The Only Newsworthy Thing From The WWDC

[XXSuntoucherxX]

Not for nothing but about the only thing that came out of today's sheep convention was the fact that iOS9 is going to support most if not all of their old devices. This is something that Android pulled off would probably throw a huge wrench in Apples system and adoption. It would also give rise to some of the better Android phones that because largely unusable simply because of software. Also, in a backwards way it would force the big guys to start pushing hardware forward rather than bumping up specs every year. Ending fragmentation, and fostering innovation? Why isn't Google all over this?

 

[Hadron]

Because it isn't Google that provides updates to the hundreds or thousands of devices produced by many different manufacturers, whereas it is Apple who provide updates to the 9 iPhone models that have ever been made.

If you remember, KitKat is claimed to have lower hardware requirements than its immediate predecessors, but did that result in manufacturers updating older devices?

 

[EarlyMon]

Moved to the Lounge.

For some time Google has been decoupling major components from the operating system update method and providing modular, individually-updateable apps from the Play Store in their place.

The upside of this is that apps have had a very low dependency on the Android revision for quite some time.

And the smartphone experience is far more about apps than the operating system for the vast majority of users.

Apple does a great job at marketing but -

The iOS 9 on older iPhones will be called that while not actually containing all the features that the latest iPhones get. Pretty easy to brag about less fragmentation when you simply lie about the revision number.

Apple often requires new app revisions to go along with the new iOS, thanks to the adherence to old, inverted, monolithic operating system model.

Android doesn't require new apps when you go from single to dual to quad to octacore processors - thanks to the operating system being far more advanced, there is no app fragmentation in Android. There is in iOS.

But as Apple cashes in every time they convince the faithful that re-purchasing your same apps is a good thing, they have no choice but to wave the operating system fragmentation along as if that means a thing.

Is Android fragmentated?

Oh hell yes.

Is that a bad thing?

The real fragmentation is stock Android, Sense, TouchWiz, and a host of other user experiences. It's called choice - and while it may involve a learning curve if you switch brands, I think that choice is good.

Apple does a lot of good things really well.

But being truthful about their own fragmentation and innovation aren't among them.

 

[Hadron]

Out of curiosity I just checked to see what "most if not all" meant, and the devices eligible for iOS9 are the same ones that got iOS8. So definitely not all

I doubt we know yet what features won't be available on what devices, or which will run ok and which won't.

 

[mikedt]

Why isn't Google all over this?

From where I am, it's rather difficult to be all over something when you're banned by the government.

iOS has already been covered by previous posts.

 

[EarlyMon]

Android is not banned in China is it? Not last I heard. Google services ok, not Android.

And Mountain View really doesn't need permission from the Chinese government to innovate software.

In any case, here's a commercial you may recognize.

It's from the world's 3rd largest cell phone manufacturer - Xiaomi from China - and their views on how Apple markets their phones.

I'm confident that the message is loud and clear in any language - in fact, that it's this clear in Chinese leaves no room for doubt.

The Xiaomi runs the MIUI version of Android for those unfamiliar.

Here's one of the best Android/OEM skin ads I've ever seen -

And yes, that's from 5 years ago.

Sorry that the Chinese government blocks Google and a lot of the web.

Not sure about your point with regards to a government ban though.

 

[mikedt]

Android is not banned in China is it? Not last I heard. Google services ok, not Android.

And Mountain View really doesn't need permission from the Chinese government to innovate software.

In any case, here's a commercial you may recognize.

It's from the world's 3rd largest cell phone manufacturer - Xiaomi from China - and their views on how Apple markets their phones.

I'm confident that the message is loud and clear in any language - in fact, that it's this clear in Chinese leaves no room for doubt.

The Xiaomi runs the MIUI version of Android for those unfamiliar.

Here's one of the best Android/OEM skin ads I've ever seen -

And yes, that's from 5 years ago.

Sorry that the Chinese government blocks Google and a lot of the web.

