Related
http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/24/google-hits-android-rom-modder-with-a-cease-and-desist-letter/
So this is interesting: apparently Google's hit the developer of the Cyanogen modded Android ROM with a cease-and-desist letter, asking him to stop distributing the closed-source Google apps like Gmail, Maps, and YouTube. What's a little strange is that Cyanogen is targeted at "Google Experience" devices like the G1 and myTouch, so it's not like Google is really protecting anything here -- leading us to wonder if they're just using the copyright argument to shut down a popular mod that's tempted over 30,000 users into rooting their phones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I sure am dissapointed in google right now.
Is Google turning into Microsoft? WTF! Cyanogen has done nothing but help make a lot of people into Android fanatics. What happened to the idea behind open source? I for one am behind Cyanogen 100%, in any way I can help.
donepate said:
What happened to the idea behind open source?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the problem is that he is distributing closed source applications. ie. you tube, gmail etc.
if you read the story here... http://androidandme.com/2009/09/hacks/cyanogenmod-in-trouble/
it makes more sense.
[20:20] <cyanogen> no they are talking specifically about the closed-source google apps
[20:20] <cyanogen> and how i am not licensed to distribute them
[20:20] <cyanogen> my argument is that i only develop for google-experience devices which are already licensed for these apps
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Is is just me or is http://www.cyanogenmod.com/ down?
And now his site is down
I hope he continues modding - he can always do it without the close source apps and leave it to us to acquire them on our own.
his site isn't down Ive been on it today. I think it's picking up publicity traffic now so its a bit slow. Hopes this gets sorted out.
Good for him. (the publicity traffic that is)
driskl said:
his site isn't down Ive been on it today. I think it's picking up publicity traffic now so its a bit slow. Hopes this gets sorted out.
Good for him. (the publicity traffic that is)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sure enough, I can access it again.
All respect and support to Cyanogen.
If the issue is really about those proprietory apps, then I'd just remove them, and keep going!
Big props @Cyan
I was on his irc channel last night, and he was apparently already talking to people about substituting for open source apps....
Let`s hope so!!
I just downloaded Save Cyanogen from the market and signed a petition.
I'd just assume he replace the closed source apps with Open ones and drop Gmail all together, I don't have any much use or trust them anyway.
Go go gadget hotmail calendering, contacts
Stop knocking him and employe him!
Come on Google make use of the talents of some of these developers, personally I find his work more stable than my Vodafone rom
Official Google statement
Code:
http://bit.ly/1YFWlA
anyone know where I can download cyanogen?
http://www.cyanogenmod.com/downloads/stable-rom says not found.
never mind... found it with google
I just don't understand the main reason that google is going after cyanogen for. Currently right now there are the HTC devices and Google branded devices that can run this software. So while cyanogen himself don't have the license to distribute the software it is being installed on devices that would have the software on it anyway. I would also argue if this is the problem for Google they should provide a way for end users to download these needed applications directly without needing to go back to a main rom. Is the contacts sync which syncs to google proprietary? That would be something that really can't being taken out of the OS i don't think. I just believe that Google is being unreasonable and at the same time shooting themselves in the foot with this action.
ive read in a couple of places that this is the end of android. Thats the dumbest thing ive ever read. And ive read a lot of really dumb stuff
DMaverick50 said:
ive read in a couple of places that this is the end of android. Thats the dumbest thing ive ever read. And ive read a lot of really dumb stuff
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is dumb, its not great, but hardly the end. Just means its pushed underground, which doesn't help the devs, users or Google
Of course it's not the end of Android, but it surely will have a huge impact on the platform. Google just killed a great chunk of community and things will never be the same again.
It's probably Google's way of seeing what would happen if they pushed. Kind of a "test the waters" thing. Sad to see it go this way. I had high hopes for Android but all that glitters......
heres from the dream forum.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=4615831#post4615831
I bought a g1 last year. I rooted my phone. I fell in love with android and the great community behind it. I am an avid cyanogen mod user.
Google basically ripped out the great fun, learning experimence, and day to day usage i now have in android.
I know how this community feels about 'warez'. I know how this community feels about cyanogen and his contribution to not only us but an 'open source' environment to cell phones.
Well basically what i am getting to is that cyanogen may be legally wrong but what if a developer were to release roms behind closed doors? To torrents and newsgroups and not officially have a face behind said rom. If a developer were to do that, would xda support threads pretaining to that rom? Would all of us still download and love a rom like we do now? Or am i just wrong for getting to that?
If this thread is deleted i understand, but to me i will abandon android if it fails to prosper by the community like true open source software is intended.
Give it time, there are work arounds for ROM makers. Google distributes these applications freely, which means all ROM developers have to do is remove those apps from the ROMs, and give you an application which installs them.
The Android scene is not dead. This sucks, but we will get over it, even without Google's help.
*edit, gary beat me to it..this is in re: to the original post
your not reading before you type...
