>>That Android, the one that most people use, is exactly as 'open' as Windows.
Wow. I can't believe even one person in this world believe that.
To Start with, we all have access to Android Source code. If you know where latest version of Windows is available, please let us know.
Because Android source is available, we build several extensions and customizations (Starting from original source code) for android and make money of it.
It's not a contributory community for one thing, and not developed in the open. Google drive development of the platform and then code dump their work every release. FOSS communities end up having to build around the edges of what Google have accomplished, and you get a general sense that the code only gets put out in the best interests of business with the likes of Samsung, not the little guy. Google aren't even very good at giving straight answers to wider community concerns. Then there's bitterness in the end because you're always going to be dependent on charity from the device manufacturers in letting you unlock your device and provide proprietary driver BLOBs.
Also, the parts of Android that are open aren't really the most interesting ones, but the most mediocre. Much of the guts of Android is merely adequate, technically unimpressive, and deliberately selected over better alternatives because using a truly FOSS base would risk commercial isolation. Android is a platform hobbled together well enough to get manufacturers to put it on their phones and ensure people are using Googles data services.
Bottom line: as long as its slightly better to work with than Apple, and slightly more open, it will win the hearts of developers. But that's a pretty miserable threshold.
>Also, the parts of Android that are open aren't really the most interesting ones, but the most mediocre. Much of the guts of Android is merely adequate, technically unimpressive, and deliberately selected over better alternatives because using a truly FOSS base would risk commercial isolation.
Yeah, that's why FireFox OS (HALs, RIL, mediaserver, input system, portions of the graphic system, init, kernel) and Ubuntu Touch (HALs, kernel, RIL, stagefright, input system, etc.) both borrow large pieces from Android. Even Mir uses the Android input system as its base.
You do realize that you're confirming his point. Basically the drivers and low level components are reasonable pieces of open source, and everything else is unusable by people who want to build a complete system.
If a usable open Android existed, those alternatives would be redundant.
No, he said the open source components of Android were mediocre, uninteresting and selected over superior FOSS components. I listed a bunch of the open source components used by two companies who have no problems with using FOSS components, yet still chose to use the Android bits.
Of course they don't use the ActivityManager, the Activity lifecycle is really an Android-ism and doesn't fit Ubuntu Touch or the web. Of course they didn't use WindowManager when they both already have components to do that kind of thing. Of course they didn't use the high level framework APIs, they have their own API surface.
A usable, open Android does exist, but other companies are still going to explore different platform models. I think the fact that they use a number of pieces from Android pretty much wholesale is a huge point in favor of an open, usable Android.
You're still missing the point that I actually rebutted: that Android's open source bits were mediocre and there exist FOSS components which are better.
Regardless, nobody ships AOSP because everyone wants to differentiate their platform by adding their own functionality on top. There are tons of AOSP-based ROMs on XDA, just go look. But with the abundant number of projects to tweak and modify Android, very few people build purely AOSP ROMs. They all add xposed or xprivacy or whatever because that's what they want to use.
Besides, saying nobody ships AOSP only phones doesn't mean they aren't usable, it just means that are better alternatives.
I acknowledge your rebuttal. Those components are fine.
But that doesn't change overall argument that the open parts of Android aren't a complete solution to make a competitive modern phone. What Google calls 'Android' is not just AOSP. So while AOSP provides an open base for a phone platform. Android as Google uses the term, is not an open platform.
> What Amazon forked is not the Android the licencees like Samsung use.
Of course it is. It doesn't come with the Play suite of apps and services, but the code you see in the open source repository is exactly the same as what Samsung gets.
AOSP is open source. GMS is not. Samsung required GMS to make a commercially viable Android handset that consumers recognize as Android.
Therefore the Android that Samsung (and the other Android makers outside china) licenses is obviously not open-source. This is why Pichai and Google have leverage.
Perhaps you should tell them since you are so attached to this definition. That isn't the definition they used at Google I/O so it would seem that you are out of date.