Not sure about your point with regards to a government ban though.

It was the OP's suggestion that Google should be "all over this". Not going to happen.

And China Inc. does very well with Android thank you very much. Fragmented? very! ....umpteen app stores, etc.

 

[starkraving]

I agree with @EarlyMon the "fragmentation" in Android equates to choice...whether its various OEM skins or hardware.

Android has allowed users who can't afford 6-7 hundred dollar devices to still be able to have a smartphone experience. Imagine if we were all relegated to Only a Nexus experience or Galaxy experience etc our community wouldn't be what it is and a great deal of people would still be using feature phones due to a smartphone experience being out reach financially.

Our fragmentation gives us our diversity(don't get me wrong there's definitely room for improvement on some fronts). I personally can't imagine where android would be without countless different developers and themers supporting every OEM skin from entry level devices to super phones.

Are we fragmented, believe it we are...but its funny and a bit ironic how fragmentation can lead to a kind of solidarity.

 

[EarlyMon]

It was the OP's suggestion that Google should be "all over this". Not going to happen.

Yes, "all over this" as in "all about this" - this being ending fragmentation (on Apple's terms).

I got that. I agree that it's not going to happen.

My question is why do you say that's because of a government ban?

 

[EarlyMon]

Also, in a backwards way it would force the big guys to start pushing hardware forward rather than bumping up specs every year.

OK - if pushing hardware forward doesn't mean making better hardware, then what does that mean?

Are we fragmented, believe it we are...but its funny and a bit ironic how fragmentation can lead to a kind of solidarity.

 

[starkraving]

This has and will likely always be one of my favorite "making a point pics" as relates to hardware...

 

[bjacks12]

The fragmentation model works.

Just look at America. 50 different states that do all kinds of things differently(some better than others, I'm looking at you Kalifornia). And yet we came together to be the undefeated, back-to-back World War champions.

 

[starkraving]

I'd take fragmentation and diversity over a walled garden of antiquated hardware that costs a kings ransom any day. [emoji106]

 

[XXSuntoucherxX]

It was the OP's suggestion that Google should be "all over this". Not going to happen.

And China Inc. does very well with Android thank you very much. Fragmented? very! ....umpteen app stores, etc.

I was more suggesting that since Google owns Android, they should be all over it. I have been known to have issues with conveying clarity without writing out sprawling novels for forum posts. My fault.

 

[XXSuntoucherxX]

OK - if pushing hardware forward doesn't mean making better hardware, then what does that mean?

That's more a personal gripe about phones that release every year with nominal bumps in specs with no "wow" factor. Great! We've got the technology to make better everything in a phone, capacity, camera, RAM, software side stuff like multitasking, integration etc... But where's the drive that we saw years ago when smartphones were coming into their own where every phone was the so called next iPhone killer? Where's the specs that take all the pain points out of a Galaxy 4 should have been in a Galaxy 5, but instead they pushed out a 4s. That kind of thing. It's almost like the industry is pacing itself leaving the field wide open for Oppo and Huawei to come in and fill that void. WHICH IS AN AWESOME THING BTW, but why just them? It's a horrible bias I have, I know, hell looking over what I just typed it seems petty and short sided, but it's the truth. Samsung is too busy making iPhone clones - larger, and everyone else is more or less giving consumers little extra accents here and there. I'm also going to be bold and say that's why I love Nexus devices so much. They may not be cutting edge, but the software side and occasionally the hardware side from new manufacturers getting a spin with it, keep it interesting every year.

 

[starkraving]

I think the term "IPhone Killer" is subjective... I personally always saw the term as relates to market share not actual hardware. IPhone has lagged spec wise for a while.

 

[bjacks12]

That's how product life cycles work though. They start out with tons of innovation up front and then as the product matures, it changes less and less overtime until eventually some new innovation replaces it entirely.

 

[Gmash]

Hmm, I thought Apple was busy making Samsung Galaxy clones...

