Developer Joe Hewitt Tears Into Android’s Definition Of “Open”

http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/19/developer-joe-hewitt-tears-into-androids-definition-of-open/

by ssclafani • 16 years ago

92 84 16 years ago

shib712• 16 years ago

In this case, Joe is wrong.

"Open-source" simply means that anyone is allowed to read the code. We may associate certain release schedules and commit policies with typical open-source projects, but those schedules and policies are not mandatory. Or even common. Browse GitHub or SourceForge to see the typical choices - "when I can be bothered" and "only me" respectively.

I understand that Joe is in a position where he will need to deal with changes in the OS when it is released, but he still comes across as a self-entitled whiner.

jamesaguilar• 16 years ago

I disagree. I agree that Android fulfills the license requirements of open source. But it delivers few of the practical benefits that were meant to stem from the term (control of your devices/computer, the ability to modify the software you use). So in spirit it is nothing like what we would traditionally call "open source" and it is certainly nothing to brag about vis-a-vis iOS.

I see no sense of entitlement in his complaints at all. They seem reasonable based on the difference between what I might expect from an open source project and what Google actually delivers. This is rare considering I tend not to like open source software or even the basic principle of it.

shib712• 16 years ago

We can fork and alter the code, and deploy it to our devices. I'll grant that it is not easy on some devices, but you can't argue against the carriers' right to change the code without compromising your own.

shareme• 16 years ago

I think you are confusing OEM and Mobile Operator missions with open source..they are not that same..Joe makes the same logical mistake in this debate..

drivebyacct2• 16 years ago

Your post is the reason GPLv3 was created if I understand some of its intentions properly.

biafra7• 16 years ago

You have all that freedom with Android. You have the control over your device with Android. You don't have it on every device. But how is this Googles fault?

Android is so open it can be closed down by anyone. But there are Phones that are not closed down (ADP1, Nexus One) and hopefully there always will be.

Just because customers choose to buy phones that are locked down does not mean that Android is less open.

grammaton2• 16 years ago

Control of your devices falls under the carrier, not Google. Blame the carrier if you can't re-flash your phone to your heart's content. You certainly can modify the base OS, with the exception of a handful of binaries. If the binaries in question (Gmail, YouTube, the market) bother you that much, there is nothing to stop you from writing your own versions.

Tichy• 16 years ago

"But it delivers few of the practical benefits that were meant to stem from the term (control of your devices/computer, the ability to modify the software you use)."

Of course it does. A lot of people I know run community mods of Android of their phones, or at least used to do so for a while. Cyanogen seems to be a popular choice: http://www.cyanogenmod.com/

That some phone vendors choose to make it difficult to install your own version of Android is not the fault of Android. Maybe Android could have a license that forbids the practice, but it would be debatable if that would be more or less open. Also I'd argue that if you care enough to install your own custom OS, then you are likely able to figure out which phone to buy (ie Nexus One).

It seems however that the "only publish source code of releases" poses a problems for vendors considering releasing Android based hardware. It probably gives Google at least a little bit of leverage.

Which might be a good thing - most anti-Android people seem to complain that Google is not able to exert enough pressure on manufacturers to maintain quality standards.

edgibson• 16 years ago

I agree. Joe can be somewhat of a whiner. Every time he's on the news, it's probably because he whines and complains about something (Apple app store policy, the state of web development, Android openness, etc.)

kefs• 16 years ago

Joe should stick to developing..

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3077289/facebook-android-...

moultano5• 16 years ago

So fork it?

gamble2• 16 years ago

What's the point of forking something you can't install without voiding your warranty? Especially knowing that you can't redistribute your fork because average users won't hack their phones to install it, and even if they did your fork would lack essential applications like an email client or maps?

Android is no more open than Tivo, and in fact is the perfect example of what the GPL3 advocates were warning us about.

carussell2• 16 years ago

Android is no more open than Tivo

Does hyperbole make you feel good?

Just what, exactly, are you proposing happen in the sphere of source code that's going to affect manufacturers' warranty process, really?

