

Android openness withering as Google withholds Honeycomb  - gamble
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2011/03/android-openness-withering-as-google-withhold-honeycomb-code.ars

======
mycroftiv
I don't understand all the justifications for Google's behavior being posted.
I chose to purchase an Android phone because I believed that Google was
committed to a truly open source mobile operating system. To me, that means
that when I buy a hardware device that runs the OS, I can also download the
source code the device uses, modify it, make use of my customized version, and
share my changes with others. I feel that Google is trying to have their cake,
and eat it too. At this point in time, I regard the Motorola Xoom and other
Honeycomb devices as proprietary platforms that should be avoided by those who
care about their software freedom.

~~~
Pewpewarrows
What's not to understand? They don't think Honeycomb is ready for general
consumption, and they'd rather wait until Ice Cream (when the tablet and phone
versions of Android converge) to release. If you want to hack away at
Honeycomb for tablets, you just have to contact them and they'll provide you
the full source code.

They've done this to a lesser extent in the past with almost every major
version of Android (where the Open Sourcing of it comes after devices already
ship). Does it suck that it's taking longer for 3.0? Sure it does. Do they
have a valid reason to do so? You bet they do. Avoiding almost certain fiascos
of companies trying to shoe-horn Honeycomb onto phones is a definite concern.

~~~
mycroftiv
I apologize for sounding argumentative, but you are missing the point. I
understand Google's motivations, there is nothing mysterious about a company
trying to protect its brand by controlling the user experience. I agree their
actions are rational given their goals. The problem is that the essence of
free open source software, which I believed Android was intended to be, is
that users are given the freedom to modify the source code - regardless of
whether or not such modifications are beneficial for anyone's brand!

I am not a free software absolutist - people should be free to create and use
proprietary software. However, I want to make the personal choice to use free
software, and have access to the source code that is not conditional on
whether my use is beneficial to any external entity. I understand that Google
avoids the GPL for the non linux kernel portions of Android. I was hoping that
Google would nonetheless treat Android as a free software OS where you always
have access to the source code of any device. I feel like its a "bait and
switch" in terms of how it has been portrayed to the community of users who
care about software freedom. I don't understand why some people maintain that
it doesn't change Android's openness just because Google says it will release
the source code "someday".

~~~
enjo
I think you're over-thinking this. It's clear to me that Honeycomb simply
isn't done. You can see it on the xoom. It's just not ready yet. It was
shipped incredibly early.

Google is holding it back because their probably just not happy with the state
the thing is in. It was rushed and this is their implicit omission of it.I
think this is a pride of ownership thing, nothing more.

~~~
mellis
If they're ready to ship the binaries, they should be ready to ship the source
code.

~~~
metageek
> _If they're ready to ship the binaries_

It's a little more nuanced than that. They believed the binaries were a good
product _for 10-inch tablets,_ but would perform badly on smaller screens. If
they ship source, though, people will try to get it running on small screens.

That's what the Ars article is referring to as cutting corners (an
inflammatory statement): Honeycomb could have been generic enough to be a good
product on all screen sizes, but they needed to save time to let the Xoom meet
its ship date.

~~~
enjo
I'm arguing that Google didn't even believe that the binaries were a good
product for 10-inch tablets. My bet is that Motorola forced their hand a bit,
as opposed to waiting for the software to actually be complete.

It's a pretty long list of issues with the XOOM software even today.

------
silvestrov
_...Google has made the decision to keep the Honeycomb source code under wraps
because it doesn't want hardware vendors to adapt it to run on other form
factors where it might not function properly._

This is completely bullshit. If code is really open, it allows everybody to
use the code as they see fit, however unfit other users might think it is.

The Apache webserver is really open: I can modify it and use it without any
restriction from the Apache Foundation just because they might think my
modifications "don't function properly".

~~~
jessriedel
This ignores the difference in technical competence of consumers versus Apache
users. If some vendor makes a crappy tablet that runs Android, users will
associate that crappiness with the Android trademark because they are unable
to tell whose fault it is. There is no similar risk of the Apache trademark
being tarnished because some guy sets up a crappy webserver with it.

~~~
ssp
_users will associate that crappiness with the Android trademark_

That's a legitimate concern, but it could be fixed by not allowing people to
use the Android trademark on hardware that Google deemed crappy.

~~~
albertzeyer
Yes, exactly like Firefox. This may be after all a good idea.

------
anon1385
<http://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429>

    
    
      the definition of open: “mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make”

~~~
chwahoo
Well I don't think Google has any choice about releasing their Kernel
modifications, Android will still meet _this_ openness criteria.

Or is that what you were saying? If so, that's kind of a silly definition of
openness--If you care about the kernel being open source, you probably also
care about the rest of the OS. I'm disappointed about the delay, but Android
is still way more open than iOS in the ways I care about, i.e., I can run any
app I want.