Google is pissed about him including certain components that were not official yet or closed source. We get over that, and we are back in business. Everyone is way over-reacting, just wait...they will get it figured out. He just cant legally be quite so cutting-edge anymore
I've hard talks of a script that will automatically DL the apps that aren't allowed, I hope that happens soon .
I understand work arounds and what not but do i not have the legal right to use googles closed source apps now that i bought my g1? It is like buying a new car from ford and then ford telling manufacturers of aftermarket products (like air filters or tires) they cant sell them because ford owns the patent to the left head light circuit and it in some legal sense interfers.
A new set of tires on my car is just as damn harmful as using a cyanogen made rom on my phone. I own the hardware, i should be able to do with it as i see fit. Cyanogen doesnt make his roms available to those who dont already own an android licensed product and doesnt do his work for profit that google doesnt see.
They have a legal right yes, but why excersize that legal right when only those who support you already (and if you download cm roms you will more then likely be a future supporter) will end up with the crap end of the stick.
All the crap recently with apple and google voice i have thought to myself that apple will be getting what they deserve by sure to come fines from the fcc. Now google punches us all in the stomache for supporting them and their alledged open source cause. None of us here, including cyanogen, did any actual wrong. If it plays out how it is apparent they want it, everyone loses.
~~Tito~~ said:
I've hard talks of a script that will automatically DL the apps that aren't allowed, I hope that happens soon .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
our could we just not back up and put theme proper place in the update zips?
rondey- said:
I understand work arounds and what not but do i not have the legal right to use googles closed source apps now that i bought my g1? It is like buying a new car from ford and then ford telling manufacturers of aftermarket products (like air filters or tires) they cant sell them because ford owns the patent to the left head light circuit and it in some legal sense interfers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your analogy is flawed because software cannot be treated the same as tangible items. Anyway, the issue at hand is not your license to use Google's closed-source apps, it is the unauthorized distribution of these apps by "ROM" cooks.
It's more than just a few apps that are closed source, though; many of the fundamental pieces that allow the phones to function are proprietary, such as sync, the LED control, the radio control... Take it all out and you have a phone that can't phone.
danguyf said:
It's more than just a few apps that are closed source, though; many of the fundamental pieces that allow the phones to function are proprietary, such as sync, the LED control, the radio control... Take it all out and you have a phone that can't phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You really need to listen to the previous post. Anything that is required for our phones to run is not at question. Mod and distribute away. Led control , radio control, is not at question.
"That’s why we developed Android apps for many of our services like YouTube, Gmail, Google Voice, and so on. These apps are Google’s way of benefiting from Android in the same way that any other developer can, but the apps are not part of the Android platform itself. 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. Either way, these apps aren’t open source, and that’s why they aren’t included in the Android source code repository. Unauthorized distribution of this software harms us just like it would any other business, even if it’s done with the best of intentions."
Its the apps that are in question, not the underlying drivers, api's, libraries. So please and anyone else let's not overreact. Lets try to each help find a way to make this a non issue.
Johnny Blaze said:
You really need to listen to the previous post. Anything that is required for our phones to run is not at question. Mod and distribute away. Led control , radio control, is not at question.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, LED, radio, SPL... that's all HTC's property. Even the leaked NBH files that allowed this scene to flourish solely belong to HTC.
So although Google's decision does not affect them, they still fall under the same category of "oh crap...".
This is bad news. The phone is essentially useless without the Gmail app (for sign-in on initial boot as well as contact sync) and Android Market (for downloading any apps). Then take Google Maps out of the picture, and may as well throw the phone out and get an iPhone. At a minimum, this means the days of custom ROMs are over.
RueTheDay said:
This is bad news. The phone is essentially useless without the Gmail app (for sign-in on initial boot as well as contact sync) and Android Market (for downloading any apps). Then take Google Maps out of the picture, and may as well throw the phone out and get an iPhone. At a minimum, this means the days of custom ROMs are over.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is actually not true at all. The Gmail app is something that is currently being worked on. Google maps isn't that great (but it's available in the market) Like it's been said, give it time. This is just a hiccup that we'll all get over. Soon.
RueTheDay said:
This is bad news. The phone is essentially useless without the Gmail app (for sign-in on initial boot as well as contact sync) and Android Market (for downloading any apps). Then take Google Maps out of the picture, and may as well throw the phone out and get an iPhone. At a minimum, this means the days of custom ROMs are over.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your hyperbole not only singles you out as an ignorant fool, it also highlights the fact you have no idea where the true innovations in Android are. It is not having native GMail or Youtube clients (which are nice), it is in things like dalvik and the ipc framework. These are pieces of code that do not have anything to do with whether Google apps are present or not on the phone (or if it even is a phone).
Few things about the Android as background;
1) Android is open source and is enough to run a device on its own.
1a) People will argue that it isn't, that proprietary binaries are required. This is a *hardware dependent* argument. Blame HTC for having proprietary closed source binaries. 'Droid works fine on an openmoko using all open source software. http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Android
2) Not all of what is on your phone is actually part of AOSP, i.e. *market*, *gmail*, etc.
