11 ms·

Notably, Play services is totally closed. So Google has abandoned the open source part of Android and is now developing the operating system as a completely cl

Notably, Play services is totally closed. So Google has abandoned the open source part of Android and is now developing the operating system as a completely closed product. Edit: downvotes don't change the truth of the observation. Android is no longer meaningfully open, other than a years old core of basic functions. Just like OSX and Darwin.

sciwiz 13y ago
"So Google has abandoned the open source part of Android and is now developing the operating system as a completely closed product." Not sure what's new here.. Play always came with strings attached. OEMs can choose Play or use AOSP and roll their own Play analogue like Meizu or Xiaomi or Amazon.
- msoad 13y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong. From 4.0 Play is mandatory if you want drivers. That's why Barnes and Noble had to put Play on their devices.
  - magicalist 13y ago
    Interesting. Everyone put it as an attempt to keep the Nook relevant (because you get all the google apps with it), but I'd be interested in seeing more on that side of things. Which drivers, though? Usually you'd get the graphics driver from the chipset manufacturer, for instance, who they would already be contracting with because they make the device.
  - estel 13y ago
    I'm not sure what drivers you refer to, but Play definitely isn't mandatory to use the AOSP. Barnes and Noble presumably had all the drivers they needed to make the Nook functional without Play?
  - speeder 13y ago
    I am OEM app developer and can confirm this. One of our apps rely on GPS, and the manufacturers that bought that app from us could only make it work after installing Play Services, and they could not figure a way to make it work without Play Services.
    - gbvb 13y ago
      I think there might be a need for providing a decent layer between the various closed layers created by Amazon, Google et al. At least, that would allow apps to be friendly to Android without marrying Google Play. (Is there one?)
    - Zigurd 13y ago
      Location Services is a special API, in that Google bears some costs to enable it for geocoding, for example. It is possible to have access to basic location data from a built-in GPS receiver in AOSP, so the system is not completely dependent on Google Play Services.
      - ajross 13y ago
        Exactly. "GPS" data is certainly available and part of the standard open source framework: http://developer.android.com/reference/android/location/package-summary.html http://developer.android.com/reference/android/location/pack... But access to e.g. Google's giant wifi-to-location database isn't part of that API. And it's a good service, and something that is hard to replicate and thus a competetive advantage. But to speak to the upthread parent: it has nothing to do with "drivers". The HAL interface for GPS data is part of AOSP.
        kalleboo 13y ago
        > And it's a good service, and something that is hard to replicate and thus a competetive advantage. It's a service that Google will not let manufacturers replace even if they want to. Horribly anti-competetive. http://www.mobileburn.com/news.jsp?Id=14923 http://www.mobileburn.com/news.jsp?Id=14923
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    That's just incorrect as far as I know. It remains possible to support all drivers with an AOSP build. B&N decided they wanted to "mainstream" their Android in terms of enabling it to be a "Google-logo" device. Probably a good choice if you haven't got the scale of Amazon's ecosystem.
gbl08ma 13y ago
I too thought about OSX and Darwin when I saw this. Except that before, with Android, you had an open userland system on an open kernel. Now you have a huge binary blob that can do everything without control, on top of a open userland with an open kernel. It's a closed layer on top of two open layers. And the best of all, more and more things seem to depend on the closed layer instead of just on the other two. From what I see, as it "defrags" Google has been moving core functionality, previously open, into that closed-source Play Services thing. I think the plan is probably to take everything related to UX into the closed part, that Samsung, HTC and etc. won't then be able to change to create their own UX, and leave as open source the essentials needed for porting to new devices. I have mixed feelings about this... it's great if they manage to dismiss those who think there's a fragmentation problem in the platform. But they are doing it at the cost of decreased openness, and I don't like that.
- wtracy 13y ago
  "I think the plan is probably to take everything related to UX into the closed part, that Samsung, HTC and etc. won't then be able to change to create their own UX," I doubt it. The manufacturers would revolt at that point, and potentially fork the entire platform.
fphhotchips 13y ago
I remember when Android was starting to gain popularity (around 1.6 I suppose), one of the key decisions that I really liked was that Google apps would have no more access to the OS than any other apps. There was no preference to Google. This has now all changed. Further, what's to stop other vendors doing this, possibly without users knowledge? How many users will click "allow" on a permissions box that gives the vendor a huge amount of permissions like this just so that they can use the latest MyTwitFace?
- habosa 13y ago
  Where has this changed? Google's apps are still built on top of the SDK. The only real change was the centralization of Google Play Services, but that doesn't change the level of OS access at all and 3rd-party developers can still tap in to these services.
  - kevingadd 13y ago
    Play Services having a custom updater and the ability to silently gain more permissions is definitely not something available to average 3rd party developers.
    - cmircea 13y ago
      Both are available. Any app can request complete control over the system, at which point it can do whatever the hell it wants, short of root. Update? Sure thing, install an APK. Of course the user has to accept your huge list of permissions first.
