Android's Future Clarified.

[PaulMcCartney]

I have been reading articles around the net about Google tightening control of Android. Many people out there seem to believe that Android will become closed as a result. This is not true at all.

When a platform is too open, it allows others to close it up. Fragmentation itself can really close up a platform.

Microsoft Windows is the same way. This chart explains it very well. I added in Android to show you what exactly is becoming closed.

 

[ari-free]

what's closed in android is that you can't have a clean system because google allowed the carriers/OEM's to fill it up with stuff that you can't uninstall without rooting. Some of this extra stuff may be good but that should my call.

 

[Medion]

As it stands right now, Windows (desktop) is more open to the end user than Android is. I know, I know, that comment may upset some Linux dorks. Deal with it.

With a Windows machine, I can slide in a Windows disc and completely wipe the system, putting stock Windows on it without all of the OEM bloatware. I get to make the system work as I want. Can I do this with an Android device? Nope, not even close. I have to either use someone else's custom ROM or make my own. But installing stock Android? Can't happen.

Android was meant to be open, but as you stated, that openness has allowed OEMs and carriers to close it to the consumer. Hopefully Google is moving in a direction where you can simply download and install the latest Android distro, just as you would with Ubuntu.

 

[PaulMcCartney]

what's closed in android is that you can't have a clean system because google allowed the carriers/OEM's to fill it up with stuff that you can't uninstall without rooting. Some of this extra stuff may be good but that should my call.

Yep. When a platform is too open, it allows others to close it up.

 

[PaulMcCartney]

As it stands right now, Windows (desktop) is more open to the end user than Android is. I know, I know, that comment may upset some Linux dorks. Deal with it.

With a Windows machine, I can slide in a Windows disc and completely wipe the system, putting stock Windows on it without all of the OEM bloatware. I get to make the system work as I want. Can I do this with an Android device? Nope, not even close. I have to either use someone else's custom ROM or make my own. But installing stock Android? Can't happen.

Android was meant to be open, but as you stated, that openness has allowed OEMs and carriers to close it to the consumer. Hopefully Google is moving in a direction where you can simply download and install the latest Android distro, just as you would with Ubuntu.

I agree. Google is working with ARM to standardize the CPU architecture so one version of Android will run on all devices (like how it is on PCs + Windows).

 

[rubyiris]

As it stands right now, Windows (desktop) is more open to the end user than Android is. I know, I know, that comment may upset some Linux dorks. Deal with it.

With a Windows machine, I can slide in a Windows disc and completely wipe the system, putting stock Windows on it without all of the OEM bloatware. I get to make the system work as I want. Can I do this with an Android device? Nope, not even close. I have to either use someone else's custom ROM or make my own. But installing stock Android? Can't happen.

Android was meant to be open, but as you stated, that openness has allowed OEMs and carriers to close it to the consumer. Hopefully Google is moving in a direction where you can simply download and install the latest Android distro, just as you would with Ubuntu.

I'm glad someone else in the world really understands this.

 

[Seifer44]

As it stands right now, Windows (desktop) is more open to the end user than Android is. I know, I know, that comment may upset some Linux dorks. Deal with it.

With a Windows machine, I can slide in a Windows disc and completely wipe the system, putting stock Windows on it without all of the OEM bloatware. I get to make the system work as I want. Can I do this with an Android device? Nope, not even close. I have to either use someone else's custom ROM or make my own. But installing stock Android? Can't happen.

Android was meant to be open, but as you stated, that openness has allowed OEMs and carriers to close it to the consumer. Hopefully Google is moving in a direction where you can simply download and install the latest Android distro, just as you would with Ubuntu.

This is an excellent way to describe it. I was becoming a little confused with why certain people were getting upset about Google's recent actions, while others were thankful for it. It sounds like the angry people are acting on ignorance and not looking closer at the issue.

I'm assuming that this is also influencing why Honeycomb isn't out for developers to play with yet, either.

 

[Alexandra18]

I am not too much technical but I used android and like its all Apps.

 

[davidchsw]

Google has had to start with Android being as open as it is to gain market share. Now that they are getting significant market share they will have enough clout to make more demands to manufacturers, carriers and developers. If the power is not abused it can be good for all.

David

 

[PSkeptic]

When a platform is too open, it allows others to close it up.