3) Open and closed source components can exist in the same system without conflict.
4) Any particular organization can develop BOTH open AND closed source components, and these can, in fact, exist in the same system without conflict.
The situation:
Cyanogen has been issued a cease and desist order by Google related to inclusion of closed source Google apps in "CyanogenMod ROMs".
The legal situation: These closed source apps are not licensed to Cyanogen for redistribution. Google does have the legal right to restrict distribution of said apps.
Why now: The most obvious recent change that could have prompted this order to happen now is the inclusion of the as-of-yet unreleased MARKET app. This market app, being unreleased, is in an unknown state. This app may not be finished testing, i.e., it may be quite buggy, to the point where it could do all kinds of nasty things, like MULTIPLE-CHARGING of customer's when they buy paid apps, releasing payment and/or account information to unauthorized targets, failure to put secure apps into secure locations or other vulnerability allowing easy copying of protected apps, OR OTHER vulnerabilities. That being the case, Google may be *WORRIED ABOUT POTENTIAL PROBLEMS* in the new market app (rightly, as it may not have completed testing and/or may have KNOWN issues).
Why the order against *all* closed-source apps: This is simple. How can they order the removal of *just one*? If they order the removal of *just* the new market app, the legal implication is that the other closed source apps *can* be redistributed, i.e. precedence is 9/10ths of the law -- they would be closing the door on the enforcement of those apps in the future, i.e., for security reasons since regarding the closed source apps, Google is legally liable for their correct function.
So would the ignorant people talking about how evil Google is for doing this, PLEASE STOP spewing your mouths off regarding things that YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND? You're not helping anybody.
EVERYONE should read this.
I will admit, this post made me re-think what is really going on. He is just the first to get a finger shook at him, the rest will follow unless the developers and Google get stuff squared away.
i still think google is acting like asswholes though.
I do to but thank you for looking at things clearly unlike alot of other people inlcuding my self at first but once i started thinking about the new market i understood google
Just curious here but can an open source app be developed to access Market? Or are the codes for accessing Market closed?
Makes sense now, Google Just don't want to be responsible for something like customer's info being stolen.. and have the masses calling or infront of their door with pitch forks inhand,,
Then,
Why didn't Google say this?
Instead, they patronize and belittle the community.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=4609612&postcount=3
I don't mean to attack the OP with this post.
It's just a question.
Most likely because they are a dev or a lawyer. They just don't like speaking English. They have to say it all complicated and then have someone else translate it for them.
i think that this is from a stupid lawyer team, and google just sent it for legal reasons, i think the dev team has nothing to do with this.... isnt this why the created android, to have an open source platform.... i think Cyanogen and google just need to come to a compromise, either that or we just dont use googles apps even though half of them have better counterparts in the market
i do know this, the law is the law. Is the law always perfect, hell no. Cyanogen did no wrong. He helped out every single one of us running an android powered phone.
Could something wrong happen with an experimental build? Ofcourse. That is why he has his own disclaimer. If you are smart enough to root your phone, you should be smart enough to realize potential dangers in running leaked and/or experimental code.
Google is being a douchebag for their actions. Htc doesnt issue cease and desist orders for all of you running hero and that directly involves their sales in their phones. How many windows mobile roms are on this xda forum? How many have been ordered by microsoft to stop distributing their work?
To me it is ridiculous google is doing this. I know they are legally right but that doesnt mean they should screw us early adopters of their software with lame and slow updates and a product that is obviously inferior to the coding and development of one man with the help of a few others.
The reason i bought my g1 instead of an iphone or windows mobile phone was because of this community. Now all of us have had the benefits of cyanogen in one way or another. I dont want to be a douchebag as well and not speak up for a man who has helped me out when he had no reason to do so
honestly cyanogen would have probably been fine had he left the new market out. fact is our phones came with the old version and thats what we payed for when we got them. if say on the g1 t-mobile decides not to offer and upgrade to 1.6 then that means there not going to pay google to have the new app on our phones so if we hack it and throw it on anyway then google doesnt make there money and we are in every way STEELING IT. if you worked for and got payed by google i bet it would upset you if people were steeling your product that you worked hard to create.
so do i agree they should force him to rethink some of his newer roms? yes
but i think the older ones that just have software our phones already came with should be left alone
AND i think we should be aloud to purchase the new software from google if we want it.
but google search google maps and all that crap has nothing to do with this as you can get them all FREE online this is probably 99% the new app being on peoples phones that didnt pay for it. you bought the original market when you bought your phone thats why google hasnt had a problem untill now.
everything set aside i love cyanogens work i love my 4.0.4.... i HAVE 4.1.11.1 saved i will probably even install it just to check it out if he doesnt come out with a stable version which is what i was waiting for. but if he comes out with a non google stable version i have no problem installing my old market onto it, i already have it backed up and ready to go. i payed for it and im keeping it no matter what rom i run! and i hope he keeps doing his thing im all for him and love what he does and would even pay for it if i had to! i hope this doesnt stop him and i hope they work things out. if he wants money for all the work hes been doing im sure people wont blame him and as long as it gives him insintive to keep going im happy!
my two cents
cy has been perfecting their roms and now that they got the tools that they need they are going to plagerize his programming and impliment it into their next great g phone....and the only way to say its theirs is by getting rid of any shred of evid that is out there
i understand what Google is doing..its upsetting but they have a point, they gave us an OPEN SOURCE OS, thats good enough, the devs make it a better, more fun, experience...so just shrug it off, rid it of ALL closed source apps.