      - engrenage 13y ago
        That's not 'silently'.
      - estel 13y ago
        Normal apps can't install any APK without explicit user consent. The Play Store auto-updates in a similar way.
elteto 13y ago
I don't see the problem here. Play is part of Google's ecosystem, not the Android OS platform. I can download Android's source code, compile it and put it in any device I want (provided I have the technical capability to do so of course). In fact, this is what Android distributions like Cyanogenmod do, and they also provide a binary blob with Google's stuff as an option, if you want to install it. I don't see the reason to demand the Play store app to be open source nor what could be gained from it.
- wpietri 13y ago
  The problem isn't Play. It's that people are being bound more tightly to the ecosystem. As a developer, one of the things that was more appealing to me about Android was that Android seemed to be a more level playing field. But this approach tilts things substantially in favor of Google. In particular, this solves fragmentation for Google, and maybe for Google trusted partners, but it doesn't seem to do so for any other Android developers. I don't think anybody's saying the Play app should be open source. But if I were making my living from Android apps, I'd worry that Android improvements would be few and far between. Both the technical and business incentives push to improving Play Services, not the base OS.
  - e12e 13y ago
    I don't see any reason why the play app shouldn't be Free software. So, while I might be a minority, I'd certainly like to see all of it opened up. I'd much prefer a reality where the play service and app is open, and which upstream source you trust is defined by which certificates you trust, and nothing else. That'd make it trivial to set up trusted sources for a company, for example.
    - RealCasually 13y ago
      Why should it be free software? What gives you a reason to feel that level of entitlement?
      - e12e 13y ago
estel 13y ago
On the other hand, Google Play Services largely encompasses those features that were /always/ closed source in Android: maps, google+ and GCM. The Google applications that are core to the "standard" Android experience for most users have also always been closed source: Maps, Gmail, Google Calendar. There are still a lot of new features being introduced to the core Android APIs, with fragmentation issues being mitigated by a provided support library [0] which essentially backports the newer APIs to older versions of Android (some new features are only in the support library). Android as it's sold in most consumer devices obviously isn't entirely open, but Google still seem to be attempting to strike a balance between supporting the open-source platform on the other, and building up a suite of closed userland features on the other. You might disagree with their judgement on where the balance is, but I think it's unfair to say it's being developed as a completely closed product. [0] http://developer.android.com/tools/support-library/index.html http://developer.android.com/tools/support-library/index.htm...
- SirPulse 13y ago
  Not just that, Google is devoting its energy to develop the closed platform rather than developing android. The example you give are relatively minor updates with major new functionality now being developed outside of core android as the author points out.
  - charleslmunger 13y ago
    Google also devotes energy to search, email, robot cars, internet balloons... the idea that having a closed source set of APIs for google products is stealing resources away from android is specious.
    - luke-stanley 13y ago
      The point is that more energy being put on closed source Android development rather. Yes, Google has a lot of money but money is not it's only resource. Unnecessary projects have been closed off like Google Labs, Reader etc etc. Google has a limited range of focus, Google's Android developers have a limited range of focus and Google would seek to guard them against unsupported distribution systems (open source ones). Maybe Google will open source more?
kailuowang 13y ago
There is still one major difference between play service and osx or ios -it is free and can be installed on any compatible devices, so I wouldn't call it "totally" closed at least not as close as iOS.
- engrenage 13y ago
  Darwin is free and can be installed on any compatible devices.
  - acjohnson55 13y ago
    I'd say that Google does quite a bit more by providing the user layer too, if people want it. It's kind of the best of both worlds between Apple's OS X strategy and Microsoft's Windows strategy: open core and available for OEM hardware.
SirPulse 13y ago
Wonder what Andy Rubin thinks about how this fits into the definition of open https://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429 https://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429
corresation 13y ago
Android is no longer meaningfully open, other than a years old core of basic functions. This is so utterly and complete wrong, and is the sort of ultra-polarized, hysterical comment that does not belong on HN. I suspect that the single and only reason it isn't dim gray is the appeal-to-sympathy "you downvote the truth!" noise that manipulates the weak-willed. Just to be clear, Google has always had closed source, proprietary Google bits (gmail, maps, etc. Originally they even built these as a big binary blob in the platform image, and it was "fixing fragmentation" when they moved them to separate apps), and the open source Android bits. Everything you heard about Android 4.3 is in the open source bits ("years old core of basic functions" -- what obnoxious, noisy prattle).
- woah 13y ago
  not an expert in this area, so I won't comment on the accuracy of your claims, but your comment is full of ad hominem vitriol. please keep it civil, whether you agree or not. HN is better than this.
  - corresation 13y ago
    Ad hominem? I am specifically criticizing the comment, so yet another showing of some ignorantly misplaced Latin isn't worthwhile.
    - TheZenPsycho 13y ago