 

[starkraving]

That's how product life cycles work though. They start out with tons of innovation up front and then as the product matures, it changes less and less overtime until eventually some new innovation replaces it entirely.

Exactly everything plateaus at some point...there's only so much ram and so many cores and umpteen megapixel cameras we can cram into a hand held...

 

[mikedt]

I was more suggesting that since Google owns Android, they should be all over it. I have been known to have issues with conveying clarity without writing out sprawling novels for forum posts. My fault.

They own the trademark "Android", and their own proprietary stuff, i.e. Google Mobile Services (GMS), which is Play Store, Hangouts, Gmail, Youtube, Maps, Books, etc. Which here in China does very well without, and companies like Amazon do as well with their FireOS devices. However the OS itself is open source, which effectively means everyone owns it, and can do whatever they like, within the terms of the relevant open source licenses, e.g. MIT, BSD, GPL, etc.

Microsoft owns Windows Phone. Apple owns iOS. But Google does NOT own Android Open Source Project (AOSP).

 

[starkraving]

Hmm, I thought Apple was busy making Samsung Galaxy clones...

If so they're leaving out about 200ppi on the display, wireless charging, VR, IR and alot of other things...but Apple does clone the 2015 price point for antiquated hardware. [emoji6]

 

[EarlyMon]

They own the trademark "Android", and their own proprietary stuff, i.e. Google Mobile Services (GMS), which is Play Store, Hangouts, Gmail, Youtube, Maps, Books, etc. Which here in China does very well without, and companies like Amazon do as well with their FireOS devices. However the OS itself is open source, which effectively means everyone owns it, and can do whatever they like, within the terms of the relevant open source licenses, e.g. MIT, BSD, GPL, etc.

Microsoft owns Windows Phone. Apple owns iOS. But Google does NOT own Android Open Source Project (AOSP).

No matter how many times I explain that it's free as in speech, not free as in beer, I don't succeed do I?

Who proctors Android?

http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/

Google does.

How is the open source defined?

https://source.android.com/

In the AOSP repository.

Who has the git that contains the AOSP repository?

https://source.android.com/source/downloading.html

https://android.googlesource.com/

GOOGLE.

Now you can go there, download it, build on it, branch it and make your own.

But if you find a bug, fix it, and want to return it to the AOSP, what do you think your chances are of doing that with no involvement from Google?

I'll tell you - zero. None. Nada. Zip.

I'm not sure if you're aware of it but every year, there's a gathering. People come from miles away. And at that gathering, people stand on stage, and announce what the new definition of Android is. What features it has, what changes are in store for users and development.

Does everything come from one company?

Mostly but there are significant contributions by the R&D teams by some of the Open Handset Alliance, and even some by private developers.

Is it called Android I/O?

No.

Is it called Everything Is Free In China And Neener Neener Neener You Can't Stop Me We're A Socialist Autocracy I/O?

No. No it is not.

It's called Google I/O - and the only people who appear and speak for Android at the keynote are Google employees.

Everyone does not own open source. It doesn't work that way.

Everyone has a right to obtain the source code for open source. They have the right to modify it for their own purposes. And they're allowed to distribute it so long as they follow the open source licensing.

Which to date, has been cheerfully violated by more than one Chinese phone manufacturer distributing Android outside of China.

But as you're not a software engineer and Google services are evidently hard to come by in China, I've searched for the definition of open source software ownership and found this explains it well enough -

"What does `ownership' mean when property is infinitely reduplicable, highly malleable, and the surrounding culture has neither coercive power relationships nor material scarcity economics?

Actually, in the case of the open-source culture this is an easy question to answer. The owner of a software project is the person who has the exclusive right, recognized by the community at large, todistribute modified versions.

(In discussing `ownership' in this section I will use the singular, as though all projects are owned by some one person. It should be understood, however, that projects may be owned by groups. We shall examine the internal dynamics of such groups later on.)"

