
Google’s iron grip on Android: Controlling open source by any means necessary - coloneltcb
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/
======
cromwellian
Most of the examples of Google closed apps that are not part of the AOSP
release are in fact apps that are based off of Google data-center services.
Would it really help Samsung if the source to the Gmail app was open? Since
Google controls the server side, and the client-server protocol, it limits the
amount of innovation they can do.

The web equivalent would be like claiming that Chrome OS isn't open because
the source to Gmail isn't available.

Google is stuck behind a rock and a hard place. If they don't try to create
incentives for a unified experience, they get bashed for encouraging
fragmentation, if they do assert a level of control, they get bashed for not
being completely open.

~~~
dmethvin
> Google is stuck behind a rock and a hard place. If they don't try to create
> incentives for a unified experience, they get bashed for encouraging
> fragmentation, if they do assert a level of control, they get bashed for not
> being completely open.

This is exactly the position Microsoft was in during the mid-1990s, even
before they went after Netscape. The article is saying that Google is even
applying some of the same strong-arm tactics to keep OEMs in line.
Fortunately, Google can point to Apple and say they're not a monopoly the way
Microsoft was in its market. Plus, Android still looks really open compared to
iOS.

~~~
tluyben2
Android is open enough to replace all Google apps with your own (Samsung) and
open your own appstore (Amazon). Also companies are completely free to not
pick Android (Tizen / Firefox OS / ?) and they are free not to license the
Google apps and put their own or (other) open source ones. It would be hard to
make Google out to be a monopolist via that route.

MS was different; there weren't much alternatives and the alternatives which
were there were squashed by MS. People currently want the apps in the
appstore; they want to play clash of clans; they don't care about the Google
gmail app. This being the same bubble world as the chromebook thread on HN
yesterday; tech people think non tech people actually notice what they are
running; they generally don't. If they can play the games their friends are
playing and if they can use 'the software' they are used to they are happy.
What brand it is is not important.

As an example; when I sit with any of my family members (they are all non
tech), they will say 'I will open up Word now' or ' I will open up Excel now'
to me when we need to organize something or go over numbers of one of the
companies. What pops up definitely never is Word or Excel but rather Libre
Office or Google Docs or some free Android/iPad variety. No-one I know
actually has or uses MS Office; they use the terms because they don't know
'spreadsheet' and 'word processor' is a mouthful. They don't miss Windows and
would even mostly hate it if they had to work with it now (after tablets or
chromebooks and even Macs, Windows for non-tech people Windows seems
incredibly hard and tech to use).

All these alternatives and Android being deployed by many different companies
in different forms would make it hard to call Google a monopolist on that
grounds. Samsung could turn into one though.

~~~
gcb0
Did you even read the article?

And if you want to stay on the technical side.. then what about contributors?
I've helped port android to a couple devices. I had no idea google had a
contract obligation with hardware makers that my work should have to be used
in one way or another. I feel dirty.

edit: the Acer example goes exactly against what you mention. They tried to
ship a fork, with some of the substitutions you mention. google released the
layers.

~~~
tluyben2
I read the article; if you want out of their grip you can. You just need to
provide alternatives for the Google apps and appstore. That is not trivial,
but for a company like Samsung that wouldn't be that big of an issue either.

Acer tried to release it while still wanting to be in the 'Android family'
(Open Handset Alliance); they didn't have their own substitutes and didn't
want to make a clean break with Google (OHA). If they wanted that and would
have provided an appstore, they could've.

------
parennoob
When someone like Github does this (make some parts of their code open-source,
but others closed-source), journalists don't write critical pieces about them,
do they? I mean, Google leaves a bad taste in my mouth since they started
shuttering services like it was Christmas at the Google Service Chopping
Block, but I don't see them being actively evil here.

It's all according to the previously openly aired plan. Google keeps _all_ of
the existing code open source. Anyone who wants to build a fork can do so. Now
if they want a hardware platform to run on, go find one outside the Open
Handset Alliance ecosystem. It's fair game -- if a hardware partner thinks
that one of Google's competitors can provide a better Android fork, they are
free to leave the Alliance and go partner with that competitor. _They will
still get an enormous amount of code for free in AOSP._ They just won't get
all of the services that Google is building specifically for its own version
of Android. How is any of this maintaining an "iron grip" in any way? Just
contrast this with Apple where it is the sole owner of everything to do with
the OS and app marketplace.

~~~
zobzu
AOSP is so open that the previous AOSP leader at Google quitted over the lack
of openeness.

~~~
tomkarlo
That's a mischaracterization of his own comments on why he left. It had to do
with open sourcing GPU drivers, which is probably an issue with other vendors,
not Google.