      You're right, it's not ad hominem, but your post is chock full of overly emotive (read, manipulative) language. To illustrate, I'll remove the emotive language and you can see the difference: >Android is no longer meaningfully open, other than a years old core of basic functions. This is wrong, and things I think are wrong don't belong on HN. I suspect you weren't voted down because of the (logically fallacious) appeal to consequences. Just to be clear, Google has always had closed source, proprietary Google bits (gmail, maps, etc. Originally they even built these as a big binary blob in the platform image, and it was "fixing fragmentation" when they moved them to separate apps), and the open source Android bits. Everything you heard about Android 4.3 is in the open source bits.
pkulak 13y ago
Everything in Play Services is application level. Just because Apple bundles a mail app and browser in with their OS doesn't mean that those kinds of things make up an operating system. Any tablet maker in China can still use Android to get a complete mobile operating system for free, without even telling Google they are going to do it. So can Amazon. Can I make a new phone with iOS for free, as long as I don't include Apple mail? Not even close. So let's not start pretending that Android is just like iOS now.
- ghshephard 13y ago
  People aren't suggesting that Apple is significantly open, what they are now observing, is that Google is becoming more "closed" - and to call "Play Services" an application is a little bit of a misnomer. It's a system level service that enables higher level applications. The Mail.App doesn't do anything of the kind (though, the rendering engine is an apt comparison).
- engrenage 13y ago
  Everything in play services is most certainly not Application level. I presume you didn't read the linked article or the other comments here about the APIs that are migrating there.
  - jayd16 13y ago
    Isn't GooglePlayServices by definition app level? My understanding is it runs in app space. Any other developer could accomplish the same thing.
    - azakai 13y ago
      The article clearly states that new platform APIs are showing up in Google Play services instead of in core Android. The article mentions this as a benefit - 3rd party app developers get access to new APIs quickly and consistently across all Android devices. The downside is the new APIs are showing up in the closed-source Google Play services, and not in the open source Android project.
laureny 13y ago
Nonsense. You can certainly argue that "less" of Android is being open sourced than a few years ago, but it's still orders of magnitude more open than any of the other mobile OS available on the market. Especially OS X and iOS, which are both 0% open source. Open source fanatics are impossible to satisfy, they will always find a reason why the flavor of open source that a company or an organization picked is not the "real" open source, but the simple truth is that I can load up the source of Android in any IDE and start debugging into Android's system libraries any time I need it. Good luck getting this from Apple.
- ghshephard 13y ago
  While I'm not suggesting that OS X is as open as, say, Android, I don't think the parent is speaking Nonsense. OS X does have and open source element, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system), so claiming iOS and OS X are "0% open source" is somewhat incorrect. I think the parent is correct in that Google is now moving the value added components of their Operating System (as opposed to the more "core" elements of the OS, into closed source and fully under Google's control. It's a rational move, and I applaud them for their cleverness.
  - ZeroGravitas 13y ago
    Unless something has changed, there is no darwin for iOS and never has been. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_%28operating_system%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_%28operating_system%29 "Darwin is now only available as source code,[5] except for the ARM variant, which has not been released in any form separately from iOS."
- Everlag 13y ago
  While I agree with your reasoning in the latter sections, comparing android to basically every other mobile os and calling it an order of a magnitude of a difference is a bit strange when they are basically 0.
  - laureny 13y ago
turing 13y ago
downvotes don't change the truth of the observation. Android is no longer meaningfully open, other than a years old core of basic functions. The problem is that your observation isn't true. Here are some of the under-the-hood changes in just the most recent releases of Android: -OpenGL ES 3.0 -Bluetooth low energy/Bluetooth AVRCP -restricted profiles -VP8 encoder -new DRM framework -SELinux -various other optimizations and APIs Yes Google is moving some functionality to Play services. Yes it is worth discussing how this may impact the future of Android as an open platform. No, that does not mean that Android is no longer "meaningfully open", especially not in the matter-of-fact way you are presenting it.
- fleitz 13y ago
  Like most things open source is a continuum of subtle differences rather than a category. In my opinion the following software is much more open than Android: Linux, Apache, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, GCC, clang, and generally most open source products developed by the community. In my opinion the following software is less open than Android: C#, OSX, iOS, and generally most software developed by major corporations. The real keys are that your Android device is locked down, fixing it voids your warranty, and development does not take place in the open, rather every few months a major patch is released and there is no way for the community to contribute to the project in any meaningful way.
  - esolyt 13y ago
    > The real keys are that your Android device is locked down, fixing it voids your warranty That's not an issue about Android though, it's an issue with manufacturers.You are free to release an Android device that is not locked down.
    - jemeshsu 13y ago
      Just curious, what are the pros and cons to Android manufacturer to lock down a device? Are these Android manufacturer each trying to create its own platform based on an open OS?
unabridged 13y ago
