Android ROM Modder gets Cease and Desist from Google

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/google_issues_cease_and_desist_letter_android_rom_modder

by jamesk2 • 17 years ago

30 18 17 years ago

The original site this article references times out for me.

davidw• 17 years ago

Like they say on LWN.net, this might just be an incentive to develop free alternatives to Google's apps. The problem is not Android itself, but the stuff they add on top of it; maps, gmail, etc...

joeyo• 17 years ago

Another alternative would be for Google to simply offer those apps for downloaded as they do for their software on any other platform. I wonder if there is some Google authentication glue that they have not yet modularized enough to allow this to happen.

(That's not to say that there shouldn't be free alternatives developed.)

nuclear_eclipse3• 17 years ago

Those applications are Google's sole bargaining point with handset manufacturers and carriers to have them build Android devices meeting certain requirements in order to make sure the Google Experience is up to par. If carrier/manufacturers don't agree to Google's terms, then they aren't allowed to distribute those "killer" apps with their phones. Making those apps still available to end-users who potentially may or may not have a Google Experience-worthy phone would kill much of their bargaining factor...

That said, as a user of CyanogenMod on my G1, I'd be absolutely heartbroken if his builds could no longer distribute these apps.

nuclear_eclipse3• 17 years ago

And unlike Apple, Google won't reject your app from the Market for duplicating core functionality or competing with core apps.

jrockway2• 17 years ago

These apps are very useful, and it's a shame that they're not open-source like the rest of Android.

Google's attempt at open-source Android apps has been... weak... at best. (Hello, "Mail".)

Google's "Google Experience" is also silly. There is a tablet/media player coming out soon that has Android. (Archos 5) But it won't play YouTube videos because the device does not meet the "Google Experience" criteria due to not having a camera. If you want YouTube, Gmail, and Google Maps, your device has to have a camera. WTF, Google?

(Ironically, I think the iPod Touch has Google Maps but doesn't have a camera. So Google is actually encouraging users to use their competition's product instead of their own. WTF, Google?)

rabidsnail• 17 years ago

Why not just release a binary patch to an official android firmware image (which the phone owner already has), and a patching program? Then he wouldn't have to distribute any google code.

jacquesm• 17 years ago

Either that or do a clean-room re-implementation.

DTrejo• 17 years ago

The original article is more informative because it links to the response.

Original: http://androidandme.com/2009/09/hacks/cyanogenmod-in-trouble...

Response: http://androidandme.com/2009/09/news/google-responds-to-cyan...

QE2• 17 years ago

I was actually considering an Android phone, the Instinct Q to be precise. I got a Palm Pre two weeks ago, which is also Linux-based, and now I feel that I made the right decision.

With Windows Mobile, I was always running custom ROMs and tweaking. The Pre doesn't have any custom ROMs per se, but that's because the whole thing is so simple that you can easily apply patches (about 90% the user-visible system is created with plain text files--HTML, Javascript, JSON, et cetera).

I work at a T-Mo call center, and there are a lot of reps here who say the myTouch is complete crap without custom ROMs. If Google really wants to build a loyal following--particularly in the tech community--this decision needs to be reversed and /never/ repeated.

mark_h2• 17 years ago

Google's official response is here: http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2009/09/note-on-googl...

I still don't think they've adequately covered it. The key to me is in the penultimate paragraph, where they first say

    "With a high-quality open platform in hand, we then returned to our goal of making our services available on users' phones.",

and then

    "We make some of these apps available to users of any Android-powered device via Android Market, and others are pre-installed on some phones through business deals."

The key to me is that they're not making their services available on users' phones, they're making them available on distributors' phones (through "business deals"). As nuclear_eclipse points out this is basically their only bargaining point, but I really think they need to find another way around this.

Count me as another who was just about to buy an Android phone, and is now seriously reconsidering.

thwarted2• 17 years ago

That's an interesting interpretation of what really amounts to a position statement on software licensing, a position that I'm sure most of all already accept and live by. The base android code is open source. Google has not open sourced the apps they provide that integrate with their other service offerings. These apps are proprietary. Any carrier or handset maker is able to use the android platform, which is open source. I think it's reasonable to allow, and expect, the same entity, be it individual developers or companies, to provide software under multiple licenses. Proprietary software is available for open source operating systems run on desktop computers, and Android helps enable that same software ecosystem on cellphones also. This hardly seems like a reason to NOT get an Android phone, but rather the reason to get one.

No one expects any app developer to open source their app just because it is sold or available in the Android Market. And app developers are welcome to get a carrier or include their app as part of a base install, which is effectively what Google has done as part of being an app developer. If the carrier pays the developer for that, or the developer pays the carrier for that, or if money doesn't change hands for that, maybe the developer just wants increased exposure and usage of their app that would come from it being in a default install, that's between those two parties.

EDIT to add:

It's unfortunate that Google is saying that they license their apps to distributors. What would it take for ROM creators to become licencors? Alternatively, since Google presumably has an interest in people actually using their apps, that they don't provide a way for users who are using a properly licensed phone/ROM who are using those apps to be installed other than through the base install seems kind of shortsighted. Some of their apps are available in the market (like the Finance, My Maps Editor, there was an update to the core Maps app that you installed from the Market), but an alternative of allowing the people who should be able to use the apps, because they've purchased a phone with a ROM that is licensed to, update them seems necessary and right.

mark_h2• 17 years ago

You are right of course, and I think I was mostly -- mostly -- over-reacting. I always thought they were entirely within their rights, just that they handled it in a rather unfortunate fashion.

The main point I was trying to make was that they were justifying opening android in order to be able to have a consistent platform to provide their services on, but are now effectively saying that they want to restrict who uses them.

Again, quite within their rights, but if all they cared about was people being able to access their services it would seem to be a non-issue. I'm pretty sure nuclear_eclipse is on the money.

I do agree with your update, and that seems to be effectively the compromise cyanogen has worked out (http://www.cyanogenmod.com/home/the-current-state); we'll have to see what sort of experience that provides.

Android ROM Modder gets Cease and Desist from Google

Related Stories