Google should than allow the All Google apps available to those with Google Experience phones(before customizing with a ROM), they could make you register with your phones EMEI (maybe? if possible).
Also so this obviously means his ROMs arent here on XDA...What is XDAs stand on the situation? Were they pulled by XDA or did Cyanogen pull them?
I don't know if this has been suggested before. I've seen dev-team on iphone doing something similar: why don't you make an "installer" script that takes all Google APKs from the device (which has stock image) then flash the rom and reinstall the APKs.. This way you don't have to distribute google apks. Not sure if that's possible if there is some kind of encryption protection on Google apps, just a suggestion .
No matter what it was a mountain made out of a mole hill.
id just like to see google allow open access to their market place.
then put all closed source google apps on there for download just like any other apps.
However from what I understand its not as simple as this as they arent just apps there is a whole framework that goes with it. bah.
MS never sent a takedown notice
MS never sent a takedown notice to xda-developers.
Ready.........Fight!
http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Google&word2=Cyanogen
wshwe said:
MS never sent a takedown notice to xda-developers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard;
1) xda doesn't host any wimo roms.
2) xda doesn't develop any roms at all -- that is up to the individual who does so.
3) How the hell would you know? MS probably did some real *****y stuff like sending goons to the modder's home, harassing the modder's wives, and issuing threats like "stop doing this, don't tell anybody we threatened you, and pay up $10,000 or we're taking you to court over it".
I'm not just ranting or trying to make a point, I'm legitimately interested in Google's strategy.
Obviously, google cant argue with the fact that htc has widgets that blow googles widgets out of the water. Google cant say theyve worked hard on their widgets and they cant honestly suggest that they are satisfied with them.
Are there any articles or official satements by google/android regarding their refusal to develop Widgets that are more attractive and elaborate? I'm google faithful and wont switch on principle but I can't imagine more than 10% of those people who've tried HTC's subsequently preferring Googles. Its a very strange angle that google has taken.....or maybe its not I'd like to know their view/opinion...does anyone know it? thanks
Incidentally, its not that Google's Widgets are horrible its just that they could be infinitely better at what I would assume to be relatively little effort... off the top of my head if the power widget was broken into single widgets and more options were included that would great and presumably pretty damn simple, and google emphasizes the customizable desktop which I'm all for yet they neglect wiidgets which could really be a draw for potential customers. thank you
Have to agree with you there. They need to add more stock/easy ways to change the look. It would go a long way in selling more phones. People simply think nicer looking things are "cooler" devices. Some of the metamorph's prove the changes aren't exactly difficult. I'm sure they could code a minimal program that had the ability to change the status bar to black, white, gray... A few nice widgets.. Small changes that the XDA community already offers the rooted phones.
If you watch Googles initial press release for the Android launch youll get your answer, they made Android for developers. Instead of going Apples route where you have to use their stuff and if they have something similar no one else can, they went the other way. They said they would provide the function necessary for a smart phone and leave the rest to the developers and provided the open source operating system and api's necassary for that to happen. And honestly id say its worked. I dont use their messenger, I use Handcent. I dont use their browser, I use Dolphin Browser. I dont use their clock I use Weather Widget donate or Beautiful Widgets. I often see reviews on apps that say, "this should have been included" blah blah but thats not what Androids all about, its about the devs. I think Android blows everyone away in that category, we may not have the amount of apps that other phones have but we do have more options for the things we use everyday and thats something I can appreciate, its only going to get better as Android grows and its definitely getting there. I'd rather have open development any day than, "Here, this is what you need."
i do agree with you, but those not wanting to void warranty are alittle more limited, i very much want to root but don't want to void warranty to find a month from now something is wrong and theres still no bootloader relock option. i think theres a lot more customization for rooted vs nonrooted and that's where people feel limited and have the "this should have been added" attitude
You have to keep in mind, Google is just providing a basic operating system. They leave it up the the developers to customize it. You can kinda compair it to what microsoft does, loosly. You can build your own computer, buy windows and customise it to your liking. Or you can buy one from Dell that comes pre-loaded with windows and various other applications. Google just really provides the base level OS.
@psylink you dont need root for most widgets. With exception to like the overclock widget and such, or if you are trying to run a widget that was part of a different rom.
