What is Digg?Sponsored by She's Out of My League
This "She's Out of MY League" Trailer Is NSFW view!
GetYourRating.com - Exactly why you want to watch it, probably at work, hopefully while your boss is out sick...
44 Comments
- geoken, on 10/27/2009, -2/+14Otto, your'e completely wrong.
First off, providing a list of closed sources drivers/components that ship with the HTC Dream and are required only for the HTC Dream (and phones based off it) does not make the OS closed source. By your logic linux is not open source because there are distros that include closed source drivers and restricted media playback capability. For example, by your definition of open source, Ubuntu is not open source because the version of Ubuntu that ships on Dell computers has nvidia drivers and DVD playback pre-bundled.
Secondly, providing closed applications for an open source OS does not make that OS closed source. - Chairboy, on 10/27/2009, -0/+10The OpenMoko project looked to be exactly this, but... doesn't seem to have hit that critical mass that's needed for something like this to really prosper. But if you're interested in open platforms, it's worth checking out.
- lava, on 10/27/2009, -3/+12Android is open source, you're mistaking the platform for the applications that run on top of it, which don't have to be. The youtube application isn't a necessary component of the phone OS, and it's understandable that google wants to have it closed source. The guy behind Cyanogen Mod was distributing the application that Google bundles with the G1, not just his modified OS.
- cheddaro, on 10/27/2009, -1/+7I would like to go back to the days of the Oki 900 where you could just type a random ESN on the handset and start making calls on someone elses account.
That's what we should be working towards... - jeddyftb, on 10/27/2009, -1/+7In the US? With Verizon and Cingular?
No. - DulcetTone, on 10/27/2009, -1/+7Android 2.0 SDK seems to have come out this very day. Installing it now.
- geoken, on 10/27/2009, -0/+6Open Moko was a great example of how open source projects struggle. It was pure design by committee with the entire GUI library being arbitrarily changed at some point mid development.
- tbttfox, on 10/27/2009, -1/+6Otto: You are still confusing the platform for the applications.
I agree, several critical pieces of functionality are proprietary, but nobody is "pretending" that they are part of the Android OS. It's like people forgetting that X isn't actually a part of Linux. Nobody would use Linux if not for X (ok, well MOST wouldn't) but that doesn't make it part of Linux even though it's bundled with most modern distros. edit: Ok, not the best example since X is open, but the point still stands.
Also, most of those proprietary things cited in your link are hardware drivers which (I'm guessing, but it makes sense given the state of current affairs) are not controlled by Google, but their respective manufacturers.
Saying the base component is open source does not mean that the entire system must be open source - MWeather, on 10/27/2009, -1/+5"Android is not truly open source, as Google holds back their applications in closed source forms and sends threatening letters to people who actively try to improve the platform:"
Linux is not open source, then, because there are linux apps that are closed-source.
"Again, Android is NOT open source. Several critical pieces of the functionality underlying it rely on proprietary components: "
Like my proprietary graphics drivers in Linux? Or my proprietary wifi drivers? - geesamba, on 10/27/2009, -0/+4I detected a hint of sarcasm there.
- tbttfox, on 10/27/2009, -0/+3Read the article.
"OpenMoko, a company that spun off of FIC in 2007 with the aim of building an open smartphone, was once regarded as a promising contender. The company ran into difficulty, however, and was ultimately forced to halt its phone development efforts and pursue alternate projects. OpenMoko found that the cost of producing 3G smartphones was prohibitively high for independent device makers and it was simply not possible to do without using proprietary firmware." - JQP123, on 10/27/2009, -0/+3"... I appreciate having devices that I use for my own enjoyment that don't require me to continue working in my free time."
Yes, absolutely, I couldn't agree more.
I was just attempting to point out that this is what real technological "advancement" is all about --- the elimination of complexity. And in this regard, the iPhone is more "advanced" than some of the competition.
