Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1.    #1  
    For those interested, a good read on the open source aspects of Android:
    Neither Microsoft, Nokia, nor anyone else should fork Android. It's unforkable. | Ars Technica


    for completeness sake (so people can make up their own mind) I'll also link to the comment with the most elaborate counter-argument:
    http://arstechnica.com/information-t...mment-26199423
    Last edited by Misj'; 02/08/2014 at 02:52 PM. Reason: added additional link
  2. #2  
    Interesting read. Might provide some insight as to why some people want to own their own operating systems.
    Author:
    Remove Messaging Beeps patch for webOS 3.0.5, Left/Right bezel gestures in LunaCE,
    Whazaa! Messenger and node-wa, SynerGV 1 and 2 - Google Voice integration, XO - Subsonic Commander media streamer, AB:S Launcher
    (1:39:33 PM) halfhalo: Android multitasking is like sticking your fingers into a blender
    GO OPEN WEBOS!
    People asked me for a donate link for my non-catalog work, so here you are:
  3. #3  
    So what I get from that is:
    * Android is totally forkable - bad choice of article title. We know this - you can put CM on the TP!
    * A phone with AOSP is totally usable - as a phone...
    * But if you want the good stuff, the fun stuff, the 'smartphone' type stuff, that's all proprietary.
    * Google is either a really great company to make this OS available for everyone or...
    * Google used the open source thing to get everyone onboard, dominate the market & now close up the system to control it all.

    I agree that Android may be practically unforkable as the only entitites that could practically replicate Google services are large, rich, tech companies... like Microsoft! But as the article suggests, MS' choice really boils down to adding services to AOSP or simply making a 'Google Android' phone. MS doesn't need AOSP and there's no point to go with Google - then they will be just another device manufacturer with a 'me too' Android offering.

    However, MS may well benefit if their efforts to converge all their OS versions goes well. If apps continue to be a problem, an ACL/Alien Dalvik solution could be added. Unlike Apple, Google is really looking to proliferate conduits to it's services. The recent sale of Motorola shows that mass market mobile hardware manufacture is not a big interest and may actually harm the larger plan. MS may be trying to follow the Apple model.

    With the recent Google/Samsung deal, it looks like Android dominance is assured for sometime, but I just remembered what forum this is. ;-)

    If Google starts to dominate even more, there may be opportunities for niche players who are a bit different. That could still be Apple & MS, but if we take the idea of synergy on webOS, it might be possible to build a comprehensive set of services from many providers. For instance, we have 72ka's google maps app, but he has also made a Nokia HERE app. We can add search plugins for many search providers. There's the whole Enyo/cross platform app possibility that could be coupled to an appstore that offers Native, ported, cross-platform and of course, Android apps (excepting the limitations noted in the article and the new ART runtime). A group like Cyanogenmod could maybe create a Google services type replacement with items from many providers. There would be a set of apps - something currently possible on many platforms.

    But webOS is built to work like that already and options exist which have potential to offer a choice of services behind a common interface. For a set of services, it might be less about an app than about a synergy connector. So as now, you get your email in one app and also your calendars. Location services could be the same - perhaps even combining data sources in a single view. Cloud storage providers could be folders in your cloud app and so on.

    Just a little dreaming for webOS fans there! ;-)

    Or am I talking nonsense? ;-)
    Last edited by Preemptive; 02/09/2014 at 09:44 AM. Reason: typo!
  4. #4  
    an ACL/Alien Dalvik solution could be added
    A large point of the article, is that yes, you can do what you want with Dalvik, but that doesn't mean you're going to be compatible with newer applications. You'll be stuck at at most a subset of the 4.x API, unless someone writes a google services layer as well.

    Of course, we also know that being able to run Android apps doesn't really make your platform that much more attractive -- see also BlackBerry 10, PlayBook OS. Compatibility with older more popular systems also doesn't help, See also why OS/2 didn't take the market by storm, why Commodore is no longer in business, etc.
    Author:
    Remove Messaging Beeps patch for webOS 3.0.5, Left/Right bezel gestures in LunaCE,
    Whazaa! Messenger and node-wa, SynerGV 1 and 2 - Google Voice integration, XO - Subsonic Commander media streamer, AB:S Launcher
    (1:39:33 PM) halfhalo: Android multitasking is like sticking your fingers into a blender
    GO OPEN WEBOS!
    People asked me for a donate link for my non-catalog work, so here you are:
  5. #5  
    Yeah, that article wraps it up nicely. Here's hoping Mountain View takes the time to read it, and with a compassionate heart.

    Quote Originally Posted by Preemptive View Post
    * Google is either a really great company to make this OS available for everyone or...
    * Google used the open source thing to get everyone onboard, dominate the market & now close up the system to control it all.
    I mostly lean toward the latter. Only mostly, because I wonder how much of their system was made proprietary out of necessity. They may simply have been too starry eyed with intent when they set out to build AOSP. When it started, Google was still starting to ramp up their offerings outside of search and email.

    They needed to be competitive with Android, and as they grew out the services that would help, some of those technologies had to be managed in-house. Then so begins the slippery slope of having to make a few old AOSP functions and many GS functions proprietary due to both liability and real technical issues with the new functionality.

    So yeah, I dunno. Maybe some of it's Google being evil (oops!). Maybe some isn't.

    Recently saw an article somewhere noting that Google has now been pushing Samsung and other long-time heavy skinning offenders to knock it off and use the services they're given. It makes me laugh. Their big advertising point originally was, "Use this! Customize it! Market differentiation!"

    Google: I am disappoint.

    Edit: Ah, and seems like a Google response in the second link saying that yes, they are the victims of technology. Yeah? I don't doubt AOSP is still a good way to start. But I really don't buy that they really have any interest in major players developing with AOSP as the base.
    Last edited by ananimus; 02/09/2014 at 07:05 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. Enyo open source could be good for all
    By alan sh in forum Open webOS General Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04/10/2012, 06:47 PM
  2. A Good Sign That Open Source Will Pay Off
    By p41m3r in forum General News & Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01/12/2012, 10:08 AM
  3. Android - Open Source my a**e
    By max167 in forum Other OS's and Devices
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 05/13/2011, 08:07 PM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05/06/2011, 01:36 PM
  5. Closed Source Licensing Based on Open Source tools?
    By Jonathan I Ezor in forum webOS Development
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08/12/2009, 11:03 AM

Posting Permissions