See:
[https://plus.google.com/112218872649456413744/posts/9HHRURor...](https://plus.google.com/112218872649456413744/posts/9HHRURorE7g)

~~~
throwaway2048
It was Google's choice to put that hardware into the phone, and it was their
choice not to pressure qualcomm into being more open.

Your argument itself is also somewhat of a mischaracterization, because at
least Google could have wrestled redistribution rights for the binary drivers,
thus making AOSP actually usable on the nexus, and they didn't even bother
with that.

Vendors are a convenient whipping boy when don't care about openness but wanna
look like you do.

~~~
fpgeek
There's a very, very simple problem with your argument:

[https://developers.google.com/android/nexus/drivers#razor](https://developers.google.com/android/nexus/drivers#razor)

~~~
throwaway2048
and here is the problem with yours, from the EULA:

    
    
         Subject to the terms of this Agreement, Licensor hereby grants to
         You, free of charge, a non-exclusive, non-sublicensable,
         non-transferable, limited copyright license, during the term of
         this Agreement, to download, install and use the Software
         internally in machine-readable (i.e., object code) form and the
         Documentation for non-commercial use on an Authorized Android
         Enabled Device and non-commercial redistribution for academic
         purposes only of a reasonable number of copies of the Authorized
         Android Enabled Device Software (the "Limited Purpose"). You may
         grant your end users the right to use the Software for
         non-commercial purposes on an Authorized Android Enabled Device.
         The license to the Software granted to You hereunder is solely for
         the Limited Purpose set forth in this section, and the Software
    

This makes it entirely impossible for AOSP to distribute the drivers

------
millstone
> Google was terrified that Apple would end up ruling the mobile space. So, to
> help in the fight against the iPhone at a time when Google had no mobile
> foothold whatsoever, it was decided that Google would buy Android. And
> Android would be open source.

This is blatantly false. Google bought Android in 2005, two years before the
iPhone was announced.

~~~
hackula1
Android clearly went in a different direction post-iPhone.

~~~
saiyan
Agreed.

All those videos of Android demo or prototype units clearly showed Android was
a Blackberry clone (just look at that tiny touchpad for navigating around
Android OS) and changed its design direction after iPhone made its appearance.

~~~
bookwormAT
nonesense. Android is a software platform that companies can build sofware and
devices on. Android is not a device, and it's not an "operating system" in the
sense that people use this word today. It is a fundament that you can build an
operating system with, and a cross platform that allows applications run on
different software, as long as this software is based on Android.

If you want to show off what Android can do, you put it on all kinds of
devices that people are using at the moment. If everyone has a Blackberry, you
want to show that you can make a software for Blackberrys based on Android. If
everyone is hyped on digital cameras, you show a software and ui for such a
camera.

Android used to have 3 prototypes in its early stages: a blackberry type, a
tablet-type device, and the device that later became the Tmobile G1, the first
android phone. The platform never changed course, and it clearly never was a
Blackberry clone.

~~~
lttlrck
"If you want to show off what Android can do, you put it on all kinds of
devices that people are using at the moment."

I'm not so sure about that. Blackberry didn't do that, and neither did
Apple...

~~~
bookwormAT
Not sure I understand your comment. Neither Blackberry nor Apple developed a
cross platform technology meant to run different hardware/software
configurations. So of course they did not demonstrate how a platform runs on
such configurations.

------
MichaelGG
The only real thing that seems "evil" is the requirement for OEMs to not
manufacture _any_ devices compatible with non-Google forks. The rest of it
seems pretty necessary in order to keep carriers and OEMs in line. A lesson
Microsoft learned, and why Windows Phone started off by allowing the user to
remove any pre-installed crap.

If Google didn't do any of this, and was totally altruistic, Samsung and
others would already have completely screwed things up.

While it's certainly very much to Google's benefit, it also benefits most
users because overall, Google has done a far better job than any OEM regarding
user experience.

~~~
fpgeek
In fact, the boundaries of the compatibility requirement are pretty fuzzy.

For instance, the Acer/Aliyun situation is more complicated than presented.
The Aliyun app store was distributing pirated apps (including pirated Google
apps): [http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/09/15/aliyun-app-store-
con...](http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/09/15/aliyun-app-store-confirmed-to-
be-distributing-pirated-android-apps-many-from-another-pirate-site/)

It seems obvious that Acer would have wound up in hot water with Google over
this somehow, though it is odd that Google decided to focus their complaint on
compatibility (rather than on Aliyun's piracy).

On the other side of the coin, many Android OEMs have distributed (and still
distribute, so far as I know) devices without Google apps for the Chinese
market (including Samsung, ASUS, Huawei, and even Motorola [1]). So far as I
can remember, these were always essentially the same as non-Chinese devices
except that they came with a different ROM that didn't include Google Apps.
Nevertheless, that means that there's some scope for making non-Google Android
devices, we just don't know how far it goes. Maybe if the HTC/Amazon rumors
turn out to be true, we'll find out more.

[1] Though I think Motorola's efforts were shut-down post-merger because of
Google's China policies.

------
Mikeb85
I think alot of people misunderstand what open source means. It's nothing more
than allowing people to see the source code, and use it (including forking).

Open source doesn't require you to cooperate with anyone, it doesn't require
you to give away access to APIs, it doesn't require you to do anything beyond
whatever is explicitly stated in the license.

Google, Canonical, Oracle, IBM, Red Hat, SUSE, etc... aren't required to be
good team players or corporate citizens. They're just required to abide by the
terms of the licenses on code they use...