JoshHart said:
If you watch Googles initial press release for the Android launch youll get your answer, they made Android for developers. Instead of going Apples route where you have to use their stuff and if they have something similar no one else can, they went the other way. They said they would provide the function necessary for a smart phone and leave the rest to the developers and provided the open source operating system and api's necassary for that to happen. And honestly id say its worked. I dont use their messenger, I use Handcent. I dont use their browser, I use Dolphin Browser. I dont use their clock I use Weather Widget donate or Beautiful Widgets. I often see reviews on apps that say, "this should have been included" blah blah but thats not what Androids all about, its about the devs. I think Android blows everyone away in that category, we may not have the amount of apps that other phones have but we do have more options for the things we use everyday and thats something I can appreciate, its only going to get better as Android grows and its definitely getting there. I'd rather have open development any day than, "Here, this is what you need."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's a fantastic stance to take when you're providing just an OS.
However, when you release a branded phone under your own name, you need to provide substantial content to that brand.
As it stands the only thing setting the nexus apart from other phones is hardware. In a few months when numerous phones have the same hardware whats putting the nexus ahead of the pact? They same way motorola has motoblur, htc has sense, etc., Google needs their own "style" for their own handsets.
There are a few home screen redesigns on the market that (AFAIK since I've never tried any of them) don't require rooting and significantly change the "look" of the standard phone. Most of them are heavily theme-able as well. On the Behold II forums a lot of people were touting these apps as ways to get rid of the Touchwiz interface that they didn't like (Samsung pouts).
Also, Google created this OS as a platform both for developers to fill with apps, but also for manufacturers to customize to differentiate themselves. If they didn't leave room for manufacturers to customize then the platform would be far less attractive to them and they'd have more adoption problems. If they create too strong of a core UI then they might either be in the position of competing against the manufacturers on that "differentiation" ground, or they might remove any need/desire to customize and the manufacturers would have to consider producing another "me too" phone which they may not like as much, or Google might spend a lot of time on work that will be discarded by the manufacturers during their differentiation. Most of these manufacturers are members of the "alliance" that collaborated on the platform so I'm sure these points were hashed out during that planning phase.
If they don't promote adoption then they lose the win for developers in having a widely adopted platform. Note that even though HTC heavily customizes with Sense and Motorola heavily customizes with Blur and Samsung with Touchwiz, a developer can still write an app that runs on all of those and so everyone is happy.
muncheese said:
That's a fantastic stance to take when you're providing just an OS.
However, when you release a branded phone under your own name, you need to provide substantial content to that brand.
As it stands the only thing setting the nexus apart from other phones is hardware. In a few months when numerous phones have the same hardware whats putting the nexus ahead of the pact? They same way motorola has motoblur, htc has sense, etc., Google needs their own "style" for their own handsets.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True, they could do that, but I don't think they are putting the Nexus One out so much to enter the brand market heavily as they are to put out the canonical reference version of the phone, at least initially. In my mind, the N1 was never to compete with the manufacturers head to head, it was more to have a phone out there that was as open and pluggable as their vision has always been so that if all the manufacturers/carriers decide they are going to take the base OS, lock it down, make people buy ringtones through a carrier market and cripple the browsing so you can't download anything - customers would have an alternative open solution to turn to. In the past there have been classic examples of a given model/brand of phone available from some carriers where you could download any customization file to it that you wanted and then on other carriers it was crippled and locked you in. In those cases you had to buy the crippled versions because there was no independently available canonical "open" version. The N1 fights that tendency not by force or contract, but by simply being. It doesn't have to be the coolest, hippest incarnation, it just has to be pretty and usable and so open that everyone will start to get a distaste for anything closed.
What we are seeing so far with Android isn't so much of this "carrier locking" as it is "carriers customizing so heavily that they threaten the upgrade paths for their customers". I don't think they are doing it intentionally, they just aren't familiar with working on a platform that evolves so quickly. Without the N1 being a bare bones example of the platform they would only be competing with other manufacturers that are similarly locked in by their own lack of upgrade foresight and so the drive to release upgrades wouldn't be so compelling. But, if there are alternatives available that will be keeping up on a much more aggressive pace, like the N1, then they are more likely to fix their differentiating software so that it can move to newer OS versions in a more timely manner. Imagine in a year or two when we can all own Blur or Sense phones and get our OS updates within a month or two of a new OS release.
It's the "reference fully open Android example" and, as such, is less in need of customization as it is to simply stand as an option to keep the others honest. It's meant to be as "close to the raw OS source" as it can be.
muncheese said:
That's a fantastic stance to take when you're providing just an OS.
However, when you release a branded phone under your own name, you need to provide substantial content to that brand.