This is not true at all. It's when the platform is not open enough, it allows others to close it. Examples:

UNIX: Written, and licensed VERY liberally (Similar to the Apache and BSD licenses). First two iterations, source was shared everywhere. Then, AT&T made some proprietary extensions, and then UNIX got forked into several variations.

Apache: Written with the same license as Android. Vendors take source, use the core as their platform, wrap a GUI/some scripts around it, and turn it proprietary.

BSD UNIX: Written with a license similar to original UNIX, and now parts get taken, and placed into things like Windows, and other proprietary stacks.

Linux: Uses the GPL, and every change that is distributed MUST be released to anyone it's distributed to. Very open, and subsequent versions are mandated to be open as well. Source changes are re-merged upstream, and released (If stable) in subsequent versions.

Android: Uses the same license as Apache. Has the same shortcomings as Apache's license.

Which one of these are more open, and which ones are having the fragmentation issues?

There are single versions of every Linux kernel released. Any GNU/Linux OS can grab the kernel source, compile for their arch, and use it. Any GNU tool can be grabbed and compiled for most any platform.

Open-ness fights fragmentation. Tightening the reigns brings on fragmentation (Like it did for UNIX).

 

[aysiu]

I agree with PSkeptic. GPL licenses are annoying in a way, because you have to perpetuate the exact same license, but that's also what keeps the license open and meaningful.

Open source doesn't mean jack if others can modify it and then close the source back up. It also doesn't mean a lot if you aren't given root privileges. Imagine if every Windows computer you bought gave you only a limited user account and the boot loader would reset it back that way if you happened to temporarily gain root privileges. No one would stand for that.

What upsets me more is that rather than use the open source nature of Android to make it better, the phone manufacturers have actually made it worse. My sister-in-law had grown to hate her Droid phone after a while until I rooted it and installed Cyanogen on it. I felt the same way about the HTC Sense UI on my MyTouch phone until I rooted it and put Cyanogen on.

Why do hacker communities create better roms than commercial manufacturers? I have no idea. I even donated $5, but I think most people who use the roms will just use them for free without ever donating.

 

[phredbull]

^^^ What PSkeptic said!^^^
To say "Windoze is more open" belies a misunderstanding of what "open source" even means.
Rooting and flashing roms is exactly the benefit of Android, not a shortcoming. What other OS allows end-users to make customized versions? Certainly NOT any of M$ or Apple's offerings.
Exerting more control doesn't stop PC OEMs from including bloatware in their customized Win installs. It does allow M$ to push their other products at us, like their crappy browser, media players, office tools, and web portal.
If you want a consistent, highly polished, predictable stock user experience, then use an iPhone.
I think the problems with Android lie with the fact that open-source relies on input from the larger development community, as well as end-users who are willing to work for a bit of understanding of how their stuff works, and sometimes fix stuff when it breaks.
While Google is an ardent supporter of open-source, I don't think mobile hardware makers or telecoms know how to, our even care to, work w/the open-dev community. (Ex: Ubuntu has a robust bug-tracking system that benefits the larger Linux world. Anything comparable in Android?)
It seems to me that Google tightening the reins on Android is more about accommodating OEMs and telecoms, who don't know to work in the world of open-source. I'm sure Google takes this direction grudgingly.

BTW, I think Apple makes beautiful products w/a truly refined user experience, but philosophically, I side w/free & open over proprietary & patented.

Why do hacker communities create better roms than commercial manufacturers? I have no idea.

'Cause they're doing it for the love, not the $$$!
(BTW, not allowing root as default is an important security feature, allowing admin privileges to everyone is a security flaw.)

 

[aysiu]

'Cause they're doing it for the love, not the $$$!
(BTW, not allowing root as default is an important security feature, allowing admin privileges to everyone is a security flaw.)

Root does not have to be on by default, but it should be obtainable when necessary... or Android should be set up in such a way that you can uninstall bloatware that comes with the phone. If you don't need root access to install and remove normal applications, you also shouldn't need root access to remove the applications that come preinstalled.

 

[phredbull]

Root does not have to be on by default, but it should be obtainable when necessary... or Android should be set up in such a way that you can uninstall bloatware that comes with the phone. If you don't need root access to install and remove normal applications, you also shouldn't need root access to remove the applications that come preinstalled.

This clearly illustrates the conflict of interest between FOSS development and the clearly-non-altruistic telecom industry, who wish to monetize every aspect of YOUR smartphone experience...