~~~
Brakenshire
Well, there is a philosophy (or rather, various different philosophies) that
go along with the legal structures, and different projects have different
levels of adherence to those ideas.

It eventually comes down to perception of value. Part of the original
attraction of Android was its openness, if Google is now closing off
substantial functionality, to head off competition, then it's not unfair for
people to re-evaluate their enthusiasm for the product.

~~~
oscargrouch
> Part of the original attraction of Android was its openness, if Google is
> now closing off substantial functionality, to head off competition, then
> it's not unfair for people to re-evaluate their enthusiasm for the product.

Very well put! Its not a legal perception that theres something wrong about
what they are doing(and nobody are saying that they cannot do it in the legal
aspect).. its a betrayal of some part that make people defend android for what
it is, a open source project.. its the ideal behind the project that is being
broken

If its not like that anymore, the same people that support it for its openess
should be aware of it.. and see that things are actually, gradually and
silently changing..

~~~
Apocryphon
Perhaps there should be a phrase to mean "open source in name only." I wonder
if all of this is related to Richard Stallman's dismissal of projects that
claim to be open source, saying that it isn't enough unless it's "free
software."

~~~
Mikeb85
RMS is satisfied with anything that has a GPL licence. He's always supported
creators rights to manage projects however they choose, and sell software as
they choose. Google would fall short simply because the BSD licence isn't
copyleft, but not for much of what they're being accused of here...

~~~
belorn
You are perfectly right regarding stallmas posted opinion regarding the GPL
license.

I doubt however that RMS would be happy with open/free code being replaced by
closed one as exemplified in the article. That has of course nothing to do
with permissive and copyleft, and all to do with lock-in, proprietary
practices, and project management.

~~~
Mikeb85
He'd likely just say it was never fully free to begin with, because of the
license. Not to mention, all the Google apps in question connect to SaaS
backends which are closed anyway.

Personally, I don't see the problem with what Google is doing, I would prefer
100% open software myself, but Google would never open-source their services'
code, so the fact the apps are closed-source doesn't really make a difference.

------
yarianluis
As an Android developer, I love that Google is doing this!

Android has come a _very_ long way in the last few years in terms of usability
and design. A large part of this has been due to an increasingly uniform
design language and feel. That, and the new distribution model for what are
basically Android updates (Google Play Services) has made Android feel more
polished and actually allowed it to stand on its own against iOS. It also
means that developers like me don't have to spend nearly as much time worrying
about fragmentation in the traditional sense. Each day the percentage of
people using sub-ICS phones falls, and we all get one step closer to the day
we can support ICS+ only.

However, companies like Amazon would force me to rewrite the maps integration,
the sign-in portion, the wallet, etc... Amazon did a great job of replicating
Google Maps API V1 but they have yet to mirror V2 and don't mirror the other
components I mentioned.

Aside from fragmentation and developer sanity, the article mentions another
key point here:

"[M]any of Google's solutions offer best-in-class usability, functionality,
and ease-of-implementation."

Exactly! Google APIs are not perfect, and there's bugs (like when Google Maps
broke map markers on high resolution phones like the HTC One). But generally
speaking, I'm really happy with the quality of the APIs and services. In an
ideal world, Amazon and Google would work together to provide great and
uniform single-sign-in APIs, great maps, etc... As it currently stands though,
I don't believe either party is interested in doing so. Prisoner's dilemma?

------
Brakenshire
> While it might not be an official requirement, being granted a Google apps
> license will go a whole lot easier if you join the Open Handset Alliance.
> The OHA is a group of companies committed to Android—Google's Android—and
> members are contractually prohibited from building non-Google approved
> devices. That's right, joining the OHA requires a company to sign its life
> away and promise to not build a device that runs a competing Android fork.

...

> This makes life extremely difficult for the only company brazen enough to
> sell an Android fork in the west: Amazon. Since the Kindle OS counts as an
> incompatible version of Android, no major OEM is allowed to produce the
> Kindle Fire for Amazon. So when Amazon goes shopping for a manufacturer for
> its next tablet, it has to immediately cross Acer, Asus, Dell, Foxconn,
> Fujitsu, HTC, Huawei, Kyocera, Lenovo, LG, Motorola, NEC, Samsung, Sharp,
> Sony, Toshiba, and ZTE off the list. Currently, Amazon contracts Kindle
> manufacturing out to Quanta Computer, a company primarily known for making
> laptops. Amazon probably doesn't have many other choices.

That is fairly incredible, I'm surprised it is not an anti-trust/competition
issue.