As it stands the only thing setting the nexus apart from other phones is hardware. In a few months when numerous phones have the same hardware whats putting the nexus ahead of the pact? They same way motorola has motoblur, htc has sense, etc., Google needs their own "style" for their own handsets.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
When have widgets been the only way to add content to the phone? I mean there are plenty of replacement widgets already on the market if you dont like the stock ones. Me I would rather they provide more features then pretty widgets. They have provided plenty of content for the phone. Live wallpapers, google goggles, factory bootloader unlock, sim unlocked, mutible exchange account management, updated gallery, multi touch maps, ect
MonkySlap said:
When have widgets been the only way to add content to the phone? I mean there are plenty of replacement widgets already on the market if you dont like the stock ones. Me I would rather they provide more features then pretty widgets. They have provided plenty of content for the phone. Live wallpapers, google goggles, factory bootloader unlock, sim unlocked, mutible exchange account management, updated gallery, multi touch maps, ect
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Those are all implementations for the OS, something that would happen regardless of a "Google's phone", and things that get rolled out to other devices.
They have to walk a fine line because they are Google, and having exclusivity for one thing almost goes against their entire paradigm.
Maybe the "advantage" is getting stuff first? If so, that's kinda meh.
muncheese said:
Those are all implementations for the OS, something that would happen regardless of a "Google's phone", and things that get rolled out to other devices.
They have to walk a fine line because they are Google, and having exclusivity for one thing almost goes against their entire paradigm.
Maybe the "advantage" is getting stuff first? If so, that's kinda meh.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
but its still content non the less, correct? Doesnt need to be exclusive to be considered content. Me personally I really didnt buy it for stock os or content. I bought mine to tweak, mod, and play with, and it is more then fulfiling that for me . Love the desire rom running so smooth so early in the port.
muncheese said:
Those are all implementations for the OS, something that would happen regardless of a "Google's phone", and things that get rolled out to other devices.
They have to walk a fine line because they are Google, and having exclusivity for one thing almost goes against their entire paradigm.
Maybe the "advantage" is getting stuff first? If so, that's kinda meh.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Or maybe their philosophy is that any and all "enhancements" should be optional add-ons available to all phones of the breed. As it stands you can only get Sense or Blur if you buy a phone from those manufacturers (or if you root and someone scavenges a semi-compatible ROM from one of them for you). I don't think they want to be in the game of "you have to get your phone from us to get XYZ" and so they provide a reasonably attractive basic package, they set it up so that others can come in and provide openly available enhancements (see the various replacement "home screens" on the market for example) and then the customer gets the benefit of both choice and of an open environment.
I think they view branding as more of an obstacle than as a sales/owner satisfaction tactic.
JoshHart said:
If you watch Googles initial press release for the Android launch youll get your answer, they made Android for developers. Instead of going Apples route where you have to use their stuff and if they have something similar no one else can, they went the other way. They said they would provide the function necessary for a smart phone and leave the rest to the developers and provided the open source operating system and api's necassary for that to happen. And honestly id say its worked. I dont use their messenger, I use Handcent. I dont use their browser, I use Dolphin Browser. I dont use their clock I use Weather Widget donate or Beautiful Widgets. I often see reviews on apps that say, "this should have been included" blah blah but thats not what Androids all about, its about the devs. I think Android blows everyone away in that category, we may not have the amount of apps that other phones have but we do have more options for the things we use everyday and thats something I can appreciate, its only going to get better as Android grows and its definitely getting there. I'd rather have open development any day than, "Here, this is what you need."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All good points. Now that I think about it I bought this phone for stock google stuff, which in hindsight may have been a mistake. With the g1 and mytouch 3g the google software was often the closest thing to stable available and I've grown to trust mainly them and reputable companies. Its kind of embarrassing to look thru the market and have to sift through countless apps that serve virtually no purpose, have terrible icons, and aren't even close to stable, but perhaps this is a product of androids relative immaturity, though I'm unfamiliar with winmo, palm, and apple. I just haven't been impressed with many third party apps or Widgets, save a select few very impressive ones. 90% of the apps look and feel very amateur. I stick to apps and Widgets produced by real companies because those have the best chance of being usuable. That was quite a gamble by google to go largely hands off and let all software be driven by development. Xda has spotlighted many excellent devs as far as rooting goes but for the average user the options are unimpressive. Maybe google will give in and start developing more usuable/stable/useful apps/widgets
I think that there are two schools of thought on this, yet we are all agreeing on the same concept.
While Google did create Android to be a stock type OS that they could distribute to multiple handset makers (in order to increase their ability to produce smartphones with only minor increases in developmental costs aside from those related to hardware - ultimately getting more people using the mobile web resulting in more ad revenue -whew! ), they also have in a sense slightly abandoned those of us who took the direct to consumers path. This is why they didn't put much into the release of the phone (look up the launch stats - or lack of accessories). While they don't have the responsibility to create widgets, programs, animations, etc. for us (the D2C crowd). I believe that they should have worked out a deal with HTC where we are allowed to unlock the bootloader and tinker/mod/play with/customize, etc as much as we want to without penalty or breaking the warranty. We don't have the funding to purchase a few hundred phones in case we brick them testing out various configs., nor do most of us have the expertise to repair the device if it gets bricked. The only other possibility is that a contract clause is created whereby we are allowed to download ROMs from Android manufacturers (or at least just HTC) and put them on our phones - doesn't that give us the MOST number of options to customize our phones? And isn't the ability to customize an Android phone the original intent of the OS?
