
Android Honeycomb not immediately open sourced - rpledge
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/24/google_will_not_open_source_android_honeycomb_on_release_of_first_devices/
======
Kylekramer
Google is between a rock and a hard place. They release Honeycomb source, then
a bunch of makers will rush out with phones (this move is clearly about phones
and not tablets) running an OS they don't want on phones yet. And if they do,
the headline would be "Steve Jobs vindicated: Google Android is fragmented as
hell". Of course, ignoring that Apple did the same exact forking and then
merging move with iOS.

Personally I would err on the side of openness and let the shitty
manufacturers run wild, but at least this way the blowback is just a bunch of
philosophical arguments on nerd sites and not actual customers buying bad
Android products.

~~~
ChuckMcM
One could argue (and I do) that it is the life they chose, they want their
cake and to eat it too. But absolute control over the user experience is
pretty much incompatible with 'open'[1]. As someone who was privileged to here
some of the debate about this pre-1.0 launch I can tell you that the things
that have come to pass are not 'surprises.'

An alternative way to deal with this is to execute well and have you're stuff
be the 'best' by virtue of the fact that you have a bunch of great focussed
folks working on it and delivering new updates, but that is a hard strategy to
execute successfully. There are a lot of folks 'outside' vs 'inside' when you
are truly open.

In one such internal discussion, when the question of lots of people outside
of Google trying lots of different UI's and form factors, it was noted (with a
well known cliche) 'that is a good problem to have.' I guess not so much :-)

[1] Submitted as exemplar the KDE vs Gnome "discussion."

------
jrwoodruff
Bit of an inaccurate title there - honeycomb will not be open sourced until
they decide it's ready. Android is still open.

Oh, and Steve Jobs has already been vindicated by selling billions of dollars
of tech.

~~~
latch
Isn't honeycomb just a codename for the latest version of android though?
Isn't that like saying: Ubuntu LATEST will not be open sourced until...Ubuntu
OLD is still open ? In my mind, that makes it a whole lot more closed than
open.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Unlike say, Ubuntu or Google Chrome, Android has always been developed behind
closed doors and then opened, usually a few weeks after devices ship with it
preloaded.

That is a difference on the spectrum of openess, and on that measure Chrome or
Ubuntu has always beaten Android. The only difference for Honeycomb is the
time between device and code reveal.

It's a bit of a philosophical question as to whether changing that 2 week
delay to a 2 month delay moves you from "open" to "closed".

~~~
joebadmo
I think it's salient to point out, too, that that shift on the spectrum is
tiny compared to the spectrum-distance between Google and any other player in
the industry.

------
NickPollard
To me, 'Open' is not the same as just 'Open Source'. I'm not really that
interested in whether Android is open source or not.

What I am interested in is whether the device lets me do what _I_ want - that
is, it allows me to download and install whatever software I choose to, in
what manner I want. Android lets me do this. That is why Android is 'Open'.

Whilst I understand for most consumers this is not an issue, and I have no
qualms with people who go along with that, for me personally as a programmer,
I will not buy any other smartphone platform if it does not afford me that
same liberty.

~~~
ZoFreX
How is Android open under your definition? My phone has a locked-down
bootloader that will only load an OS that has been signed by Motorola, I can't
get root, I can't flash it, and I can't upgrade to the latest version of
Android. Right now I'm feeling pretty closed.

~~~
joebadmo
Google's position on this has always been that they're open to the
carriers/manufacturers doing whatever they want with the software, and when
they do something bad, well, people do bad things sometimes.

I find it amusing that when Google is open to carriers/manufacturers doing
whatever they want, people (usually non-android users, though you're an
exception here) complain about how they're not open, and when Google tries to
take more control of the development process to protect the user experience,
people (again, usually same non-android users) complain about the same thing.

That said, I think Google could definitely do things better. I, for one, wish
Google would exercise their "Google Experience" branding to enforce unlocked
boot loaders and root access. On the issue of open sourcing Honeycomb, I could
really care less. On the spectrum of closed to open, they're way farther on
the open side than anyone else in the industry so I don't find it hypocritical
at all for them to claim to be open.

(NB: I also own a Motorola device with a locked boot loader. I was very
surprised and delighted by how much the devs were still able to do, but I
definitely wish I could get some custom kernels installed.)

------
yellowbkpk
I don't understand these "Google Android is not open" arguments. Can you go to
<http://source.apple.com/> and download iOS 1.0? No. Can you go to
<http://source.blackberry.com/> and download their OS? No. Sure, Honeycomb
isn't coming out right this very moment, but at least there's _something_
there.

By any definition Google is at least several orders of magnitude more "open"
than Apple. Apple releases _no_ source (other than what is required of them,
and only after a few weeks or months). Google releases _all_ source (sure,
after a few weeks or months).

~~~
gamble
Apple doesn't hammer its competitors over the head with moralistic claims
about how 'open' they are. Google does.

However, I will point out that some of Apple's open-source work (Webkit) is
far more widely used than anything Google has done with Android.

~~~
grammaton
You do realize that Android's browser is built on webkit, yes?

~~~
tvon
I'd think that would strengthen the point.