------
bobz
This article strikes me as inflammatory, the underlying actions by Google seem
reasonable.

There's a difference between valuing openness, and promising openness at the
expense of all other values. To me, Google has demonstrated the first
consistently throughout the history of their company.

I'm sure there are good reasons to hold back the source. My guess would be,
they don't want people trying to build tablets that can't run the OS properly.
If Android gets a reputation for shitty tablets, that would be devastating to
the platform.

If we still don't have up to date source in two years, we can start to worry
that the Google we loved is dead.

~~~
anon1385
<http://source.android.com/> states that

 _Android is an open-source software stack for mobile devices, and a
corresponding open-source project led by Google. We created Android in
response to our own experiences launching mobile apps. We wanted to make sure
that there was no central point of failure, so that no industry player can
restrict or control the innovations of any other. That's why we created
Android, and made its source code open._

It doesn't say

 _Android is a closed-source software stack for mobile devices, and a
corresponding closed-source project led by Google. We created Android in
response to our own experiences launching mobile apps. We wanted to make sure
that there was a central point of control, so that we can protect our brand
assets. That's why we created Android, and kept its source code secret._

If to get your open platform to become popular you have to sacrifice any idea
of openness, then what was the point?

~~~
kj12345
But is it reasonable to say that Google has "sacrificed any idea of openness"
by delaying the release of source code for one iteration of its platform?

~~~
protomyth
Yes. Eventually is not now. Right now, Honeycomb is a closed source OS.
Allowing politicians to live in the eventually (so they can keep their pet
issue alive to get re-elected and not solved) has done us no good. Allowing
companies to pull the same trick is not acceptable either. Open should not be
a marketing term.

As mellis said <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2369108> they shipped
product so the source should be good enough to ship also.

------
enjo
Is it possible that there is a much simpler explanation here? For anyone who
has touched a XOOM, it's clear that Honeycomb wasn't ready when it was
launched. Bugs, incomplete features, and general lack of polish was really
evident.

I think this is Google admitting that. They're not releasing it not out of
some closed-source conspiracy, but rather because the damn thing isn't ready
to be released. Sorry Motorola, but you pushed something out the door you
shouldn't have.

It's the simplest explanation, and IMHO most likely the correct one. Google
doesn't want this in the wild simply because it shouldn't be. They can't say
that, but that sure seems to be what's happening.

~~~
guygurari
Then why did they release it to manufacturers like Motorola?

Edit: To clarify, I think being open means that you either release to everyone
or to no one. So arguing that it isn't ready became irrelevant once the xoom
shipped.

~~~
nathanb
I think that this hits the nail on the head. If the code is ready to be used
by consumers, it should be ready for developers to inspect it.

Imagine if a writer said "I'm ready to publish my book, but I'm not willing to
release the manuscript to editors". This isn't a perfect analogy since I'm
sure Google do massive amounts of in-house QA, but it seems like the more
feedback you're getting on the code, the easier it will be to whip it into
shape. Saying you don't want to release the source because it's not ready or
not mature is almost nonsensical.

~~~
billmcneale
> I think that this hits the nail on the head. If the code is ready to be used
> by consumers, it should be ready for developers to inspect it.

I take it you're not a developer?

Putting running applications in users' hands is priority #1, and it usually
goes at the expense of the cleanliness of the code.