By giving us either an allowance to unlock the bootloader or the allowance to download (and maybe play with other manufacturer customized ROMs) or preferably both I think that it would be a win-win situation.
First of all: I'm an OSS advocate and love the idea of open source. Don't forget that while reading this.
Some 2 month ago, I got myself a Galaxy S. It's not exactly cheap, but on the other side, it's really good hardware. This thread is not about Samsung or the Galaxy S. It's about the missing parts of android security.
We all know it from our home computers: Software sometimes has bugs. Some just annoy us, others are potentially dangerous for our beloved data. Our data sometimes gets stolen or deleted due to viruses. Viruses enter our machines by exploiting bugs that allow for code execution or priviledge escalation. To stay patched, we regularly execute our "apt-get update;apt-get dist-upgrade" or use windows update. We do this to close security holes on our systems.
In the PC world, the software and OS manufacturers release security bulletins to inform users of potentially dangerous issues. They say how to work around them or provide a patch.
How do we stay informed about issues and keep our Android devices updated?
Here's what Google says:
We will publicly announce security bugs when the fixes are available via postings to the android-security-announce group on Google Groups.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Source: http://developer.android.com/guide/appendix/faq/security.html#informed
OK, that particular group is empty (except for a welcome post). Maybe there are no bugs in Android. Go check yourself and google a bit - they do exist.
"So why doesn't Google tell us?", you ask. I don't know. What I know is that the various components of Android (WebKit, kernel, ...) do have bugs. There's nothing wrong with that BTW, software is made by people - and people make mistakes and write buggy code all the time. Just read the changelogs or release notes.
"Wait", I head you say, "there are no changelogs or release notes for Android releases".
Oh - so let's sum up what we need to stay informed about security issues, bugs and workarounds:
* Security bulletins and
* Patches or Workaround information
What of these do we have? Right, nada, zilch, rien.
I'll leave it up to you to decide if that's good common practise.
"But why is this important anyway", you ask.
Well, remember my example above. You visit a website and suddenly find all your stored passwords floating around on the internet. Don't tell me that's not possible, there was a WebKit bug in 2.2 that did just that. Another scenario would be a drive-by download that breaks out of the sandbox and makes expensive phone calls. Or orders subscriptions for monthly new ringtones, raising your bill by orders of magnitute. Or shares your music on illegal download portals (shh, don't tell the RIAA that this is remotely possible).
The bug is probably fixed in 2.2.1 - but without changelogs we can't be sure.
But that's not all - there's a second problem. Not only are we unaware of security issues, we also don't have automated update mechanisms.
We only receive updates when our phone's manufacturers release new firmware. Sadly, not all manufacturers support their phones in the long run.
In the PC world, most Distros have a central package management - that Google forgot to implement in Android. Agreed, some phones can receive OTA updates, but that depends on the carrier. And because of the differences in Android versions it's not possible to have a central patch management either. So we do not know if our Android devices might have security issues. We also have no easy way to patch them.
Perhaps you knew this before, then I apologize for taking your time.
What do YOU - the computer literate and security aware XDA users - think about this? Do you think that's a problem? Or would you rather say that these are minor problems?
Very intresting, thanks! The update problem should be fixed with the next release, no more custom UIs and mods from phone manufacturers,at least google said that
Sent from my Nexus One using XDA App
Excellent post and quite agree with you. The other significant problem looming is the granularity (or rather, lack thereof) in app permissions which can cause problems you describe without bugs and exploits. I install an app that does something interesting with contacts and also has internet access to display ads. How do I know that my contacts are not encrypted, so making sniffing useless, and beamed back to mummy? Nothing other than blind trust!
I love Android but it's an accident waiting to happen unless the kind of changes you advocate are implemented and granularity of permissions significantly increased. I don't like much about Apple but their walled garden app store is something they did get right although IMHO, they also abuse that power to stifle competition. Bring out the feds!
simonta said:
The other significant problem looming is the granularity (or rather, lack thereof) in app permissions [...]
How do I know that my contacts are not encrypted, so making sniffing useless, and beamed back to mummy? Nothing other than blind trust!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree, although I'm not sure that less experienced users might have difficulties with such options.
simonta said:
I love Android but it's an accident waiting to happen
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sad but true. I'm just curious what Google will do when the first problems arise and the first users will have groundshaking bills.
If that happens to just a few users, it'll get a kind media coverage Google surely won't like.
I've seen quite a few android exploits posted on bugtraq over the years. It's a high-volume email list, but with some filtering of stuff you don't care about, it becomes manageable. It's been around forever and is a good resource if you want the latest security news on just about anything computer related.
http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/description
People are bashing a lot about the Android security model but the truth is you can never have 100% protection with ANY solution.