~~~
icebraining
Are you serious? What other commercial OS can I do a competing fork of? Don't
you see that the same restrictions apply to all other consumer OSs (iOS, WP,
etc) by simply being closed-source?

~~~
Brakenshire
That's a fair point, but Android is open source (and indeed was heavily
marketed on that basis). They don't get to use any mechanism they like to make
the situation comparable to their closed competitors. Their situation is also
not comparable to iOS, WP, etc, because of their position of market dominance,
just the same as the situation with Windows and Mac OS back in the day.

~~~
icebraining
_That 's a fair point, but Android is open source (and indeed was heavily
marketed on that basis). They don't get to use any mechanism they like to make
the situation comparable to their closed competitors._

Android is open source; their services and corresponding apps aren't, and
that's what they use as leverage. Not allowing them the same rights over those
as other companies have over their proprietary software is essentially
punishing them for having released something as open source.

And yes, Android _is_ open source, and the Kindle Fire proves it. The fact
that some people expect Google Play et all to be bundled is not Google's
fault.

 _Their situation is also not comparable to iOS, WP, etc, because of their
position of market dominance, just the same as the situation with Windows and
Mac OS back in the day._

But Windows was, and while Microsoft was criticized for a lot of
anticompetitive plays, not allowing people to create _forks of Windows_ was
never one of them. Not to mention that Google does allow you to create forks
of Android, they just don't give you access to their services on top of that.

------
davyjones
> Google does everything in-house. The company gets Maps and all of its cloud
> services basically for free.

This statement is utterly false. In-house does not mean free.

~~~
Brakenshire
All of its Maps data and many of its APIs already existed for Google Maps on
the desktop. Within the mobile space, and relative to a mobile-only
competitor, Google's access to that data is effectively free.

~~~
dirtyaura
Map data for mobile isn't free even for Google. Google buys licenses to the
data from a few map data providers, and as there was effectively a duopoly in
global map data, those licenses have very strict terms of use. To use that
data for e.g. real-time navigation assistance in mobile requires a different,
much more expensive licenses.

~~~
Brakenshire
Good point, thanks for the correction.

------
mdellabitta
While I can see the point of this article, it's being cast in a much more
dramatic light than necessary. Phrases like "While Google is out to devalue
the open source codebase as much as possible" seem hyperbolic to me.

~~~
andrewflnr
I agree. While it does make some good, disturbing points, you can tell they
had to stretch to make some of the other points.

------
lnanek2
What's really annoying is when the Google apps start becoming worse to make
Google more money. I never open the app store without wanting an app, but it
constantly tries to sell me books and movies and stuff like that. They even
have separate Google apps for reading and movies, so shoving it in the app
store is just a money grab making my usage more difficult to shove some ads in
my face. Were these apps open source people could just fork, but we're stuck
going along with Google until they mess up so bad it makes sense to switch
over entirely to Amazon App store, Samsung Apps Seller, etc. and the
equivalent for everything else.

~~~
cremnob
This is an opportunity for Yahoo. The article mentions that OEMs can't leave
because they're afraid of losing Google services, Yahoo can be that
replacement. They've been making beautiful mobile apps lately and they have
some very polished services. They are a pure play service provider who isn't
trying to compete with the OEMs; they have no conflict of interest.

If you work at Yahoo, this is something you should run up the chain. A
relationship with OEMs would solve their problems, and allow you to get a
foothold in mobile that you haven't been able to before.

~~~
tapsboy
Yahoo internals were even discussing ideas of creating their own fork of
Android, way back in 2010. Nothing happened.

------
rattray
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Linus Torvalds famous for his iron grip of
Linux? In a very different way, to be sure, but it's my understanding that
just because you make something open source doesn't mean you have to (or even
should) relinquish control.

I think it's also pretty standard to open-source the core and keep the baubles
proprietary. GitHub, for example, made their git interaction library open-
source but their git hosting service itself is closed, as far as I know.

~~~
takluyver
Every open source project has someone (or some group) in control, and
contributions can't land without their say so. But anyone who feels that the
current leadership is doing it wrong can fork the code and try to persuade
people to use their version. This is very important to the way open source
software works.

Google have a level of control beyond that: they undermine anyone trying to
fork Android by not letting them use Google's apps and services (even as they
allow such use on competing systems like iOS).

~~~
ahomescu1
I have a feeling that if an Android fork actually started to gain serious
market share, Google would very quickly allow them to use GMail, Youtube and
the other apps.

~~~
artsrc
Amazon have a Kindle product that is an Android fork with serious market
share. I don't know if Google has anything in the Kindle market place with
GMail etc.

~~~
ahomescu1
The Kindle Fire doesn't have the Google Apps, and might never have them, but
the Barnes&Noble Nook HD does (I have one), starting a few months ago. It
originally didn't (I suspect for the same reason as the Kindle Fire), but
Google later allowed B&N to run the apps (B&N even replaced their custom web
browser with Chrome, a move which not everyone liked).

