

Posted Mar 28, 2011 21:38 UTC (Mon) by xxiao (guest, #9631) [Link]

http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Google-says-no-And...