I'm constantly amazed at how often technical people argue just the opposite --- that complexity equates to being more advanced, that taking the time to learn to deal with complexity is somehow a sign of superiority. - cbeach, on 10/27/2009, -3/+6The reason developers have created 100,000 apps for the iPhone is that Apple guarantees a single resolution, a single form factor, a single input method and single distribution system.
Open mobile platforms are a nice idea in some ways, but let's face it - the majority of consumers do not consider this a priority. It's clear from the numbers that the majority of developers prefer the consistency of the closed iPhone ecosystem over the divergence of other, more open, platforms. - ShyGuy91284, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2Nokia's fallen on some hard times, but I think Maemo 5 and the N900 have a huge amount of potential. It's still got some flaws, but it looks pretty good, and is usable enough for your typical user. Nokia has already stated they won't bend to carriers whims and lock it down. It's about as open and flexible as you can get with a large company, right down to the X11 renderer.
- JQP123, on 10/27/2009, -2/+4"... Apple guarantees a single resolution, a single form factor, a single input method and single distribution system."
In other words, Apple created a "standard" platform.
"It's clear from the numbers that the majority of developers prefer the consistency of the closed iPhone ecosystem over the divergence of other, more open, platforms."
It's clear from the numbers that consumers prefer a system that "just works". Whoever provides the overall system that "just works" the best will capture lots of marketshare ---- whether it's open or not. - Mateo2, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2That's not true though. I followed the project. 3G wasn't even an issue at the time, they started pre-3G. The issue was that their development cycle was laugh-out-loud slow. They started WAY before android, and pushed their release dates back and back. They pushed back over a year and then released some screenshots and the OS looked PEDESTRIAN. I think the problem is that community-driven development is not fast enough to keep up.
- Chairboy, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2Never!
- ManUnitdFan, on 10/27/2009, -2/+4Cingular no longer exists, just to get you up to speed.
- Mateo2, on 10/27/2009, -1/+3Open/close has nothing to do with the reason for developers going with the iPhone. It was the user base, nothing more.
- supermanred, on 10/28/2009, -0/+2No, dude. Sorry to say but there are developers on the "Open" side of jailbreak apps and they are few and far inbetween... the highest caliber of apps and 99.999% of the people making money at making great apps are on the closed side of the iPhone.
You miss the point that there is an "open" iphone on the market, jailbroken iphones can all run any peice of code you want. YOu host the code, add the url in installer and install your own app. Open as *****.
Just, if you want to actually, you know, make money you work within the paramaters of the app store. - inactive, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2http://www.archmobile.org/ I'm taking a look at this right now.
- Culyt, on 10/27/2009, -1/+3@Otto: It doesn't matter who makes the components, if they are the same people who made the system or a 3rd party, the end result is exactly the same thing.
In addition to that, the 3rd party libraries listed on that page are from HTC, *not* Google. They are specifically for the HTC hardware.
Yeh there is a conflict of interest somewhat but it doesn't mean that the system isn't open, just that Google might not choose to develop it for the community. For example they are keeping their dev branches hidden from the community (2.0 sdk was just released today, but its been in screenshots for a while now), having a NDA probably doesn't override the GPL, but if those companies choose too abide by the NDA, even if it isn't legally binding, to ensure they get the next version early too and don't redistribute the source then that is up to them. This is still perfectly within the GPL, and its still open. I could take any open source code base, make changes and do exactly the same thing myself. The GPL requirement of providing source only takes effect when someone has a binary copy.
Nothing is stopping someone form forking Android and doing their own more open version using only GPL'd components, and this is happening somewhat already since the Google C&D fiasco. If no one chooses to use it then that doesn't make it less open.
Android is open. If the market it a closed app, then the market is closed source, it doesn't change the fact that Android itself is open.
If there are some 3rd party libraries that are important to getting the phone to work as a phone, that still doesn't mean that the Android platform itself is closed. I can make my own Android based hardware if I want. I can install it on my laptop, desktop whatever. I might not have the Google Search app, but that's not Android, its a program running on it.