------
Zigurd
Part of my business is about creating Android-based embedded systems. So far,
none of what Google has done impinges on using Android as a basis for an
operating system for appliance-like devices. The main problem is that current
development of Android is not done in the open. But, so far, the advantages of
using Android's UI stack and other APIs in "appliance OS" applications
outweigh the annoyance of sporadic updates to the AOSP code-base.

If you want to compete with Google, using Android poses a choice: If you make
Google-branded Android devices that use Google's proprietary apps, you will
have to give that up in order to use Android with other ecosystems.

Thirdly, if you want to use the Google ecosystem in a product, you have to use
all of it. You can't substitute someone else's location services, for an
example that was litigated.

Google could develop Android in the open and retain the same level of control
over OEMs, and I think they should.

Google appears to be inconsistent in enforcing restrictions on OEMs. OPhone
OEMs also make Android handsets, despite the fact that OPhone is an Android
derived product. Maybe that arrangement pre-dates Google's current policies.

------
cloudwalking
> Android has arguably won the smartphone wars, but "Android winning" and
> "Google winning" are not necessarily the same thing.

This is false. Google wins when more people use the Internet. Android is
fulfilling its initial goal incredibly well: offer a free and open-source
mobile OS to encourage mobile device proliferation.

Android is doing exactly what it was designed to do.

~~~
Nerdfest
The article's description of what we're to happen if Apple did not have
competition is quite accurate and write frightening. Even with the north
American market share that Apple has they abuse it where possible.

~~~
cloudwalking
Yes I agree.

Android is not about North America. Android is about India, Africa, and China.

~~~
Elv13
It is banned from China (AFAIK, they use Alibaba fork). India and Africa are
mostly untapped markets. The 80% market share come from America and Europe

~~~
zhte415
Android is not banned from (or, in) China. It is hugely popular. See, for
example, a popular website's offerings for Android telephones:
[http://mobile.139shop.com/commend/170__001_1.htm](http://mobile.139shop.com/commend/170__001_1.htm)

Interestingly, in China, and this is personal experience not a market survey,
the more one moves away from big brand manufacturers of Android telephones,
the more pure / bare-bones / no manufacturer or telecom added applications the
Android install is (again, China experience only).

I am sitting in mainland China with an Android phone in my pocket. 518 Yuan
can easily buy a bright 5 inch screen, 4 days battery life (my average usage)
with WiFi on most of the time, only one manufacturer installed app (Baidu
input; being in China, this useful), 1.2GHz processor, 1GB RAM, 2 SIM card
slots, SD Card slot (free card included, only 2GB, but free is free), 5MP
camera (2MP reverse), user serviceable battery.

------
tonyfelice
"In an ocean with great waves, whales fly into the air unnoticed, but in a
calm pond, even the tiniest minnow makes a ripple." -confucius

When the iPhone debuted, no doubt Google sensed the impact, and Apple's
ability to create an effective closed ecosystem had already been proven with
iTunes. I believe that Google wanted to undermine the market long enough to
understand it. True enough, "android winning" was not the same as "Google
winning," but it did mean everyone else "losing." I believe that for Google,
Android started as a strategy in search of a goal. It was a smokescreen to
prevent Apple from taking a dominant position by default. As the data poured
in, they began to understand how to leverage it, and the Nexus line became an
expression of such understanding, working to establish more control, and
hopefully emerge from the smokescreen they had created.

~~~
coopdog
I will only buy / recommend nexus phones. Knowing that the phone will be
updated quickly and for a long time is worth a premium, rather than being a
cash in strat for Google.

~~~
innino
my impression of nexus devices is that you are tied to the package of google
services. is this so, or can a nexus-user break free from google's domain and
enjoy the benefits of a quality low-cost device without being beholden to the
google ecosystem?

~~~
gbl08ma
From what I know, for the 2012 Nexus 7 at least, there are lots of custom
ROMs, some of them without Google Apps. There are even alternative operating
systems like Ubuntu Touch. I don't know if other emerging mobile OS such as
Firefox OS and Sailfish have been ported already or not, but if not, I'm sure
they will, given the market share of the device and the amount of people
interested. Ultimately, you can also run GNU/Linux with the usual light
desktop environments.

------
georgestephanis
Well, this is really arguable. The "Iron Grip" is the modules that happen to
be dependent on authenticated API calls to the servers that Google owns and
maintains.

I'd fully support their modules that connect to the cloud servers being open
source / GPL / etc, but to expect them to open them up to unauthenticated
requests is untenable and leaves them way open to abuse / lack of rate
limiting / making the service a bad time for all involved.

~~~
Brakenshire
> Well, this is really arguable. The "Iron Grip" is the modules that happen to
> be dependent on authenticated API calls to the servers that Google owns and
> maintains.

