Google is defragging Android

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/09/balky-carriers-and-slow-oems-step-aside-google-is-defragging-android/

by abraham • 13 years ago

452 215 13 years ago

myko• 13 years ago

I think this is great for Android as a whole, users will be better served.

It does cut into the openness of Android though. Unless Amazon bends to Google's way of doing things a little bit their platform will stay even further behind, for instance.

Zigurd5• 13 years ago

Indeed it makes an increasingly important part of Android closed. It would have been better to make all of the parts of Android OS that run in a Dalvik instance updatable - or something like that. Unfortunately that part of Android is effectively held hostage by OEM modifications.

It would be nice that if an OEM commits to limiting their modifications to, say, at worst, some privileged apps, that there would be a workflow from Google's OS development to the SoC makers' chipset support engineering, to the OEMs so that new versions could be continuously integrated and therefore delivered to each product shortly after release. That plus some kind of community support model for EOL'ed products would harness openness in the cause of timely updates and long-term support.

pdknsk• 13 years ago

  defragmenting
  defragging

It's just 3 letters saved. Vote me down if you must.

GauntletWizard• 13 years ago

Three letters, a syllable, and sounding better to the technical crowd who understands the jargon (and, if you're outside that technical crowd, you won't understand "defragmenting" any better).

wicknicks• 13 years ago

The video game community might misinterpret it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frag_%28video_gaming%29

thrownaway2424• 13 years ago

I used to work with a guy who would omit a few vowels in one of those gigantzor java-hostage symbol names, like AbstractTemplateSignalsProviderFactoryBn, as if leaving the "ea" out of "Bean" had helped anyone at all.

engrenage7• 13 years ago

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• 13 years 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• 13 years 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.

gbl08ma• 13 years 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.

wtracy2• 13 years 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.

fphhotchips2• 13 years 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?

habosa2• 13 years 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.

elteto2• 13 years 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• 13 years 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.

estel6• 13 years 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.htm...

SirPulse2• 13 years 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.

rst2• 13 years ago

They're also migrating some functionality from core Android into Play Services. For example, the replacement for the (effectively broken) proximity alerts is the new geofencing API. But that's not in core Android, it's in Play Services, even though it's all on-device functionality, that doesn't need to interact with any Google central machinery.

kailuowang• 13 years 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.

engrenage7• 13 years ago

Darwin is free and can be installed on any compatible devices.

SirPulse2• 13 years ago

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

corresation2• 13 years 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• 13 years 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.

maaaats• 13 years ago

This is the sort of hysterical comment that does not belong on HN, to quote you.

wnevets• 13 years ago

This is 100% correct. The google apps have always been proprietary, custom roms for example arent allowed to include them.

etler2• 13 years ago

The problem is that people have built false expectations for themselves about what Android is, and even created false definitions of what open source is. All Android is is the operating system. Take any Linux distro, and strip out all the applications bundled with it and you don't have much. All open source means is that you can legally fork it.

People have created their own definitions for these things on no basis. There's a reason why there are so many terms in the open source world. There's Open Source. There's Free software. There's Free and Open Source software. They all mean different things, and the reason we nerds have so many definitions is precisely to avoid these kinds of misconception and false expectations. Ironically they've become complicated enough that everyone else ignores their definitions.

pkulak2• 13 years 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.

ghshephard2• 13 years 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).

engrenage7• 13 years 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.

kamjam• 13 years ago

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.

Yup. People bashed Microsoft about this for years because everything was so tied together, there was even an agreement to unbundle it as part of a European Anti-Trust case[1]. As developers, we are ALWAYS talking about decoupling systems, making things easier to manage and exchanging data using APIs. Don't see what the problem is with this, and if it means Google is able to get security patches out quicker rather than relying on manufacturers, then this is a win-win situation.

I wonder if Apple will ever get the Microsoft treatment

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_compet...

laureny3• 13 years 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.

ghshephard2• 13 years 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), 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.

Everlag• 13 years 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.

wtracy2• 13 years ago

it's still orders of magnitude more open than any of the other mobile OS available on the market.

Symbian? OpenMoko? The upcoming SailfishOS, Tizen, Firefox OS, and Ubuntu phone? Oh, you meant in the U.S., I guess. (Yes, I know that all the above have either already largely failed or have sketchy futures. That's an entirely different kettle of fish.)

