

Android ROM Modder gets Cease and Desist from Google - jamesk2
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/google_issues_cease_and_desist_letter_android_rom_modder
The original site this article references times out for me.
======
QE2
I was actually considering an Android phone, the Instinct Q to be precise. I
got a Palm Pre two weeks ago, which is also Linux-based, and now I feel that I
made the right decision.

With Windows Mobile, I was always running custom ROMs and tweaking. The Pre
doesn't have any custom ROMs per se, but that's because the whole thing is so
simple that you can easily apply patches (about 90% the user-visible system is
created with plain text files--HTML, Javascript, JSON, et cetera).

I work at a T-Mo call center, and there are a lot of reps here who say the
myTouch is complete crap without custom ROMs. If Google really wants to build
a loyal following--particularly in the tech community--this decision needs to
be reversed and /never/ repeated.

------
mark_h
Google's official response is here: [http://android-
developers.blogspot.com/2009/09/note-on-googl...](http://android-
developers.blogspot.com/2009/09/note-on-google-apps-for-android.html)

I still don't think they've adequately covered it. The key to me is in the
penultimate paragraph, where they first say

    
    
        "With a high-quality open platform in hand, we then returned to our goal of making our services available on users' phones.",
    

and then

    
    
        "We make some of these apps available to users of any Android-powered device via Android Market, and others are pre-installed on some phones through business deals."
    

The key to me is that they're not making their services available on users'
phones, they're making them available on distributors' phones (through
"business deals"). As nuclear_eclipse points out this is basically their only
bargaining point, but I really think they need to find another way around
this.

Count me as another who was just about to buy an Android phone, and is now
seriously reconsidering.

~~~
thwarted
That's an interesting interpretation of what really amounts to a position
statement on software licensing, a position that I'm sure most of all already
accept and live by. The base android code is open source. Google has not open
sourced the apps they provide that integrate with their other service
offerings. These apps are proprietary. Any carrier or handset maker is able to
use the android platform, which is open source. I think it's reasonable to
allow, and expect, the same entity, be it individual developers or companies,
to provide software under multiple licenses. Proprietary software is available
for open source operating systems run on desktop computers, and Android helps
enable that same software ecosystem on cellphones also. This hardly seems like
a reason to NOT get an Android phone, but rather the reason to get one.

No one expects any app developer to open source their app just because it is
sold or available in the Android Market. And app developers are welcome to get
a carrier or include their app as part of a base install, which is effectively
what Google has done as part of being an app developer. If the carrier pays
the developer for that, or the developer pays the carrier for that, or if
money doesn't change hands for that, maybe the developer just wants increased
exposure and usage of their app that would come from it being in a default
install, that's between those two parties.

EDIT to add:

It's unfortunate that Google is saying that they license their apps to
distributors. What would it take for ROM creators to become licencors?
Alternatively, since Google presumably has an interest in people actually
using their apps, that they don't provide a way for users who are using a
properly licensed phone/ROM who are using those apps to be installed other
than through the base install seems kind of shortsighted. Some of their apps
are available in the market (like the Finance, My Maps Editor, there was an
update to the core Maps app that you installed from the Market), but an
alternative of allowing the people who should be able to use the apps, because
they've purchased a phone with a ROM that is licensed to, update them seems
necessary and right.

~~~
mark_h
You are right of course, and I think I was mostly -- mostly -- over-reacting.
I always thought they were entirely within their rights, just that they
handled it in a rather unfortunate fashion.

The main point I was trying to make was that they were justifying opening
android in order to be able to have a consistent platform to provide their
services on, but are now effectively saying that they want to restrict who
uses them.

Again, quite within their rights, but if all they cared about was people being
able to access their services it would seem to be a non-issue. I'm pretty sure
nuclear_eclipse is on the money.