Sure android was a great step forward from ios, but after using it for a couple years I can't wait for a real linux phone and android to be a distant memory. The reason Google chose to back android instead of porting a real linux distro to mobile is because they wanted a market to sell programs, not an OS that already has 1000s of top quality open source programs already available. Google wanted an OS where you don't even get a file manager so people can be conned into paying for even the simplest features.
- gareim 13y ago
  I love Linux, but I disagree with you. The amount of money Google makes from the Play store is negligible compared to their overall revenues. I highly doubt they don't include a file manager so they can make a few more bucks. It probably has more to do with the fact that most people don't need a file manager (mobile computing has a totally different paradigm than desktop computing). Also, the "1000s of top quality" apps don't exist. Where are they? Most aren't designed for a touch interface so they'd have to be redesigned. Wait, they'd have to be redesigned to give an experience that we already have? How is that not a waste of time? Having seen Ubuntu OS.. It's garbage. "real linux" for the sake of being able to say it isn't worth it if the platform is slower, takes more battery life, and has less apps. Yes, you can improve on those three things, but you'd be putting in so much effort to replicate an OS that is already open source. A fork of Android is a much better idea than starting from scratch. Look where Maemo, Meego, and Tizen went. Look at where Ubuntu OS will go.
esolyt 13y ago
Yes, downvotes don't change the truth of the observation because it was never true. Your observation is unfortunately based on a typical fallacy. Android has always been, and still is meaningfully open. Google apps are closed source and proprietary. You don't have to use Google services and Google apps. Almost every single Android app in the Play Store (including the Play Store itself) has always been closed source and proprietary. Nothing really changed. Apps that are related to core functionality are open source and free software. Stock dialer, stock browser etc. are all such examples.
macspoofing 13y ago
It's not quite as bad, but close. Open-source Android is a full-stack operating system, the problem is that as far as everyone is concerned, that's not enough. You need an ecosystem of apps and services (from maps, to push, to youtube, to .. ) to have a competitive mobile platform. If I was a betting man, I would go long on Google.
arikrak 13y ago
I never really got why they kept so much of Android open-source. It didn't seem to make sense both from Google's business perspective and from the user's end. Why does Google need to let companies like Amazon create competing platforms using their operating system? And why do they need to be so beholden to the OEMs? It makes sense they're moving more functionality away from it. (See my question here: http://www.quora.com/Why-did-Google-make-Android-open-source http://www.quora.com/Why-did-Google-make-Android-open-source )
moca 13y ago
Android is about as open as it used to be. The core OS is mostly open source, the drivers are mostly closed binaries owned by chip vendors, the apps are closed binaries owned by Google. Google Play services, by its name and nature, is part of Google service. So it is just as closed as it used to be. Over time, more features are added OS, drivers, apps. That doesn't really change the overall picture much. Amazon and Chinese companies like Xiaomi are pretty successful using the core Android OS for their devices.
- ttflee 13y ago
  Almost no major producer of Android phones in China (mainland) IIRC, has deployed or would deploy Google Play, perhaps as a result of both their marketing strategies, that favors some local mobile Internet service providers, and consequence of the back-off stance of Google to the Chinese govn't, the cause of which is quite complicated though. As status quo, Google's services are largely compromised due to unknown or you-guess-what reasons.
  - moca 13y ago
    Most Google services are blocked in China by Chinese government. Chinese companies, like Xiaomi and Baidu, want to build their own ecosystems to make profit. Their management said so publicly during talks that I attended in person.
product50 13y ago
It is amazing how big of an ass you are. Make an assertion --> people provide counter-arguments and downvote you. You --> provide no explanation to your initial assertion and ass-ily mention that downvotes are meaningless. Be a man and get into the argument if you really believe what you are saying. Otherwise keep blowing yourself to fool yourself into thinking that it is the same thing.
runjake 13y ago
When Cyanogenmod closes down, THEN I might consider Android not open source for all intents and purposes. But currently, they're doing fine without the closed Google bits (usually installed as a separate gapps zip file).
etler 13y ago
Open Source has an accepted definition. The Open Source Definition was created for the purpose of clarifying what should b required to label something Open Source. Just because they don't go beyond that to the point that others in the community do doesn't mean it isn't open source. http://opensource.org/osd http://opensource.org/osd In particular: >License Must Not Restrict Other Software >The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software. Not only does Open Source not imply everything on the platform should be Open Source, it's explicitly against its definition. Google Play services does does not affect the base android operating system. It is given root permissions on the Google backed distributions of the Android Operating System. It's perfectly fine to complain about Google giving itself a root level backdoor into their official distro. If a less trusted company were to do the same thing, there would be a perfectly validated uproar. But don't change the definition of open source to bolster your argument. In your edit you say "Android is no longer meaningfully open". That's fine, but don't say that it isn't open source, or that it's closed source. That's blatantly by definition false, and the open source community takes their definitions seriously for a reason.