Open source fanatics are impossible to satisfy

All I want is the ability to make arbitrary changes to the software running on my phone. Why is that so hard?

csixty4• 13 years ago

Especially OS X and iOS, which are both 0% open source

http://opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1084/

http://opensource.apple.com/release/ios-61/ (and a lot is shared with OS X, such as the xnu kernel)

http://www.cups.org

turing2• 13 years 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.

fleitz4• 13 years 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.

Knacktus• 13 years ago

Android is partly open source. It's neither open nor closed in the same way as gray isn't black or white.

Google has all the right to change the openness of it's software, but generally should be truthfull in their marketing. I haven't lately found them promoting Android for being open source, so all we need to be aware of is that Android, iOS, WP, BB are not open and are of course made to create profit for their companies from their users.

klrr2• 13 years ago

The key problem here is that it's open source. The meaning of that term has become very vague, not that OSI's definition is unclear but rather since many people apply the term to so many things. Open source is usually applied for marketing and convenience now days rather than actually showing that this software provides the essential freedoms for the user.

bowlofpetunias• 13 years ago

Although "meaningful" is very subjective, one can use Google's rhetoric under which Android was initiated as a touchstone: http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/press_110507.html

Of course when you do that, the current level of openness is not just "no longer meaningful", it's bordering on parody.

makomk3• 13 years ago

Well, the new DRM framework definitely isn't open, and essentially all the things you list are stuff that's too low-level to be implemented as part of Google Play Services. Basically, if they could put it in the closed source Google Play Services, they have - including relatively core functionality like improvements to the location APIs and push notifications.

sspiff• 13 years ago

I agree. I worked for a company that was building their own TV platform on top of Android. From their (and my) point of view, Android was meaningfully open.

You don't need Google's closed services to have a working and meaningful platform. You also still benefit from the large developer mindshare and identical APIs compared to Google's Android.

You don't have the added benefit of the content discovery & delivery platform Google provides, nor of any of the closed Google API's. Depending on your use case, that may make it "meaninglessly open", but I would definitely argue that this isn't a universal statement.

I also have multiple Android devices that don't have access to Google Play (a set-top box and a system-on-a-stick) and I really don't mind that they don't have access to Play.

unabridged• 13 years 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• 13 years 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.

esolyt2• 13 years 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• 13 years 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• 13 years 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 )

moca2• 13 years 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• 13 years 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.

product50• 13 years 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• 13 years 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).

etler2• 13 years 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

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.

coolnow3• 13 years ago

It'd be interesting to see how it pans out for OEMs that don't, for various reasons, bundle Play Framework/Services with their phones. This could be fixed by having the user install a GApps zip through recovery, but it'd be a pain to the average user. Also, are there, or will there be, any manufacturers forbidden to use the Play Store and its framework? It seems for the vast majority of people, this move is great, but for a tiny minority, i'm not so sure.

Zigurd5• 13 years ago

It is difficult to say if manufacturers might get locked out. So far Google has let B&N come in to the Google Play ecosystem when they wanted to do that, and Amazon evidently prefers to cultivate their own ecosystem.

If Google could make licensing transparent and accessible to 3rd tier OEMs, that would improve the customer experience at the low end.

coolnow3• 13 years ago

Would Google object to having Play on devices made in and/or for North Korean officials, or Iranians etc? Would Google be forced to restrict access to them? Granted, the amount of people this realistically affects is very small.

lazerwalker• 13 years ago

It's worth noting how closely Android's apparent path going forward mirror's Apple's strategy with both OS X and iOS: closed end-user components built on top of an open source core. I guess Google's realized that "openness" isn't a meaningful market differentiator for the average consumer.

engrenage7• 13 years ago

And we have to assume that Google will do exactly the same thing with Chrome and Chrome OS when it is to their advantage to do so.

rodly• 13 years ago

Google didn't choose the open-source route because it figured consumers would find that enticing. They did that to encourage development on a low marketshare platform. Android exploded in popularity in exchange for fragmentation.

austinz• 13 years ago

I'd like to know what technical benefits there are, if any, from this roundabout approach by Google. I suspect there aren't many, if any, and this is more of a tactic to 'circle around' and retroactively gain tighter control over the OS. (Also, see Google's purchase of Motorola with the intention of making phones with better hardware-software integration...)

jffry• 13 years ago

They (Google) can release new versions of these core services to almost all users immediately, without those users having to wait for their devices' manufacturers to go through the usual testing and shittification (aka "skinning and customization") process.

icarus127• 13 years ago

I'm interested, what is the open source core in OSX and iOS? I was not aware of any. I know they share code with BSD but I didn't think it was to the extent that one could compare Apple's OS relationship with BSD to Android's relationship with Linux.

shirederby• 13 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_%28operating_system%29

evilduck• 13 years ago

http://opensource.apple.com/

morgante• 13 years ago

So, the ultimate nail in the coffin for open, fragmented services. If you want to build a good OS, you ultimately have to take almost complete control. (Google is basically following Apple's route.)