Apple is not allowing any app in their store. Fine. but mostly they are only filtering out apps that crash, violate some rules or they just don't like them or whatever. but they can never tell what an app is really doing. Therefore they would neeed to reverse-engineer every app they get etc. That's just impossible considering the amount of apps....
Speaking again of Android. I think the permission model is not bad. I mean, no other OS got such detailed description about what an app can do or not. But unfortunately it can only filter out very conspicuous apps, i.e. a Reversi game asking for your location and internet access. But then you never know... if the app is using ads it requires location and internet access, right? so what can you do?
RAMMANN said:
Apple is not allowing any app in their store. Fine. but mostly they are only filtering out apps that crash, violate some rules or they just don't like them or whatever. but they can never tell what an app is really doing. Therefore they would neeed to reverse-engineer every app they get etc. That's just impossible considering the amount of apps....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not really, they do blackbox testing and let the apps run on emulated devices they then check if the app "behaves" as desired...
Of course you can't get 100% security and I don't think that's what we're saying, but there is a lot you can do.
Take for example internet access which is the biggest worry I have. The only reason most apps request internet access is to support ads. I now have a choice to make, don't use the app or trust it. That simple, no other choice.
If I installed an app that serves ads but did not have internet access, then the only way that app can get information off my phone is to use exploits and I'm a lot more comfortable knowing that some miscreant needs to understand that than the current situation where some script kiddy can hoover up my contacts.
However, if internet access and ad serving were separate permissions, you could in one hit address, taking a wild guess, 90% of the risk from the wild west that is Marketplace. With a bit more design and work, it would be possible to get the risk down to manageable and acceptable levels (at least for me).
I absolutely agree with you on Apple, one of the main reasons that I chose a Desire instead of an iPhone, but the Android approach is too far the other way IMHO.
Just my tuppence, in a hopeless cause of imagining someone at Google paying attention and thinking you know what, it is an accident waiting to happen.
marty1976 said:
Not really, they do blackbox testing and let the apps run on emulated devices they then check if the app "behaves" as desired...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, so why did a tethering app once make it into the appstore?
Also I think there are many possibilities for an app to behave normal, and just start some bad activity after some time. Wait a couple months until the app is spread around and then bang. Or remotely launch some action initiated through push notifications etc.
If there is interest, then there is always a way....
simonta said:
However, if internet access and ad serving were separate permissions, you could in one hit address, taking a wild guess, 90% of the risk from the wild west that is Marketplace. With a bit more design and work, it would be possible to get the risk down to manageable and acceptable levels (at least for me).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree that a seperate permission for ads would be a good thing.
But there are still many apps which need your location, contacts, internet access.... all the social media things nowadays. And this is where the whole thing will be going to so I think in the future it will be even harder to differenciate.
Getting back on topic: I just read that Windows 7 Phone will get updates and patches like desktop windows. That means patchday once a month plus when urgency is high...
simonta said:
However, if internet access and ad serving were separate permissions, you could in one hit address, taking a wild guess, 90% of the risk from the wild west that is Marketplace. With a bit more design and work, it would be possible to get the risk down to manageable and acceptable levels (at least for me).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But, how do you distinguish them? Today, (as a developer) I can use any ad-provider I want. In order to distinguish ads from general internet access, the OS would need one of:
A Google-defined ad interface, which stifles "creativity" in ad design. Developers would simply ignore it and do what they do now as soon as their preferred ad-provider didn't want to support the "official" ad system or provided some improvement by doing so.
An OS update to support every new ad-provider (yuck^2).
Every ad-provider would have to go through a Google whitelist that was looked up on the fly (increased traffic, and all ads are now "visible" to Google whether Google is involved in the transaction or not). This would also make ad-blocking apps harder to implement since Google's whitelisting API might not behave if the whitelist was unavailable. On the upside, it would make ad-blocking in custom ROMs be trivial.
Even if Google did one of these things, it still wouldn't provide any real increase in privacy or security. The "ad service" would still need to deliver a payload from the app to the service (in order to select ads) and another from the service to the app (the ad content). Such a mechanism could be trivially exploited to do anything that simple HTTP access could provide.
http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/list
issues submitted are reviewed by google employed techs... they tell you if you messed up and caused the issue or if the issue will be fixed in a future release or whatever info they find.
probably not the best way to handle it but its better then nothing.
twztdwyz said:
http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/list
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Knew that bug tracker, but the free tagging aka labels isn't the best idea IMHO.
You can't search for a specific release, for example...
twztdwyz said:
probably not the best way to handle it but its better then nothing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ack, but I think Google can do _much_ better...
Two more things to have in mind:
1. I doubt that many Android users bother much about what permissions they give to an app.
2. Using Google to sync your contacts and calendar (and who knows what else), is a bad, bad idea.