The closed source apps, aren't critical components for getting the base Android system working, although they are important ones that many people will want. But you can install applications without the market, you just have to download and run them manually.
The closed source drivers might be critical for getting it to work as a phone, or work on specific hardware, but by that attitude Linux still is closed, after all Android is just a Linux distro. In any case the closed drivers are not from Google, they are HTC.
It is also possible to replace the closed components with open ones.
I wonder what will happen if we get a 3rd party market up and running that doesn't take %30 of the profit like Google does, but instead only takes %10, the extra %10 reduce the price for the consumer and the other %10 give more profit to the developer. It is an incentive for everyone to use the alternate market over the commercial one.
We could see OpenStreetMaps instead of Google maps. Anyone can write a search box to perform a Google search. The voice stuff might be more complex but I'm guessing that is a web service, so we could tap into that.
Google don't *control* Android, it's under the GPL. They might control the repos, and they are the ones coding it and choosing what code goes into the version they are providing. But if someone forks it and makes it better and then all the mobile phone providers decided to use that, Google couldn't do anything about that. If people choose to use the Google version and add closed apps thats once again up to the people implementing those version of it. - JQP123, on 10/27/2009, -1/+3"I think you misunderstood my point."
I think I understand your point.
"... the iPhone is a proprietary platform, and is clearly benefiting from this."
Why is this a surprise? The quickest, easiest, most efficient way to create a standard platform is to build your own. This is what Apple did. Imagine if they had tried to run the iPhone through a series of industry committees or worse, an open design process. - JQP123, on 10/27/2009, -1/+2"That is why the iPhone is popular, it's EXTREMELY user-friendly and doesn't require much technical ability."
Technology advances by increasing the number of things a person can achieve without thinking about it. - Mateo2, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1That was part of the problem. The other was that it's hard to get volunteers to do much. The project went at a snail pace.
- MWeather, on 10/29/2009, -0/+1@Otto " I do not have any closed source software on my Linux boxes, and you don't have any on yours that are part of "Linux"."
And not a single piece of android is proprietary. It's all drivers and apps. The OS itself is 100% open source.
Way to miss the point. - zbeast, on 10/27/2009, -1/+2What does open mean to you... for me open is that I can put any application on my phone as long as that
application does not harm the phone network...
So if I want an app that updates the root screen with my favor porn that should not be restricted, if the
applicaiton allows me manage and control my emule or torrent server at home I should be able
to have that application on my phone.
Apple rejected an application just like that.. Note it didn't let you torrent over the 3g network, which is a bad Idea.
What it let you do is control your utorrent client running at home with your phone.
No different than having a telnet client, browser or remote desktop client on your phone.
- glitchbit, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1From a historical point of view.. Yes, but it cannot be done well.
- PeppermintPig, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1An open solution goes hand in hand with open competition in the realm of telecom infrastructure (which is being resisted by both industry giants and government cronies alike).
- sousademiami, on 10/27/2009, -4/+5Open software, especially operating systems, just don't have enough demand, and for a reason. Most people, even if they were capable of handling the more complicated nature of the software, prefer a straightforward, easy to use product. That is why the iPhone is popular, it's EXTREMELY user-friendly and doesn't require much technical ability.
- Otto, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1@Culyt: Again, cop out. Defacto control is still control.
Furthermore, it DOES matter who makes the components, because, and this is important: They're the ones getting the software installed on the phones.
If you have to hack your phone to install your "open" software, then *it's not open*. And don't tell me that you don't have to hack the Android phones, because I've seen them "upgraded". Cracking the iPhone is actually simpler and takes less time.
If somebody forks the source AND replaces all the default apps with Open versions AND gets the thing to be installed on phones *by default*, then you will have a truly open platform.
Until then, all you have is another closed ecosystem that happens to be claiming openness without the act of actually being open in any significant way. - Seronis, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1Hope it fares well. Competition will only force Android designers to keep innovating.