sciwiz 13y ago

"So Google has abandoned the open source part of Android and is now developing the operating system as a completely closed product." Not sure what's new here.. Play always came with strings attached. OEMs can choose Play or use AOSP and roll their own Play analogue like Meizu or Xiaomi or Amazon.

msoad 13y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong. From 4.0 Play is mandatory if you want drivers. That's why Barnes and Noble had to put Play on their devices.
- magicalist 13y ago
  Interesting. Everyone put it as an attempt to keep the Nook relevant (because you get all the google apps with it), but I'd be interested in seeing more on that side of things. Which drivers, though? Usually you'd get the graphics driver from the chipset manufacturer, for instance, who they would already be contracting with because they make the device.
- estel 13y ago
  I'm not sure what drivers you refer to, but Play definitely isn't mandatory to use the AOSP. Barnes and Noble presumably had all the drivers they needed to make the Nook functional without Play?
- speeder 13y ago
  I am OEM app developer and can confirm this. One of our apps rely on GPS, and the manufacturers that bought that app from us could only make it work after installing Play Services, and they could not figure a way to make it work without Play Services.
  - gbvb 13y ago
    I think there might be a need for providing a decent layer between the various closed layers created by Amazon, Google et al. At least, that would allow apps to be friendly to Android without marrying Google Play. (Is there one?)
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    Location Services is a special API, in that Google bears some costs to enable it for geocoding, for example. It is possible to have access to basic location data from a built-in GPS receiver in AOSP, so the system is not completely dependent on Google Play Services.
    - ajross 13y ago
      Exactly. "GPS" data is certainly available and part of the standard open source framework: http://developer.android.com/reference/android/location/package-summary.html http://developer.android.com/reference/android/location/pack... But access to e.g. Google's giant wifi-to-location database isn't part of that API. And it's a good service, and something that is hard to replicate and thus a competetive advantage. But to speak to the upthread parent: it has nothing to do with "drivers". The HAL interface for GPS data is part of AOSP.
      - kalleboo 13y ago
        > And it's a good service, and something that is hard to replicate and thus a competetive advantage. It's a service that Google will not let manufacturers replace even if they want to. Horribly anti-competetive. http://www.mobileburn.com/news.jsp?Id=14923 http://www.mobileburn.com/news.jsp?Id=14923
- Zigurd 13y ago
  That's just incorrect as far as I know. It remains possible to support all drivers with an AOSP build. B&N decided they wanted to "mainstream" their Android in terms of enabling it to be a "Google-logo" device. Probably a good choice if you haven't got the scale of Amazon's ecosystem.

gbl08ma 13y ago

I too thought about OSX and Darwin when I saw this. Except that before, with Android, you had an open userland system on an open kernel. Now you have a huge binary blob that can do everything without control, on top of a open userland with an open kernel. It's a closed layer on top of two open layers. And the best of all, more and more things seem to depend on the closed layer instead of just on the other two. From what I see, as it "defrags" Google has been moving core functionality, previously open, into that closed-source Play Services thing. I think the plan is probably to take everything related to UX into the closed part, that Samsung, HTC and etc. won't then be able to change to create their own UX, and leave as open source the essentials needed for porting to new devices. I have mixed feelings about this... it's great if they manage to dismiss those who think there's a fragmentation problem in the platform. But they are doing it at the cost of decreased openness, and I don't like that.

wtracy 13y ago
"I think the plan is probably to take everything related to UX into the closed part, that Samsung, HTC and etc. won't then be able to change to create their own UX," I doubt it. The manufacturers would revolt at that point, and potentially fork the entire platform.

fphhotchips 13y ago

I remember when Android was starting to gain popularity (around 1.6 I suppose), one of the key decisions that I really liked was that Google apps would have no more access to the OS than any other apps. There was no preference to Google. This has now all changed. Further, what's to stop other vendors doing this, possibly without users knowledge? How many users will click "allow" on a permissions box that gives the vendor a huge amount of permissions like this just so that they can use the latest MyTwitFace?

habosa 13y ago
Where has this changed? Google's apps are still built on top of the SDK. The only real change was the centralization of Google Play Services, but that doesn't change the level of OS access at all and 3rd-party developers can still tap in to these services.
- kevingadd 13y ago
  Play Services having a custom updater and the ability to silently gain more permissions is definitely not something available to average 3rd party developers.
  - cmircea 13y ago
    Both are available. Any app can request complete control over the system, at which point it can do whatever the hell it wants, short of root. Update? Sure thing, install an APK. Of course the user has to accept your huge list of permissions first.
    - engrenage 13y ago
      That's not 'silently'.
    - estel 13y ago
      Normal apps can't install any APK without explicit user consent. The Play Store auto-updates in a similar way.