The reason I think the Google system is worse is that theoretically any application can achieve this level of control. So while I might trust Google, it seems all too easy to trick users into installing a different process which can take complete control of their phone. With iOS, only Apple is capable of this level of control, thus decreasing the attack vectors.

EDIT: Admittedly it's highly unlikely that Google would ever let such an application into the Play Store, thus limiting its distribution potential.

coolnow3• 13 years ago

Also, Google do some kind of scanning of applications you want to install (optional), last time i checked, so that would probably limit the distribution potential even further. AFAIK, Google's services have root access to the system (they can freely download .apk, install them silently and more), but rogue apps would need a 0day on non-rooted phones,

StringyBob• 13 years ago

Smart move by google. Potentially they've regained control of their platform past, present and future...

In one fell swoop they can resolve fragmentation, keep everyone up to date on functionality/APIs, bypass OEM/carrier update issues (be it carrier QA, OEM lack of interest, or just crapware). Most importantly google can keep any OEM's (ie samsung) in check and prevent them branching away from android.

The downsides: what happens when google break an entire range of phones/functionality with an update? Are they going to QA every android product in existence? Will older models slow down and become unusable as the baseline resource requirements increase? (I'm looking at you IOS7)...

r00fus2• 13 years ago

So Rubin departs leadership of Android just before Android becomes "not open". Seems like there's a backstory here that I'd love to hear about.

estel6• 13 years ago

Moving some functionality into the Play Services package is a direction that Google have clearly been going in for at least a year: last year both Google+ integrations (understandably) and an updated Google Maps SDK being released.

Android Community's original description of Play Services as "In a nutshell, Google Play services allows app developers to integrate other Google services, like Google Plus, into their apps" is still accurate today.

r00fus2• 13 years ago

Again, I'm not going to argue the point, but it does seem like Play has gained a lot more significance after Andy's sidestep.

I found the Google memos from the Java trial absolutely fascinating… I imagine the story (going back a couple of years) on this would make great literature.

spion2• 13 years ago

As always, everyone forgets to mention the poor, slow and by now outdated Android WebView - which by the way will finally be getting a very important upgrade in the form of WebViewFactory. This may allow using alternative WebViews, such as a chromium-based webview - another important step towards defragmentation.

Some more info is available at http://danosipov.com/?p=572

zenocon3• 13 years ago

I've been working on something similar myself, since Google has indicated Chromium WebView isn't a priority for them right now https://github.com/davisford/android-chromium-view

saurik3• 13 years ago

How does your work compare to this?

https://github.com/pwnall/chromeview

mambodog• 13 years ago

Having written a mobile app framework targeting both UIWebView (iOS) and WebView, and several apps with a single codebase for both platforms, this can't come soon enough. The current Android-Browser-based WebView uses a disgustingly out of date WebKit release, while the iOS UIWebView is basically the current Mobile Safari version with a few features disabled.

The sad state of WebView is the biggest cause of difficulty writing cross platform HTML5/JS apps, even more so than device hardware fragmentation.

aboodman• 13 years ago

Alas, the system UI (button bar, switching, etc) are not included in the updateable components :(.

credo• 13 years ago

>This is how you beat software fragmentation.

This does help defragment Android from a Google (developed) app perspective.

However, it doesn't do anything for 3rd-party developers. It doesn't do anything for regular consumers who wish to upgrade their 2.3.3 phones or 4.1 phones to the latest version of Android. So Google has a long way to go before they really defragment Android.

jaegerpicker3• 13 years ago

What? It absolutely helps 3rd party app developers. Need a new and better video/gps/network/etc.. api? Right now you stuck depending on a new OS Version. if they start tying api's to play store updates, as they have with things like geolocation/gps functions, they worrying which OS and about fragmentation mostly goes away for 3rd party developers of apps.

MBCook• 13 years ago

How is Play going to update the kernel without the OEM's involvement?

Some software improvements and new libraries will be available, and that's a plus for users. But this is still a far distance from REAL OS updates. I'd worry this disincentives OEMs to do real updates.

Someone2• 13 years ago

I'm not sure about the extent of the 'mostly' part. You still have the huge differences in CPU speed, GPU capabilities, screen sizes and amount of memory to cater with.