Open source doesn't mean everything is amazing and you won't have to deal with logistics and deployment issues. You have the code, but if you want to get serious and get more than a dozen installs, you should expect to do some heavy lifting of your own and take care of some of the business aspects of the situation.

Not everything can be solved by source and a code license.

snissn• 16 years ago

you're confusing hardware with software, i can download, modify, sell, distribute, edit, sell the edits, and legally execute the code for any release of android, and couldn't even begin to do any of that for any apple OS. Chromium and android are free, safari was built off of a GPL code base, but OSX and iOS are locked down

kelnos3• 16 years ago

I seriously doubt Google/HTC would really be able to deny a warranty claim for a bootloader-unlocked N1, at least for customers in the US. See the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. A manufacturer can't deny warranty coverage based on a user modification that has no bearing on the defective part.

If the trackball falls out of my phone and I send it in for warranty repair, there's zero chance they'll be able to successfully claim that the problem was caused by me unlocking the bootloader.

bretthellman• 16 years ago

We can debate whether it's open or not all day long... If one of the most respected engineers around isn't happy with Androidm Google's doing something wrong.

brown9-22• 16 years ago

He's not happy about Apple's app store either. Are they doing something wrong too?

m0nastic• 16 years ago

I would say yes, although his issues against the app store have been somewhat remediated by Apple's latest easing up on developer restrictions.

I don't see this as an either/or scenario. As a developer, I can be dissatisfied with both Apple and Google. As someone who is pragmatic and not espousing a philosophy what matters is which I'm dissatisfied with more. There's no right or wrong answer to that question, each developer has to decide that for themselves.

kragen• 16 years ago

The Open Source Definition, written by the folks who invented the term "open source" a few months previously, doesn't say anything about the stuff Joe criticizes in Android. He's simply mistaken about the meaning of the term.

Also, the Android development policy that Joe criticizes is essentially identical to the way Emacs was developed up until the last decade. Emacs was the example "cathedral" in the original version of "The Cathedral and the Bazaar," for those who don't remember. It's well-established at this point, 13 years later, that bazaar-style development works better for a wide range of projects, but that doesn't mean that cathedral-style development doesn't qualify as open-source. It's just inefficient and frustrating.

pkaler• 16 years ago

Android source code is licensed under the GPL and Apache licenses and therefore is open for developers.

Most Android hardware is carrier locked, has proprietary firmware, or has proprietary services loaded on top and therefore is closed for users.

HaloZero• 16 years ago

I think there's a separation between openness (freedom) vs openness (transparency).

Android is open as in freedom, you can install it anywhere you want, you can modify the source code, you can build stuff on top of it, you can root it, etc.

But it is not open in transparency as Joe points out. They are not open about what they are working on. His arguments against Android stem from that. The not allowing read/write access and the latest and greatest all relate to the fact that Google doesn't want to be transparent with the future of Android.

Either way, iOS is neither.

Locke1689• 16 years ago

Actually, the iPhone dev toolkits and prerelease announcements are pretty good at providing feature information for iOS developers. No they're not available years in advance, but it's still more than Google. I think iOS is probably more transparent in this sense.

Still, I think neither are completely open and a misappropriation of terms has just lead to 'open' being more marketing bullshit.

snotrockets2• 16 years ago

But they only provide binaries.

It's always easier to develop for a system you have the code for, even if you can't modify it.

With iOS, you get more time to fix your code, but sometimes you have to speculate why the system works they way it does; with Android, the SDK drops later, giving you less time to code, but it's easier since you can find out why the system behave the way it does.

Skroob• 16 years ago

"Point I am trying to make is, Rubin bickering with Jobs is a farce, because both refuse to share the one thing that matters: control."

I would say the one thing that matters is a consistent and polished experience, and that the iPhone will always have an advantage over Android in that simply because Apple doesn't play this pretend "open" game.

jamesbritt• 16 years ago

"I would say the one thing that matters is a consistent and polished experience, ..."

Hey, as long as the trains run on time, we're all good.

MrScruff• 16 years ago

Thanks for the Godwin invocation.

davidw8• 16 years ago

Android is open source. Android is not developed by an 'open community', if you will. It's a legitimate complaint, I think, but I wouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If someone wants to invest a lot of work and time, they can very much fork Android if they want, and develop it however they see fit.