elteto 13y ago

I don't see the problem here. Play is part of Google's ecosystem, not the Android OS platform. I can download Android's source code, compile it and put it in any device I want (provided I have the technical capability to do so of course). In fact, this is what Android distributions like Cyanogenmod do, and they also provide a binary blob with Google's stuff as an option, if you want to install it. I don't see the reason to demand the Play store app to be open source nor what could be gained from it.

wpietri 13y ago
The problem isn't Play. It's that people are being bound more tightly to the ecosystem. As a developer, one of the things that was more appealing to me about Android was that Android seemed to be a more level playing field. But this approach tilts things substantially in favor of Google. In particular, this solves fragmentation for Google, and maybe for Google trusted partners, but it doesn't seem to do so for any other Android developers. I don't think anybody's saying the Play app should be open source. But if I were making my living from Android apps, I'd worry that Android improvements would be few and far between. Both the technical and business incentives push to improving Play Services, not the base OS.
- e12e 13y ago
  I don't see any reason why the play app shouldn't be Free software. So, while I might be a minority, I'd certainly like to see all of it opened up. I'd much prefer a reality where the play service and app is open, and which upstream source you trust is defined by which certificates you trust, and nothing else. That'd make it trivial to set up trusted sources for a company, for example.
  - RealCasually 13y ago
    Why should it be free software? What gives you a reason to feel that level of entitlement?
    - e12e 13y ago

estel 13y ago

On the other hand, Google Play Services largely encompasses those features that were /always/ closed source in Android: maps, google+ and GCM. The Google applications that are core to the "standard" Android experience for most users have also always been closed source: Maps, Gmail, Google Calendar. There are still a lot of new features being introduced to the core Android APIs, with fragmentation issues being mitigated by a provided support library [0] which essentially backports the newer APIs to older versions of Android (some new features are only in the support library). Android as it's sold in most consumer devices obviously isn't entirely open, but Google still seem to be attempting to strike a balance between supporting the open-source platform on the other, and building up a suite of closed userland features on the other. You might disagree with their judgement on where the balance is, but I think it's unfair to say it's being developed as a completely closed product. [0] http://developer.android.com/tools/support-library/index.html http://developer.android.com/tools/support-library/index.htm...

SirPulse 13y ago
Not just that, Google is devoting its energy to develop the closed platform rather than developing android. The example you give are relatively minor updates with major new functionality now being developed outside of core android as the author points out.
- charleslmunger 13y ago
  Google also devotes energy to search, email, robot cars, internet balloons... the idea that having a closed source set of APIs for google products is stealing resources away from android is specious.
  - luke-stanley 13y ago
    The point is that more energy being put on closed source Android development rather. Yes, Google has a lot of money but money is not it's only resource. Unnecessary projects have been closed off like Google Labs, Reader etc etc. Google has a limited range of focus, Google's Android developers have a limited range of focus and Google would seek to guard them against unsupported distribution systems (open source ones). Maybe Google will open source more?

kailuowang 13y ago

There is still one major difference between play service and osx or ios -it is free and can be installed on any compatible devices, so I wouldn't call it "totally" closed at least not as close as iOS.

engrenage 13y ago
Darwin is free and can be installed on any compatible devices.
- acjohnson55 13y ago
  I'd say that Google does quite a bit more by providing the user layer too, if people want it. It's kind of the best of both worlds between Apple's OS X strategy and Microsoft's Windows strategy: open core and available for OEM hardware.

SirPulse 13y ago

Wonder what Andy Rubin thinks about how this fits into the definition of open https://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429 https://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429

corresation 13y ago

Android is no longer meaningfully open, other than a years old core of basic functions. This is so utterly and complete wrong, and is the sort of ultra-polarized, hysterical comment that does not belong on HN. I suspect that the single and only reason it isn't dim gray is the appeal-to-sympathy "you downvote the truth!" noise that manipulates the weak-willed. Just to be clear, Google has always had closed source, proprietary Google bits (gmail, maps, etc. Originally they even built these as a big binary blob in the platform image, and it was "fixing fragmentation" when they moved them to separate apps), and the open source Android bits. Everything you heard about Android 4.3 is in the open source bits ("years old core of basic functions" -- what obnoxious, noisy prattle).