- cbeach, on 10/27/2009, -1/+2I think you misunderstood my point. I'm saying that the system "just works" -because- it's closed. Because a single company remains in control of the ecosystem.
It's standardised in that it uses a OpenGL, OpenAL etc but really the iPhone is a proprietary platform, and is clearly benefiting from this. - supermanred, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1It can be done by a multi-billionaire evil master mind who expects to lose all the money and can afford it.
As far as open and actually making a profit and able to continue as a viable product for many years?
Can't be done.
I don't know what glitchbit is talking about when he says "From a historical point of view.. Yes." because I have yet to hear of someone who made something completely open like that and made a *****-ton of money... well, other than the music industry when they had non-copy protected tapes and 8-tracks... - JQP123, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1So what happened to the old "saving the world from the evils of proprietary" philosophical argument? It just kinda ran out of steam? Gee, I never saw that one coming.
- supermanred, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1Nokia is about as close to a purely failed company as you can get at this point. They are losing all their celphone market share. The only other company I can think of that is more in the ***** is Blockbuster.
- sousademiami, on 10/27/2009, -2/+3I have a job that requires me to think for a living, and I appreciate having devices that I use for my own enjoyment that don't require me to continue working in my free time.
- supermanred, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1Are you a noob? Just jailbreak the damn thing.
If you can't figure it out ask one of your more computer-knowledgable friends to help you do it, it takes like 20 minutes.
Actually, it takes about as much time as unlocking most modern celphone does. - JQP123, on 10/27/2009, -1/+1"It was pure design by committee..."
With a truly "open" project, there are really only two choices, either design by committee or copy an existing design. Some of the most successful "open" projects have taken the later approach. Open Moko didn't and the results speak for themselves. - JQP123, on 10/28/2009, -1/+1"The developers have come to the iPhone because it has a lot of users. Period, end of discussion. There is no other reason."
Wrong and I can prove it.
When the iPhone was launched 2 years ago, it had zero users. Nokia still has more users than the iPhone.
If users are the only reason, why don't all the developers go to Nokia?
Clearly, there are other reasons. - Mateo2, on 10/28/2009, -1/+1You completely miss the point. cbeach's claim was that developers have flocked to the iPhone because of the closed system. THAT IS RIDICULOUS. The developers have come to the iPhone because it has a lot of users. Period, end of discussion. There is no other reason.
- Otto, on 10/27/2009, -6/+6Android is not truly open source, as Google holds back their applications in closed source forms and sends threatening letters to people who actively try to improve the platform: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/25/google_and ...
Yes, they worked out a compromise eventually. This doesn't change the facts that Google is saying one thing while doing another. Google is being evil when it comes to Android. - Otto, on 10/27/2009, -4/+2@geoken: Linux does not include any closed source drivers. Other third-party companies may make them, but Linux itself does not. Google, on the other hand, *does* make Android, and the primary development of it is done by them. Different situation entirely.
@tbttfox: No, I'm not confusing the two. You don't get to separate the platform from the applications when you're one entity (Google) doing the primary development on both. Because that's a cop-out. It's like saying that Windows is open-source because Microsoft has released one open-source piece of code before. If you do the main development, then open source is all or nothing. You don't get to keep pieces closed for no good reason.
@MWeather: I do not have any closed source software on my Linux boxes, and you don't have any on yours that are part of "Linux". Third-party vs. First-party. - Otto, on 10/27/2009, -11/+5@lava: Again, Android is NOT open source. Several critical pieces of the functionality underlying it rely on proprietary components: http://trac.osuosl.org/trac/replicant/wiki/HTCDrea ...
However, even the fact that Google is making its own apps closed source makes the platform itself not open, IMO. Google is controlling and writing most of the thing, so they need to make the critical apps open as well. Pretending that they are two separate things is semantic nonsense. Nobody would use the phone without those applications, therefore those apps are part of the phone software itself. Pretending they are not is just that: pretend.
FACT: Android is not open source, and Google is lying to everybody by claiming otherwise.