Also, something else that isn't brought up a lot: Android has a fairly open architecture. Intents let you plug in various things in various places so that you can choose which app handles what.

compay• 16 years ago

"Open source" != "open project." This issue comes up every so often on the Lua list, and I think Roberto Ierusalimschy's explanation describes the situation with Android pretty well.

http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2008-06/msg00407.html

dondii• 16 years ago

There are commits from a couple of hours ago:

http://android.git.kernel.org/?o=age

What am I missing?

dejb• 16 years ago

And the Apple Fud campaign begins to take hold...

guelo• 16 years ago

Before Android the mobile world was a much sadder place. There was the undisputed king, the iPhone, controlled by an increasingly ego-maniacal tyrant. Then there were all the manufacturers and carriers flailing around uncoordinated unable to respond. Google came along and offered the world a free open platform that everyone could rally around to put up a fight against the encroaching monopoly. Google makes no money off of Android but they've put massive resources into it. Their only benefit, the freedom from Jobs' capriciousness, is also a benefit to everyone else.

I don't understand the Google hate, they gave the world a free OS, what is there to hate about that? Even the most ardent Apple fan should be thankful for the competition. Yes, it's true that the carriers suck, but they would suck a lot more if they were only pushing LG feature phones or whatever, instead they get to sell a powerful worthy system to the masses.

yardie2• 16 years ago

Google makes no money off of Android but they've put massive resources into it.

You honestly believe this? Then the must not be making tons of money off of search either. Oh but they are, to the tune of millions. And Android? $1Billion in revenue.

No one hates Google, but a kernel doesn't make an OS. Which is why Linux is known as GNU/Linux. By that logic OSX is also open source, you can even download and compile their kernel from here http://www.opensource.apple.com/

People are hating because they were promised open, but what they got comes with a lot of strings attached. What good is downloading the kernel and running make if you have nowhere to install it?

davidw8• 16 years ago

> a kernel doesn't make an OS

You realize that Android is a lot more than just the Linux kernel, right? And that almost all of it is available under an open source license?

snotrockets2• 16 years ago

You've got more than a Kernel, which was already open, as Android is based on the Linux kernel.

It's interesting that it isn't a common unix or GNU. The whole software stack up from the kernel is different to anything you see elsewhere (I understand that MeeGo, another Linux-based phone OS takes a more standard approach, thus it be more comfortable to hack on, once it stops being vaporware).

But AOSP does host code for the whole middleware and a couple of applications. What is missing in AOSP are some userspace drivers, the code that runs on the radio hardware ("baseband" in iPhone speak), and the Google services and brand.

To continue your OS X analogy, it'd be like getting code for the whole OS, except for the stuff in /Applications.

The problem with Android is that this software is useless if you don't have hardware to run it. And unlike a computer, where I can go to the store, buy a PC, download a Linux distro and run it on that hardware, most phones are tivoized and won't let you run software not signed by the manufacture. So you need to buy a special dev phone (N1 included), pull the binary drivers from the installed firmware, build AOSP from source, and flash it to the phone. And then you'd be missing the Google-candy. You can also get OpenMoko, which I think have all its drivers open.

But I guess most people don't want to compile software for their own phone, just like only a few people build their OS from source. Most even never bother installing an OS, just using what came pre-installed. The hate against Android phones is from users wanting timely software upgrades, and no carrier-mandated crap. That, I'm happy to say, is mostly an American problem. Carriers sell phones the world round, but outside the US, caring customers (which are still a minority -- HN readers to the contrary, not everybody cares about what software her phone has), buy handsets from a 3rd party, and those have less limiting crap installed, as they need to satisfy the costumer, not the carrier.

davidw8• 16 years ago

> There was the undisputed king, the iPhone,

Uh, actually there was Nokia if your memory goes back more than a few years. I agree with the rest of it though. "Free stuff" is pretty cool in my book!

semanticist• 16 years ago

In terms of revenue, devices sold/in use, the 'undisputed king' would be Nokia - but only if you don't think in purely North American terms.