I do agree with your update, and that seems to be effectively the compromise
cyanogen has worked out (<http://www.cyanogenmod.com/home/the-current-state>);
we'll have to see what sort of experience that provides.

~~~
thwarted
Well, "provide" in the sentence "justifying opening android in order to be
able to have a consistent platform to provide their services on" has a meaning
from the standpoint of the provider. They own the proprietary code of the
individual apps (gtalk, mail, voice search, youtube, etc), and in order to be
able to _provide_ these specific apps written in this specific code, they
needed to open source the platform to encourage other vendors to buy in.

It's actually kind of similar to their stance on the Chrome browser: the web
browser itself is open source, and they are providing that in order to enable
a consistent platform for their apps (mail, gtalk, youtube, whatever). Just
because the browser is open source doesn't mean they need to, or anyone
expects them to, open source the code to gmail. If you consider the line
between the user and the service to be at the device/UI level, and not at the
network level, then this makes sense. They are enabling a better experience by
providing functionality that can run more locally to you. This is, however, a
huge risk on their part. They know that their software is easier to reverse
engineer once it is not running just on their servers -- which, considering
the complexity of the gmail android app, makes me wonder why no one has done
enough reverse engineering to be able to recreate the UI and still use their
backend -- the desktop browser gmail service doesn't require SSL, so it's easy
to take a look at the protocol (much easier than trying to network-sniff an
SSL session on the android platform itself, if the gmail app uses SSL) and
recreate it. And now that they've created and released an app that runs
locally they are more tied to a consistent API than they were with just a
browser based app, so the rationale of "they'll just change the API and we'll
always be playing catch up" against reverse engineering is moot. It's most
likely against the gmail TOS though.

Incidentally, I'd like a thirdparty gmail app because I want to access a gmail
account that isn't tied to my phone from my phone (like my work account, we
use google mail service for company email), however the web based interface is
pretty strong. While it's interesting from a UX standpoint to have EVERYTHING
tied to one google account, it's not pragmatic and doesn't work with the goal
people accessing using/their services.

------
davidw
Like they say on LWN.net, this might just be an incentive to develop free
alternatives to Google's apps. The problem is not Android itself, but the
stuff they add on top of it; maps, gmail, etc...

~~~
joeyo
Another alternative would be for Google to simply offer those apps for
downloaded as they do for their software on any other platform. I wonder if
there is some Google authentication glue that they have not yet modularized
enough to allow this to happen.

(That's not to say that there shouldn't be free alternatives developed.)

~~~
nuclear_eclipse
Those applications are Google's sole bargaining point with handset
manufacturers and carriers to have them build Android devices meeting certain
requirements in order to make sure the Google Experience is up to par. If
carrier/manufacturers don't agree to Google's terms, then they aren't allowed
to distribute those "killer" apps with their phones. Making those apps still
available to end-users who potentially may or may not have a Google
Experience-worthy phone would kill much of their bargaining factor...

That said, as a user of CyanogenMod on my G1, I'd be absolutely heartbroken if
his builds could no longer distribute these apps.

~~~
jrockway
_Those applications are Google's sole bargaining point with handset
manufacturers and carriers to have them build Android devices meeting certain
requirements in order to make sure the Google Experience is up to par._

Not sure that this is such a good idea. As soon as someone builds a phone that
is otherwise up to spec but doesn't have a good enough camera, it loses Google
Maps. Then the users say, "Android sucks, I can't even see maps" and buys an
iPhone instead.

~~~
nuclear_eclipse
Well, considering the G1's camera is about as terrible as it can get on a
smartphone, I can't imagine another phone missing out on the Google Experience
for that, but I completely understand your point. But at the same time, if you
consider the G1 as a "baseline" set of requirements, do you really want
manufacturers putting out anything less? It's already more-or-less commodity
hardware available or $100 or less from the carrier, so there's not much
incentive to skimp any further without destroying the UX.

------
DTrejo
The original article is more informative because it links to the response.

Original: [http://androidandme.com/2009/09/hacks/cyanogenmod-in-
trouble...](http://androidandme.com/2009/09/hacks/cyanogenmod-in-trouble/)

Response: [http://androidandme.com/2009/09/news/google-responds-to-
cyan...](http://androidandme.com/2009/09/news/google-responds-to-cyanogenmod-
controversy/)

------
rabidsnail
Why not just release a binary patch to an official android firmware image
(which the phone owner already has), and a patching program? Then he wouldn't
have to distribute any google code.

~~~
jacquesm
Either that or do a clean-room re-implementation.