woah 13y ago
not an expert in this area, so I won't comment on the accuracy of your claims, but your comment is full of ad hominem vitriol. please keep it civil, whether you agree or not. HN is better than this.
- corresation 13y ago
  Ad hominem? I am specifically criticizing the comment, so yet another showing of some ignorantly misplaced Latin isn't worthwhile.
  - TheZenPsycho 13y ago
    You're right, it's not ad hominem, but your post is chock full of overly emotive (read, manipulative) language. To illustrate, I'll remove the emotive language and you can see the difference: >Android is no longer meaningfully open, other than a years old core of basic functions. This is wrong, and things I think are wrong don't belong on HN. I suspect you weren't voted down because of the (logically fallacious) appeal to consequences. Just to be clear, Google has always had closed source, proprietary Google bits (gmail, maps, etc. Originally they even built these as a big binary blob in the platform image, and it was "fixing fragmentation" when they moved them to separate apps), and the open source Android bits. Everything you heard about Android 4.3 is in the open source bits.

pkulak 13y ago

Everything in Play Services is application level. Just because Apple bundles a mail app and browser in with their OS doesn't mean that those kinds of things make up an operating system. Any tablet maker in China can still use Android to get a complete mobile operating system for free, without even telling Google they are going to do it. So can Amazon. Can I make a new phone with iOS for free, as long as I don't include Apple mail? Not even close. So let's not start pretending that Android is just like iOS now.

ghshephard 13y ago
People aren't suggesting that Apple is significantly open, what they are now observing, is that Google is becoming more "closed" - and to call "Play Services" an application is a little bit of a misnomer. It's a system level service that enables higher level applications. The Mail.App doesn't do anything of the kind (though, the rendering engine is an apt comparison).
engrenage 13y ago
Everything in play services is most certainly not Application level. I presume you didn't read the linked article or the other comments here about the APIs that are migrating there.
- jayd16 13y ago
  Isn't GooglePlayServices by definition app level? My understanding is it runs in app space. Any other developer could accomplish the same thing.
  - azakai 13y ago
    The article clearly states that new platform APIs are showing up in Google Play services instead of in core Android. The article mentions this as a benefit - 3rd party app developers get access to new APIs quickly and consistently across all Android devices. The downside is the new APIs are showing up in the closed-source Google Play services, and not in the open source Android project.

laureny 13y ago

Nonsense. You can certainly argue that "less" of Android is being open sourced than a few years ago, but it's still orders of magnitude more open than any of the other mobile OS available on the market. Especially OS X and iOS, which are both 0% open source. Open source fanatics are impossible to satisfy, they will always find a reason why the flavor of open source that a company or an organization picked is not the "real" open source, but the simple truth is that I can load up the source of Android in any IDE and start debugging into Android's system libraries any time I need it. Good luck getting this from Apple.

ghshephard 13y ago
While I'm not suggesting that OS X is as open as, say, Android, I don't think the parent is speaking Nonsense. OS X does have and open source element, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system), so claiming iOS and OS X are "0% open source" is somewhat incorrect. I think the parent is correct in that Google is now moving the value added components of their Operating System (as opposed to the more "core" elements of the OS, into closed source and fully under Google's control. It's a rational move, and I applaud them for their cleverness.
- ZeroGravitas 13y ago
  Unless something has changed, there is no darwin for iOS and never has been. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_%28operating_system%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_%28operating_system%29 "Darwin is now only available as source code,[5] except for the ARM variant, which has not been released in any form separately from iOS."
Everlag 13y ago
While I agree with your reasoning in the latter sections, comparing android to basically every other mobile os and calling it an order of a magnitude of a difference is a bit strange when they are basically 0.
- laureny 13y ago

turing 13y ago

downvotes don't change the truth of the observation. Android is no longer meaningfully open, other than a years old core of basic functions. The problem is that your observation isn't true. Here are some of the under-the-hood changes in just the most recent releases of Android: -OpenGL ES 3.0 -Bluetooth low energy/Bluetooth AVRCP -restricted profiles -VP8 encoder -new DRM framework -SELinux -various other optimizations and APIs Yes Google is moving some functionality to Play services. Yes it is worth discussing how this may impact the future of Android as an open platform. No, that does not mean that Android is no longer "meaningfully open", especially not in the matter-of-fact way you are presenting it.

fleitz 13y ago
Like most things open source is a continuum of subtle differences rather than a category. In my opinion the following software is much more open than Android: Linux, Apache, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, GCC, clang, and generally most open source products developed by the community. In my opinion the following software is less open than Android: C#, OSX, iOS, and generally most software developed by major corporations. The real keys are that your Android device is locked down, fixing it voids your warranty, and development does not take place in the open, rather every few months a major patch is released and there is no way for the community to contribute to the project in any meaningful way.
- esolyt 13y ago
  > The real keys are that your Android device is locked down, fixing it voids your warranty That's not an issue about Android though, it's an issue with manufacturers.You are free to release an Android device that is not locked down.
  - jemeshsu 13y ago
    Just curious, what are the pros and cons to Android manufacturer to lock down a device? Are these Android manufacturer each trying to create its own platform based on an open OS?