That said, I'm sure you could argue over who gets to claim WebKit as their own
these days since I've seen a few people refer to it as "Google's WebKit" since
they surpassed Apple in checkins at some point (or had for a month at least,
it's not something I care to follow that closely).

~~~
grammaton
The fact that Google does more work on it would tend to weaken the point.
Also, the fact that Google is using Apple's software tends to undermine the
Team A vs Team B regime that's the premise of most of these discussions.

------
bane
There's a big difference between

"On Thursday, the company said that as its select partners release the first
tablets based on Android "Honeycomb" – the latest version of its mobile
operating system – _it will not open source the Honeycomb code._ "

And "But there was no indication that the code wouldn't be promptly open
sourced as the first devices were released. What's more, Google did not make a
public announcement that it will keep the source closed. "

I'd be surprised if Google has manged to rid every last piece of GPL'd
software from the OS. Otherwise, they're going to have to release the source.

Check here for updates <http://source.android.com/>

~~~
rbanffy
> I'd be surprised if Google has manged to rid every last piece of GPL'd
> software from the OS. Otherwise, they're going to have to release the
> source.

They have to release source to the GPL parts (WebKit, the kernel and stuff
that links directly to it, like drivers and possibly other stuff they use).
From their glibc-like Bionic and up (including the userland, Dalvik),
everything is BSD-style and they have no obligation whatsoever to release
anything. Not even to manufacturers.

~~~
daeken
FYI, Webkit is not GPL. There are pieces in LGPL, and the majority is a BSD
license.

~~~
rbanffy
I stand corrected. KHTML is LGPL not GPL.

------
trotsky
_But the reality is surely that Google and its partners don't want smaller
name manufacturers eating into their tablet sales. Or perhaps they don't want
larger names nabbing pieces of code for their own tablet OSes._

Why would they be worried about this? Isn't the purpose of Android* to
increase global pageviews and sell more (local) ads? Don't 2nd tier OEMs and
competing platforms further these goals?

While I am not sure if you can take google at face value in terms of their
reasons, the author's conclusions seem wildly unsourced. Unless someone would
like to expand on his reasoning?

~~~
gnaffle
One example: RIM wants to ship their Playbook with support for Android apps.
They probably need the Android source code in order to do this. They've
annouced that Playbook will only support Gingerbread Android apps. With the
Honeycomb source code they might be able to support apps that work better on
tablets.

~~~
evangineer
That's an interesting point.

It seems to me however as an Android watcher, that when Google developed
Honeycomb in parallel to Gingerbread, they created an internal fork of Android
to specifically support tablets.

What needs to be done and it seems what they intend to do is heal the fork, so
they have a single codebase again. The real issue is whether they manage to do
that in time for Ice Cream.

------
grammaton
"While we’re excited to offer these new features to Android tablets, we have
more work to do before we can deliver them to other device types including
phones. Until then, we’ve decided not to release Honeycomb to open source."

The _until then_ part strikes me as pretty important. It sounds like Google is
just delaying the release of the source until they reach a certain milestone.
This is a very reasonable position to take. I think the author of the piece is
jumping to conclusions.

------
sapper2
For Google, open-source is a marketing strategy. Not more and not less.

~~~
bad_user
I don't get this argument. Does it matter what open-source is for Google?

------
antihero
At least they intend to eventually. Still a long shot from iOS.

------
mycroftiv
I was planning on purchasing an Android tablet, but no sale until the source
code is out there. I own an Android phone and have been happy with it, but I'm
not interested in giving up my freedom just to have my hands on the latest
toy. I am extremely disappointed in this decision. I wasn't under any
particular illusions about Google, but I actually believed they were comitted
to Android as an open source project. If they get their act together and get
their source code out the door soon and don't repeat this nonsense for
subsequent Android releases, they will keep me as a customer of devices based
on their operating system. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on
me.

~~~
sobedai
Not to nitpick here - but "not interested in giving up my freedom"... ever
wonder what freedoms you've signed over with your carrier?

------
brudgers
It's a bit premature to say that Steve Jobs is vindicated in so far as Android
is concerned from a journalistic standpoint and claims of "vindication" seem
to be a bit more editorial than factual. However, timing is everything when it
comes to linkbait.

------
emehrkay
Does this have anything to do with Rim's tab not being able to support
Honeycomb-based apps, but previous Android version apps?

I would guess that if rim had the source, they would support Honeycomb apps on
the playbook and it would be a selling point for them.

------
gte910h
Open sourced means "source released with binaries".

It does not mean "All code available with all checkins at all times"

Because community projects pretty much have to function that way does not mean
that's the only way to do open source.

    
    
            --An iOS developer and ex-embedded Linux/Linux kernel driver developer who's a little POed that everyone thinks only their way of doing open source is "True to Freedom" or whatever

------
gamble
Once again, Google's 'principles' become a way for apologists to excuse bad
behavior, rather than something that actually informs their actions.

------
colindoc84
so stupid. so when they release honeycomb, will there be an article saying how
google have suddenly decided to make android open source?

------
mise
If Honeycomb is Android 3.0 "for larger screens", what happens in the future
for 4 or 5 inch screens?

------
seanx
Open is not a bool, it's a float. Android may not be "open" but it is still
far more open than IOS.