It also consists of witholding access to those APIs if a company uses a
competitor service:

> Another point of control is that the Google apps are all licensed as a
> single bundle. So if you want Gmail and Maps, you also need to take Google
> Play Services, Google+, and whatever else Google feels like adding to the
> package. A company called Skyhook found this out the hard way when it tried
> to develop a competing location service for Android. Switching to Skyhook's
> service meant Google would not be able to collect location data from users.
> This was bad for Google, so Skyhook was declared "incompatible." OEMs that
> wanted the Google Apps were not allowed to use them. Skyhook sued, and the
> lawsuit is still pending.

------
Tyrannosaurs
What's interesting is how having a mobile OS is now only one part of the
offering needed to be successful, and is arguably the easiest part.

To be successful on mobile you also need a fairly extensive layer of services.
Some of those (web, mail and so on) are easy to bolt together but others such
as maps and app stores are far harder and are about data and commercial deals
as much as they are about software. While it would be wrong to say that these
services can't be opened up, in many cases doing so isn't as straight forward
as sharing source code.

It doesn't feel as if Google has changed so much as what it means be a mobile
OS has.

------
dave1010uk
Small correction: "Chrome is still open source" is incorrect. Chromium is open
source. Chrome is closed source.

------
tashoecraft
Google is creating a walled garden just like any other company does. The
article points to how they are making their shift towards an operating system
that is similar to ios (in terms of lock in). Android may be an open-source
platform but, on the majority of devices that compete at the top level, it
becomes far from open source.

It's understandable why Google would lock people out of seeing the back end of
their closed apps. But you have to look at what the long-term implications of
them slowly removing support for ASOP apps are. As Google continually pushes
out fantastic products that tie in so well to the mobile experience, why would
anyone/developer want to have/develop [for] anything else. As this power
grows, Google can strong-arm phone manufactures to develop
hardware/features/etc to work with what they are developing. They have to sign
contractual agreements to get the top version of Android and are then locked
in to keep up the good terms. Google is outsourcing the hardware manufacturing
to other companies and ensuring that if a user wants a good phone, they will
be using their services.

Many people here are claiming any company can leave Google's garden like
Amazon did. While some companies may be able to do that, I'm struggling to
think of a one with the technological background, money to invest, and
callousness for risk who are willing to try. Amazon has a huge assortment of
media that it can toss at its users who use their hardware. Other companies
don't have a differentiating factor or the software development to be able to
make a truly competitive product to drive people away from Google supported
Android. Just look at how much Microsoft, a software giant, is struggling to
gain any shred of market share.

No executive in any reasonable company is going to propose to invest billions
in order to squeeze into the highly competitive mobile OS market. It’s a huge
risk that only a startup could swallow, and yet few startups could even raise
the money required to topple the Google supported android market.

What the future is starting to look like is the one Google was initially
afraid of, that users were” faced a Draconian future, a future where…one
company, one device, one carrier would be [the] only choice.” As Google gains
more power, the open source part that Android users love is going to slowly
disappear. This may or may not happen, there are many variables that could
prevent it, but it is a future that would bring Google the highest return and
that is the goal of all market traded companies.

------
yeet
google had a very good reason to move services outside AOSP, to update them
without relying on carriers. they could release billing API v3 w/ 90%
compatibility in day 1. this is how they could workaround fragmentation. as an
android dev, i love being able to read framework source code for better
design, performance and less bugs. that is all really matters imho.

~~~
zobzu
for development yes, thats like providing a SDK. I can develop just fine on
Windows phones and even iOS :) So basically, its not really all that
opensource anymore, that's what most people mean.

~~~
yeet
it is not the same with providing an SDK. Well, if android was documented
better, we would not need source code this much but most of the time, it
requires checking the actual implementation to understand the whole picture.
Probably it is the difference between being "just fine" to creating great
things.

------
stefanve
I don't understand the point of this article especially the bit about being an
evil genius by ways of making excellent best in business cross OS api's.
Really? being competitive is being an evil genius? If amazon is willing it can
open there api's to none FireOS apps they have the infrastructure and money to
support it, but they don't.

As a user I'm happy that Google is making sure that I can hop device
manufactures without loosing my apps or functionality, if everybody would roll
out there own app store and removed Google's you would be locked in with the
OEM. Now you can safely change to a different phone, also they don't mind you
downloading the Google apps when using an alternative ROM.

Android is open source but does that mean that you are not aloud to make money
of it by providing closed source apps and service, many open source companies
do that. The work that went in to Android if freely available for competitors.
Lots of kernel enchantments went back in to Linux and now you have Ubuntu
touch and Firefox OS both based on the Android kernel which in turn is based
on Linux, how cool is that.

------
x0054
I once read an article in 2010 that criticized people for saying that Apple
and iOS of the 2000s is like the Microsoft and Windows of the 90s. The article
pointed out that Apple IS the Apple of the 90s and Google with its Android
platform will become the Windows of the 90s. I think it's happening. In a few
years Android is going to be as closed sourced as Windows, probably as
ubiquitous, and most likely, just as prone to security issues.