You can read more about that at -

http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/ar01s04.html

And also -

http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/iprguide

And you mentioned a number of open source licenses. Several you listed don't apply to Android and you've missed one of the biggest one that does.

So when you say that they "can do whatever they like, within the terms of the relevant open source licenses, e.g. MIT, BSD, GPL, etc." that's true - but you may want to read one or two and then ask yourself -

If something has a legal license, and therefore is a legally protected good or service by definition, then who does the law protect?

It doesn't protect an amorphous concept floating around on the Internet - and it doesn't protect The Peoples Socialist Republic of Android, aka The Unified And Diverse People Of Planet Earth.

It protects the defining stakeholders - the owners.

And just as you can find out about those things, you find out more about what it takes for stakeholders to gain that protection. This is a good place to begin -
https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/foss-primer.html

And as other companies have come up, let's ask - are Microsoft and Apple stakeholders in Android?

Oddly enough, despite wishing it dead, yes. Yes they are.

Microsoft makes more annually off of its Android licenses than it does its own Windows Phone. Apple has cross licensing agreements with HTC.

Anyone can stand up tomorrow and say, "Here, let me announce the real Android M, coming soon! I have defined it!"

But unless their name is Google, they're going to be sued into the stone age. And not just over some copyright.

You may download the full Android source right now - I've provided the links.

And that's a lot like free beer.

But it is not free beer - cross one of licenses and you can have the owner's attorneys explain that in court. At least in the free world, anyway.

PS - the entire core of Apple's OS X operating system on your Mac? Open source. To the bone. And yet OS X is owned by Apple. Bet you forgot about that.

 

[starkraving]

But it is not free beer - cross one of licenses and you can have the owner's attorneys explain that in court. At least in the free world, anyway.

Great explanation... So would it be fair to say that "open source" is still intellectual property of an individual or entity? The last part of your post reminds me when a guy named Steve Kondik got a cease and desist letter from a company called Google... Is that an example?

 

[EarlyMon]

Great explanation... So would it be fair to say that "open source" is still intellectual property of an individual or entity? The last part of your post reminds me when a guy named Steve Kondik got a cease and desist letter from a company called Google... Is that an example?

Very close -

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/25/google_android_take_down_demand/

Android is the generic term for an Apache/Linux distribution (as opposed to the GNU/Linux people are familiar with on desktops)and has a number of branches in the family tree.

Samsungs run a proprietary branch called TouchWiz, HTCs run Sense, and so forth.

If you built a TouchWiz rom to run on a Sony, or an HTC rom to run on a Samsung, you'd be hearing from the lawyers.

Just because your core is open source doesn't mean that you can't put your own proprietary bits in that are not - as evidenced by Samsung, HTC, Sony, etc etc etc.

In Cyanogen's case he was distributing closed source products from Google - Gmail and Maps in 2009, along with his open source branch of Android.

Google objected, things happened, and then came the cease and desist - just for the closed source components.

The Open Handset Alliance FAQ explains how the blend of open and proprietary codes are managed legally -

http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/android_faq.html

Cyanogen was not an Open Handset Alliance member, and so had no protection to distribute what everyone else did.

But Google wasn't completely stupid and so a compromise eventually developed.

Today, users of AOSP derivatives have to install GAPPS separately. Google doesn't mind about that being done in that way.

Richard Stallman invented free software. He also is the one that explained that it's free as in speech, the clarification on that is here -

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

Note well that as part of the definition, he also said - "These binaries are not free software even if the source code they are compiled from is free."

Gmail isn't built from an open source code base - but even if it were, by not being in the AOSP repository it's not part of an Android build that anyone could do.

 

[starkraving]

All GApps are proprietary right? That's why they're excluded from custom roms and installed separately... Because of exactly what you posted. (that they're not part of the AOSP repository) Seems like a lot of things are becoming proprietary... Like webview (there is still an AOSP/version but...)