A lot of the commentary on mobile phones on HN is presented as absolutes when really it's only a discussion of the US/Canada.

jsz0• 16 years ago

Google makes money off Android by licensing their closed source applications, mobile advertising, and taking 30% of Android Market sales. Of course it's fine they want to make money off Android but if we're talking about openness that's kind of like having an open source razor with closed razor blades.

mgcross• 16 years ago

I thought it was the carrier that took the 30% share? I don't think Google gets a cut of the Market sales.

jedbrown• 16 years ago

It sounds like the complaints against Android are [1]

"Steering" discussions do not take place on a public mailing list (or community input is generally disregarded).

Depending on the involvement of the community (in actually doing instead of bikeshedding) compared to the company, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. I like open development, but if the community really has enough motivation, they are welcome to fork the project. Git makes it as easy as possible to migrate patches [2].

Some new development does not go into the public repo right away, instead residing in a private repo until some merge window prior to a major release.

Keeping it in a separate repo is probably a good idea if the changes are likely to cause occasional breakage. Again, visible branches (and/or RFC patchsets on mailing lists, a la LKML), but they do have a rapid release cycle and the full history is available after it is merged.

They don't hand out commit access to the community.

Is there just no email address to git send-email your patch sets or to send pull requests? Or do they ignore patches that show up? That's just bad administration and it's easy enough to create a community fork. The specific complaint about outright commit privileges is silly, Linus does not hand out commit access to anyone (including Ingo, Alan Cox, Andrew Morton), instead he pulls from them when they are ready.

I'm not trying to defend Google, they certainly have a history of being a poor to mediocre open source citizen. But "no different than iOS" is a gross exaggeration. Note that the carriers and hardware vendors may be far more to blame for the privacy, it's likely that they require limited-time NDAs so that branches cannot be made public until a release.

[1] I don't have specific experience working with the Android git repository or trying to send patches upstream, so I don't know if the complaints are entirely factual.

[2] It's not so rare for Open Source (adhering to the strict definition, but not open development, obviously) projects to only publish release tarballs. In contrast, Android publishes their repository with daily activity: http://android.git.kernel.org/?o=age

grammaton2• 16 years ago

Mobile developer speaking here. As far as I can tell, most of the grousing about Google not being "open source" revolves around two points - one, they don't accept outside contributions, and two, you can't just install on whatever hardware you'd like / carriers do crappy things.

As far as point two goes - blame the carriers, not Google. It's not even necessarily clear that the carriers are in the wrong to do things like this - part of open source is that you are free to modify as you see fit. Sprint exercising this very right is why they have their own interface now. If all of the carriers choose to pull this shady crap, put the blame where it belongs.

As for point one - who ever said they have to? First off I'm not sure I'd want patches from Joe Schmoe running on my cell phone, and not even Google has all of the resources they need to review every submission they'd get. Secondly, plenty of open source projects are notoriously stingy about who they hand out commit privileges to - and the quality of the software in these cases more than justifies this policy.

If you're free to read, download, modify, and re-distribute the source code as you see fit, it's open source. If a third party intervenes to make this pragmatically difficult, then that's a different issue. Google has certainly been more open than any number of other software companies - only Apple really comes close, as far as I can tell, and they still hold back huge chunks of their code. Google deserves the press they get for being open source, because at the end of the day, they are.

cullenking• 16 years ago

Google wouldn't just take patches from any Joe Schmoe, and it certainly wouldn't be a huge overhead to deal with them. It would be similar to how a project like Rails takes community patches: people wanting to contribute strike up conversation in a bug tracking program or IRC with some core developers. They say "hey I wrote this cool patch that fixes this ticket". The core team member takes 20 minutes to check out the patch, and he merges it in to his branch and then commits it to the core repo. After this community member does this a few times, the core member begins to trust and understand their coding style, and gives them commit access.

Doesn't take a ton of resources, and it encourages an open and vibrant community. The benefits of doing this "up front work" in vetting a new committer is, well, you get a new committer knocking off tickets.

Developer Joe Hewitt Tears Into Android’s Definition Of “Open”

Related Stories