It's already kind of like windows, no? It runs on hundreds if different
devices. It's often bloated by OEM software that people hate. It's prone to
security wholes. It's slow and clunky unless you run it on the latest
hardware. It bends over backwards for compatibility sake. It's more and more
closed sourced...

Android is Mobile windows of the 90s. I hope Ubuntu Mobile will be successful.

~~~
vetinari
Sorry, but some of the things you wrote are about perception, not reality.

What does "prone to security issues" mean? And compared to what? When we
compare iOS and Android, iOS had 304 vulnerabilities in 2007-2013 (294 in
2009-2013), while Android had 29 in 2009-2013[1]. That's order of magnitude
difference, yet Android is blamed to be prone to security holes.

Also what does "clunky unless you run it on the latest hardware"? All systems
are slow, when you run new system on old hardware. You cannot bend physics
there. Ever used iOS4 on iPhone 3G? iOS7 on iPhone4? Or why there is no WP8
update for WP7 phones? These are exactly the same reasons.

Even the APIs in Play Services, as described in the article, are exactly
marked as "google, not android". You project has to explicitly include Google
APIs, it is not enough to target Android. Every Android developer knows that.

[1]
[http://www.cvedetails.com/product/15556/](http://www.cvedetails.com/product/15556/)
and
[http://www.cvedetails.com/product/19997/](http://www.cvedetails.com/product/19997/)

~~~
wes-exp
Vulnerability numbers alone do not accurately convey the mobile security
landscape. To start with, even if those mean something, we must consider that
Android devices tend to lag behind in terms of receiving OS updates. By
contrast, iOS devices tend to be quickly updated.

It is widely known that iOS is far more secure in the practical sense for the
average user. Report:
[http://www.f-secure.com/static/doc/labs_global/Research/Mobi...](http://www.f-secure.com/static/doc/labs_global/Research/Mobile%20Threat%20Report%20Q4%202012.pdf)

~~~
vetinari
Few centuries ago, it was widely known, that the Earth is flat. Just because
something is widely believed, does not mean, that it is true. I would prefer
to believe hard, cold numbers, or analysis like this:
[http://qz.com/131436/contrary-to-what-youve-heard-android-
is...](http://qz.com/131436/contrary-to-what-youve-heard-android-is-almost-
impenetrable-to-malware/)

That F-Secure report describes legitimate applications that could be
potentialy used as a malware (e.g. just like Wireshark on desktops) or
trojans. What happens with trojans is described in the link above.

Also note, that it is in F-Secure's interest to cause scare, it is good for
their business. They are not interested in people rationaly thinking about
presented issues.

------
sriramyadavalli
Nothing wrong with what Google is doing. Google is essentially a consumer (and
enterprise) cloud services company that is looking to commoditize (read open
source/sell at cost) all other parts of the stack. That includes open-sourcing
Chrome/Android, selling Chromecast/Google Fiber at cost.

------
peterashford
Claiming that Google is "controlling open source" by working in-house on it's
own Android applications is just really bizarre.

------
pazimzadeh
So, every Samsung phone effectively comes with three versions of the main apps
- the AOSP version, the Google Play version, and Samsung's bloatware?

This seems like a terrible situation for users. Can someone with a Samsung
smartphone confirm this?

If this is the case, how are the apps organized when you first buy the phone -
are they all in one big apps list?

~~~
hrkristian
Samsung devices ship with two versions, remember that while Samsung can't opt
out of the Google apps, they're free to remove any AOSP app they'd like.

In fact, I've had AOSP apps disappear from my Cyanogen Mod ROM when I
installed gapps, although I don't know if that was due to being overwritten or
just part of the install script.

------
enimodas
Wow, I've heard that HN is often pro google, but this thread makes it
blatantly clear.

------
devx
I know this is potentially dangerous in the future (I worry more about NSA
having direct access to all the phones in the world through Google), but in
terms of user experience, I welcome this. In order to have an ecosystem that
is "as unified and standardized as possible" you need to have one company
controlling it, and the vision behind it. Too many companies pulling in too
many directions is not that good.

Here's a different perspective:

[http://techtainian.com/news/2013/10/20/editorial-how-
kitkat-...](http://techtainian.com/news/2013/10/20/editorial-how-kitkat-will-
reclaim-android-and-unify-holo-with-kennedy)

------
EGreg
If AOSP is open source and Google updates let's say the location services, why
can't anyone start a similar project for AOSP and have it funded (like by
Apache or Mozilla)?

