LWN: Comments on "Google Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week)"

Google Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week)

dlang — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 16:34:46 +0000

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)

nye — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 16:30:27 +0000

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)

dlang — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 05:19:25 +0000

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)

nye — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:11:21 +0000

>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)

xxiao — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:38:13 +0000

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

Google Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week)

daniel — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 19:46:48 +0000

<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)

martinfick — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:49:32 +0000

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

Google Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week)

ballombe — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 21:15:34 +0000

> 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 Strategy

alankila — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 19:56:34 +0000

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

vonbrand — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 18:50:08 +0000

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.

Google Strategy

lambda — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 16:07:44 +0000

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

bronson — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 15:44:51 +0000

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

alankila — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 13:30:38 +0000

... 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

tzafrir — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 20:46:53 +0000

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.

Don't worry about me in the #Honeyclosed context

brianomahoney — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 12:51:10 +0000

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

brianomahoney — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 12:24:40 +0000

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.

Don't worry about me in the #Honeyclosed context

brianomahoney — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 12:18:31 +0000

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!

Google Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week)

swetland — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 06:49:50 +0000

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

Google Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week)

xxiao — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 03:32:52 +0000

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)

salimma — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 19:41:34 +0000

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)

martinfick — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 17:57:35 +0000

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

Google Strategy

b7j0c — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 17:06:57 +0000

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

b7j0c — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 17:05:15 +0000

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?

Google Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week)

b7j0c — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 17:01:11 +0000

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)

b7j0c — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 16:59:06 +0000

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 Strategy

foom — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:25:38 +0000

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

Google Strategy

grantingram — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:15:34 +0000

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.

Don't worry about me in the #Honeyclosed context

jmm82 — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:56:45 +0000

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

Google Strategy

xxiao — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:25:44 +0000

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 Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week)

emunson — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:10:16 +0000

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.

Don't worry about me in the #Honeyclosed context

foom — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 13:56:16 +0000

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

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

spaetz — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 11:54:12 +0000

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 Strategy

spaetz — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 11:47:50 +0000

> 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

grantingram — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 11:03:57 +0000

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....

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

petur — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 10:50:01 +0000

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

Google Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week)

job — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 08:43:27 +0000

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)

job — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 08:37:24 +0000

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.

Don't worry about me in the #Honeyclosed context

FlorianMueller — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 07:32:32 +0000

@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.

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

FlorianMueller — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 07:25:42 +0000

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.

Google Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week)

drag — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 03:18:37 +0000

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