That 5 year old phone may have the latest Play Services, but what good is that if that leaves only 10 kilobytes of RAM for your app?

BruceIV• 13 years ago

I feel like most people aren't version number junkies, and as long as their phone does all (or most) of the same things that neighbour Jones' Nexus phone does they'll be happy.

devx• 13 years ago

The whole point of it is to help 3rd party developers with the API's, so they homogenize the API's through Play Services.

However, you're right about the user part. It will help the users slightly, better apps with latest API's will come along, but the users still won't get the latest features of the OS unless the phone is upgraded to the latest version.

querulous• 13 years ago

i think this will ultimately prove to be a terrible move for google. android's success is largely a function of how attractive it is to device manufacturers and carriers. stripping control from them is going to force them into a corner where forking android or moving to another platform (amazon's fork of android, firefox os, windows phone 8 and ubuntu mobile are all potentially technically competitive even if they are not currently feasible).

xlayn• 13 years ago

No better news for the industry and users could have been know today.

acjohnson554• 13 years ago

I don't see what the issue is. It seems to me that the OEMs are still perfectly able to build their own skins and bundle their own apps. They just can't let their recently released devices rot with outdated tech.

Not to mention that if OEMs completely leave Android, they lose the app ecosystem. Having already launched an Android app store was a big boost to for the Kindle Fire. Not many other companies can pull that off though.

antrix• 13 years ago

The headline made me think Android 4.3's fstrim feature (defragging flash storage) is delivered via Play too!

blinkingled• 13 years ago

That only really benefited the Nexus Devices. Far as I know no other popular device has had issues due to lack of fstrim. And all recent Nexus devices already got the 4.3 update.

But since Play Services has system level access I am wondering if they could've technically been able to stuff the fstrim daemon along with the app updates. All it does is wakes up on idle and issues trim ioctls - Linux kernel proper has had TRIM support for a while.

ZeroGravitas9• 13 years ago

You can get an app that does it already, but it requires root:

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.grilledmon...

And I think this affected more than Nexus devices, HTC One gets mentioned in the app description.

makomk3• 13 years ago

They could, but I seem to recall issuing TRIM commands can brick the onboard eMMC Flash chip on some Samsung devices.

ChuckMcM• 13 years ago

This is an interesting move on Google's part. It is a lot more mature (from the perspective of running a software business) to have this level of control over your destiny. It is also another step away from the engineering driven focus toward the business goals focus. One of the more difficult things to do is have the conversation why something is correct for the business, even if it is an inferior engineering solution. I hope they manage that transition well.

The other part of this story seems to be that if you move to this as your "api" then you can move the underlying OS tech to something else as well. (away from Linux to something perhaps smaller for a budget phone.) Should be easier than it was for Microsoft to move everyone to the WinAPI and off DOS.

unono• 13 years ago

Hackers need to do something about the big companies abusing the app store system. Google, Apple, Amazon are taking far too much fees from independent developers.

- Apple's store especially needs to be killed fast for innovation to thrive, Apple is turning out to be the new Microsoft, Tim Cook should fear the wrath of developers

- and Google needs to be reminded that it's business could swiftly vanish if it isn't pro-developer and pro-consumer, a 30 percent cut for what amounts to hosting a file is way too much.

prewett• 13 years ago

Hosting a file + handling payments (in all major currencies) + providing worldwide visibility via search and app categories

Those last two are pretty big, if you ask me.

e12e5• 13 years ago

"It has its own silent, automatic update mechanism that the user has no control over. In fact, most of the time the user never even knows an update has happened."

Great. So, if it was difficult to trust your phone/tablet/tv before it is now impossible. I'm looking more forward to Ubuntu and FirefoxOS than ever before - I want to be able to control what software runs on my devices!

chx• 13 years ago

Yeah. You and the thirty other people (minor exaggeration) who reads this page might want to but perhaps even among them there are a few who can't care less. The general public? You know that well.

acjohnson554• 13 years ago

I don't understand what the all negativity over these changes is about. Has a significant amount of mainstream Android features being incorporated into play been from the ecosystem, rather than Google? If so, I can see how this could result in a worse end-user experience. But if not, how does providing timely updates and a less fragmented ecosystem such a horrible outcome? Feel free to enlighten me if I'm missing something.

newman314• 13 years ago

I'm sorry but this makes it sound like Google has come up with this magic way of beating fragmentation. It shouldn't have happened in the first place.

Contrast this with iOS upgrade path or what webOS had been doing. Seamless (for the most part) and a great UX.