It seems that the main problem is the gatekeepers who manufacture phones.

~~~
zobzu
Mozilla makes Firefox OS. They don't have the resources to also fix Android
and what not, I think. Apache takes a few projects under its wing but they
don't provide the developers, and thus many of their projects are stalling.

------
protomyth
IMHO, the unfair part is the following:

"Since the Kindle OS counts as an incompatible version of Android, no major
OEM is allowed to produce the Kindle Fire for Amazon. So when Amazon goes
shopping for a manufacturer for its next tablet, it has to immediately cross
Acer, Asus, Dell, Foxconn, Fujitsu, HTC, Huawei, Kyocera, Lenovo, LG,
Motorola, NEC, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, Toshiba, and ZTE off the list."

Google Apps and APIs are fine and good, but I don't think any company should
dictate to an OEM what products they can make for other companies.

------
Apocryphon
I'm surprised that there's no mention of Tizen, Samsung and Intel's project
and supposedly the former's Plan B to ditch Android altogether. With the same
TouchWiz skin both Samsung's Android and Tizen, and with both OS's able to run
Android apps, the plan would be to swap out the underlying OS without the
users noticing.

------
arikrak
Sometimes businesses take measures to increase profits at the expense of their
users. However, preventing fragmentation of Android seems to be both in both
Google's interests and the users. Only certain competitors could mind. Also,
why should Google do all the work of creating an operating system and not get
anything in return?

------
at-fates-hands
As much as the Android people hate the Apple people, Android is doing the same
thing Windows and Apple have been doing for years - trying to shoe horn people
into THEIR walled in garden.

This is the future of smartphones. You pick a phone and by doing so, you pick
the walled garden you're going to most comfortable playing in, pure and
simple.

------
ksk
I think Google's malicious intent is being over-exaggerated. It could simply
be that they don't have enough resources to maintain old code. As to them
creating closed-source apps, well, Google knows which side their bread is
buttered on :) Anything that makes money for them is closed source.

------
bsaul
I'm curious to know if there are any internal google project of porting all
the Google play API on iOS (either on Objective-C , or using a cross-platform
language such as mono develop, which would make more sense).

------
simbolit
Why don't they (potential competitors) write an open source app based on
openstreetmap? Their mapping data is usually on par, often even superior to
that of Google. Plus, its free (in both senses of the word).

------
heliodor
Nothing good can come out of Amazon or Samsung influencing or controlling
Android. If those companies were in control, we'd still be in the tech ice
ages where the phone companies control our devices.

------
alexandros
So I guess the sign to look out for is Samsung licensing the Amazon APIs?

~~~
thethimble
That would be interesting: an Amazon-Samsung software-hardware partnership.

------
fblp
This is an excellent piece of tech journalism and thank you for the journalist
for examining each aspect of Google's strategy so thoroughly.

------
MarkMc
As a Google shareholder, this article warms the cockles of my heart. Why
should Amazon be able to get all the Android improvements that Google creates?

------
wavesum
I don't see how making closed source apps is "Controlling open source"

------
Tichy
By any means necessary? So they'd murder to control the source?

------
cremnob
Open always wins, until it conflicts with your business interests. "Open" used
to be the oft-repeated advantage over iOS in the early days, I wonder if that
will slip away from the narrative like "SD card slots", "removable batteries",
and "real keyboard" did.

~~~
TylerE
History doesn't really support this. Even Linux had to get some corporate
backing (initially Red Hat, Suse, and the like), and later Canonical and
others before it really took off.

Open source has proven to be a long term survivor, but not a winner.

~~~
Mikeb85
Open source is most definitely winning in infrastructure, high performance
computing, servers, etc...

Ask IBM or Oracle if Linux is losing...

~~~
TylerE
You're conflating the reasons though...would Linux be winning in those areas
without big corporate $$$?

~~~
Mikeb85
Does it matter? Corporations adopted Linux because of it's openness, and Linux
is winning in those areas because of corporations who adopted it because
of....

Open doesn't mean 'hobbyist', it merely refers to the freedoms enabled by the
code's license...

~~~
TylerE
They adapted it because it was cheaper, not because it was open. Now, open
frequently _tends_ to be cheaper, but not always, it isn't an inherent quality
of openness.

~~~
Mikeb85
IBM and Oracle both have in-house operating systems (AIX, z/OS, Solaris), and
are both big enough that they have, for all practical purposes, unlimited
resources.

Yet both use and push Linux, IBM uses SUSE Enterprise, and Oracle forked Red
Hat's OS...

I really doubt either cared about whatever marginal cost they may or may not
save. Linux's openness is kind of like natural selection - good features live
on, bad ones die.

Open source does make better software (everything else being equal of course).

------
goggles99
Should read more like "Google has an Iron grip on Google Apps (Gapps)" \- Not
Android. Android is the OS, not the Google service based apps.

~~~
stinos
Isn't the whle point of the article that it's getting harder and harder to get
the OS without being tied to Gapps? Which would justify the title?

~~~
swetland
The Android platform is open source under Apache/BSD/MIT licenses -- it's no
harder to get that than it ever has been (not hard at all). Look at products
like Kindle Fire for examples of "uses Android without Google Apps".

~~~
stinos
Yes you can easily just download it. But that's not exactly what the article
is about. It's about why OEMs don't just download it and put it on there as
such, but instead seem to get tied to Google Apps.