unabridged 13y ago

Sure android was a great step forward from ios, but after using it for a couple years I can't wait for a real linux phone and android to be a distant memory. The reason Google chose to back android instead of porting a real linux distro to mobile is because they wanted a market to sell programs, not an OS that already has 1000s of top quality open source programs already available. Google wanted an OS where you don't even get a file manager so people can be conned into paying for even the simplest features.

gareim 13y ago
I love Linux, but I disagree with you. The amount of money Google makes from the Play store is negligible compared to their overall revenues. I highly doubt they don't include a file manager so they can make a few more bucks. It probably has more to do with the fact that most people don't need a file manager (mobile computing has a totally different paradigm than desktop computing). Also, the "1000s of top quality" apps don't exist. Where are they? Most aren't designed for a touch interface so they'd have to be redesigned. Wait, they'd have to be redesigned to give an experience that we already have? How is that not a waste of time? Having seen Ubuntu OS.. It's garbage. "real linux" for the sake of being able to say it isn't worth it if the platform is slower, takes more battery life, and has less apps. Yes, you can improve on those three things, but you'd be putting in so much effort to replicate an OS that is already open source. A fork of Android is a much better idea than starting from scratch. Look where Maemo, Meego, and Tizen went. Look at where Ubuntu OS will go.

esolyt 13y ago

Yes, downvotes don't change the truth of the observation because it was never true. Your observation is unfortunately based on a typical fallacy. Android has always been, and still is meaningfully open. Google apps are closed source and proprietary. You don't have to use Google services and Google apps. Almost every single Android app in the Play Store (including the Play Store itself) has always been closed source and proprietary. Nothing really changed. Apps that are related to core functionality are open source and free software. Stock dialer, stock browser etc. are all such examples.

macspoofing 13y ago

It's not quite as bad, but close. Open-source Android is a full-stack operating system, the problem is that as far as everyone is concerned, that's not enough. You need an ecosystem of apps and services (from maps, to push, to youtube, to .. ) to have a competitive mobile platform. If I was a betting man, I would go long on Google.

arikrak 13y ago

I never really got why they kept so much of Android open-source. It didn't seem to make sense both from Google's business perspective and from the user's end. Why does Google need to let companies like Amazon create competing platforms using their operating system? And why do they need to be so beholden to the OEMs? It makes sense they're moving more functionality away from it. (See my question here: http://www.quora.com/Why-did-Google-make-Android-open-source http://www.quora.com/Why-did-Google-make-Android-open-source )

moca 13y ago

Android is about as open as it used to be. The core OS is mostly open source, the drivers are mostly closed binaries owned by chip vendors, the apps are closed binaries owned by Google. Google Play services, by its name and nature, is part of Google service. So it is just as closed as it used to be. Over time, more features are added OS, drivers, apps. That doesn't really change the overall picture much. Amazon and Chinese companies like Xiaomi are pretty successful using the core Android OS for their devices.

ttflee 13y ago
Almost no major producer of Android phones in China (mainland) IIRC, has deployed or would deploy Google Play, perhaps as a result of both their marketing strategies, that favors some local mobile Internet service providers, and consequence of the back-off stance of Google to the Chinese govn't, the cause of which is quite complicated though. As status quo, Google's services are largely compromised due to unknown or you-guess-what reasons.
- moca 13y ago
  Most Google services are blocked in China by Chinese government. Chinese companies, like Xiaomi and Baidu, want to build their own ecosystems to make profit. Their management said so publicly during talks that I attended in person.

product50 13y ago

It is amazing how big of an ass you are. Make an assertion --> people provide counter-arguments and downvote you. You --> provide no explanation to your initial assertion and ass-ily mention that downvotes are meaningless. Be a man and get into the argument if you really believe what you are saying. Otherwise keep blowing yourself to fool yourself into thinking that it is the same thing.

runjake 13y ago

When Cyanogenmod closes down, THEN I might consider Android not open source for all intents and purposes. But currently, they're doing fine without the closed Google bits (usually installed as a separate gapps zip file).

etler 13y ago

Open Source has an accepted definition. The Open Source Definition was created for the purpose of clarifying what should b required to label something Open Source. Just because they don't go beyond that to the point that others in the community do doesn't mean it isn't open source. http://opensource.org/osd http://opensource.org/osd In particular: >License Must Not Restrict Other Software >The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software. Not only does Open Source not imply everything on the platform should be Open Source, it's explicitly against its definition. Google Play services does does not affect the base android operating system. It is given root permissions on the Google backed distributions of the Android Operating System. It's perfectly fine to complain about Google giving itself a root level backdoor into their official distro. If a less trusted company were to do the same thing, there would be a perfectly validated uproar. But don't change the definition of open source to bolster your argument. In your edit you say "Android is no longer meaningfully open". That's fine, but don't say that it isn't open source, or that it's closed source. That's blatantly by definition false, and the open source community takes their definitions seriously for a reason.