Google is able to do this; see Chrome. What is strange is why they did not adopt the same strategy for Android as for Chrome.

kalleboo3• 13 years ago

Easier said than done. Microsoft tried to beat fragmentation in Windows Phone by mandating a specific hardware spec, and even they have had huge issues getting manufacturers to clear updates in time, and they won't even let you update to the new major version.

teovall• 13 years ago

The elephant in the room here is security.

A lot of security updates can be pushed out for the apps and Play Services. However, the underlying OS still needs regular, frequent updates to stay secure, and that's just not happening for the vast majority of Android devices. Who needs 0-day exploits when you have millions of Android devices out there that are vulnerable to exploits that are one, two, or even three years old!?

ZeroGravitas9• 13 years ago

Google/Android really can't win now that this "fragmentation" frame has stuck.

Google's been updating core parts of the system like this from day one. The Android Market/Play Store, Maps, Youtube and many other things have received massive updates and been pushed out to millions of people. However, the dominant storyline at the time was that "Android devices don't get upgrades, because fragmentation".

Then suddenly, for no obvious reason, the tech bloggers all noticed at once that this was happening (possibly because they had started actually using Android?) and it was portrayed as sudden U-turn by Google. A weapon in their "war" against Samsung (don't get me started on that one).

ntoshev• 13 years ago

Who cares about the tech bloggers? Android customers don't care about fragmentation. They care about having working apps. Developers care about fragmentation, and this approach (unlike updating Youtube in this way) helps with their problem, regardless of what bloggers say and who is in a "war" with whom.

ZeroGravitas9• 13 years ago

They've always had working apps. My whole point is that nothing in reality has changed. That's why I'm focussing on what bloggers say, because that's the only thing that is different.

nomercy400• 13 years ago

A closed source app that can update itself without notifying the user, and has full permissions? How is this any different from the 'loss of control' to American institutes, like the Windows 8.1 / TPM 2.0 warning from the German government. Isn't this exactly the same thing?

estel6• 13 years ago

I've not tried to, but Android surfaces an option to disable Play Services.

gummydude• 13 years ago

Some services are totally unreliable, for example the Geocoder service.

zerolinesofcode• 13 years ago

This sounds like Microsoft .net Framework all over again.

unicornporn• 13 years ago

Only boring updates in 4.3? Have you seen app ops [1] functionality? Hands down the greatest thing to happen to a mobile OS in a long time. I know there's Xprivacy, but having this thing built in is awesome.

[1] http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/07/25/app-ops-android-4-3s...

notatoad• 13 years ago

The author of this Ars article is the same person as the author of that androidpolice article discovering app ops. so yes, i'm pretty sure he's heard of them.

App Ops aren't in android 4.3 though. it's not a released feature, it's just a development experiment that never got fully disabled prior to release.

bsaul• 13 years ago

It seems that this article doesn't really separate between user concerns (having the latest google apps) and developper concerns (access to latest APIs).

From what I understand, this means developpers will be able to rely on android "services" being updated more often and more consistently available.

However, what about things like using new UI components ? For this, you still need the latest OS version, right ? If that's the case, then maybe this would mean users caring even LESS about updating their OS, and thus an even worst situation.

i suppose Google thought about it, so there's probably something false in my statement, could anyone confirm ?

pacofvf• 13 years ago

Well it already happened before, with the tabs and other UI components, the solution is a third party library that implements the new UI components in older OS versions, google itself has released backward compatilibity libraries to support new APIs in older OS versions.

abruzzi• 13 years ago

One problem is the article specifically states that API updates will still be tied to OS updates. I know different people have different concepts of fragmentation, but to me the key was the un-updated 2.2 device didn't have the API to support newer apps.

rarw• 13 years ago

Aside from fighting over whether Android is closed or not this is an interesting solution to dealing with the inconsistencies present in the Android universe. The freedom everyone wants to love that comes with a fully open source Android platform is, in reality, a real pain when you're trying to develop apps. There is at best a plurality of different operating system versions. Phone manufactureres spontaneously stop supporting devcies, only pushing out updates to the newest of the new. OS improvements are lost on those devices left behind until the users can afford a new device or reach the point where they can upgrade.

Unlike Apple, where the iOS landscape is 100% consistent (minus physical hardware variations) Android is a mess. Before going to town on Google for "closing" the operating system, let's at least look at the problem they are trying to solve and how this attempt - I'm not saying it's correct, or good - addresses those issues.

Google is defragging Android

Related Stories