Once you're happy with the mindshare that your application has gained, you
look at the code and clean it up before releasing it.

~~~
nathanb
If you want to make a credible claim to being open source, you have to realize
that the code _is_ your product. To say that the code is too bad to be seen
and then turn around to say that the product is wonderful and everyone should
buy an Android tablet is, while not evil, disappointingly low-class.

(Did I really expect otherwise? No, I'm not naive. Google's products are open
source to the extent that it suits them, and no further.)

------
dspeyer
I wonder if people would be less upset if it were called Gingerbread-tablet,
and described as a temporary closed fork to meet manufacturing deadlines.
That's really what it is, but giving it the Honeycomb name makes it look like
the future of android, which it isn't.

------
benatkin
I feel like I was fooled by this:

<https://twitter.com/#!/Arubin/status/27808662429>
[http://www.quora.com/Whats-the-most-epic-tweet-on-
Twitter/an...](http://www.quora.com/Whats-the-most-epic-tweet-on-
Twitter/answer/Aditya-Rathnam)

------
Apocryphon
You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the
villain.

------
VladRussian
It was Apple and MS, now Apple and Google. The structure of the market is the
same because of the same acting forces. Google fills the same space for mobile
non-PC gadgets that MS has filled for PC - the common software platform for
hardware manufacturers. As in case of PC, the hardware manufacturers who isn't
running the platform will become flushed out (except for Apple :). There is
nothing in that situation that requires openness, even more - the openness may
put the business at risk.

------
kfir
Sadly Android was never open source; in the past you could get the source but
you NEVER had the ability to submit patches, unless you worked at one of
Google strategic partners.

------
jwhitlark
Let he who publishes _every_ commit to github _immediately_ cast the first
stone.

------
escanda
The idea Google is waiting to have polished this release to open it so device
creators don't ship it is flawed.

If such were their concern they would revoke the use of the Android trademark
and manufacturers could have to call it by a different name avoiding the
issue.

------
nethsix
I think we should always be skeptical when something appears to be 'free',
especially when it comes from a company that is likely to monetize it in the
future. Android was probably started to unseat Apple's dominance and touting
it as open was the best strategy to attract developers. There are probably
many of such cases, e.g., Amazon, Twitter changing their stance, leading to
products depending on them to suffer. Companies are selfish so they'll do what
is best for them. However, developers mainly have themselves to blame for
wanting to believe that such 'free' platforms exist in their own pursuit to
monetize it. Unless something is endorsed by Free Software Foundation, then
you should take it as not entirely 'free'.

------
yhlasx
Do haters always has to come up with something to say how Google did wrong ?
They were complaining that Android is turning into a mess, running out of
control, because Google let it FREE in all means. That Google is doing wrong,
that they need to take situation under control. And now ? Again Google did
wrong ? Yeah

No one can deny that Android was a HUGE HUGE success. Google is innovating and
making money, at the same time keeping customers pleased.

That is what they do best, as one blog here said. They manage to keep their
interests along with customer wishes. [Down voters, thank you ! :)]

~~~
bonch
The most amusing part of your post, other than the strange grammar, is your
implication that Google is some target of bias. Google gets more glowing press
coverage and free passes than any other technology company. Imagine the red-
hot nerd rage if it was Apple who had been caught driving vans through
neighborhoods and archiving people's unprotected WiFi data.

------
jsmcgd
Why doesn't Google instead completely open up the platform and offer Android
certificates for hardware that passes muster? That way the platform stays open
and their brand doesn't get destroyed by 3rd rate hardware.

------
guelo
<http://source.android.com/faqs.html>

here google fully explains their thinking around android soure.

------
billmcneale
Google has never open sourced an Android version before it estimated it ready.
Honeycomb is no different.

I don't understand the fuss.

------
ugh
I don’t think it matters. If you think it does I would like to hear some
reasonable scenarios from you that affect a large number of users negatively.

------
lutorm
Can someone explain to me how shipping devices with Honeycomb without
supplying the source is not a violation of the GPL?

~~~
wmf
The source that they're witholding is not GPL.

~~~
lutorm
And it's not a derivative work of the Linux kernel? I don't know much about
how Android is structured, but I thought people were complaining that Google
didn't push their changes upstream into the main Linux kernel, which would
imply that it's part of the Linux kernel.

~~~
wmf
Presumably Google has published the Honeycomb kernel (I didn't bother to
verify this), but that's not interesting. The other 90% of Android is non-GPL
userspace code.

~~~
lutorm
Ok, thanks.

------
harshaw
<sigh> Occam's razor. Google seems to be committed to open source when ready.

------
wslh
I ask again: Where is the Open Source Mobile scene?

------
dazzla
Is Apple sponsoring these articles or something?

~~~
rimantas
So, by this kind of logic articles about apps rejected or 30% subscription fee
were sponsored by Google? Is the idea that this turn of event (Honeycomb
source not being open for indefinite amount of time) being interesting by
itself so weird?

~~~
dazzla
Of course I don't really think that's the case I'm just amazed by the over
reaction to something google have done all along.

~~~
wzdd
This is true and happened with 1.5 and with the Nexus One: new version dev in
private, then a big open sourcing effort (by specific team members) after the
version is released. I guess the difference here is that for 3.0 they
indicated that they made a lot of tablet-specific changes which won't
translate well to phones. So the source isn't in a state where they want to
release it for phones, and get the opposite of last year's fiasco (when OEMs
put 2.x onto tablets).

------
mmcdan
I don't understand all the animosity. Google should have never called Android
"open-source", which is a loaded word, and called it a "Mobile Platform with
Viewable Source" or something. If Google did the exact same thing under a non-
loaded name, they would be praised for the fact that they handle all the
carrier bullshit/politics and developed an OS that is not a black box. To have
a true "Open Source TM" mobile OS, Google would have to stop working with
carriers(the definition of a closed ecosystem). I would rather develop on a
platform with delayed source code releases that will be on the majority of
phones in the world, than an open-source platform that carriers were too
afraid to use on their phones.

So as a developer, I'm not really pissed about the fact that the source is
delayed for a month or two. I'm more pissed about the shitty Market experience
which drives customers away and the many countries that are not allowed to
purchase paid apps.

