Database Users

Google vs. Cyanogen -- retarded

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".

A Discussion with Google??

I want to start this discussion because I haven't seen it anywhere and I read several Android forums. I love the platform and it's "openess" but it seems that requirements from Google fall just short of making this the best platform ever for handsets.
We are all screaming at Motorola about the signed bl but we aren't focusing enough on the greater issue. The Android license from Google seems to allow this or maybe it is less specific to Google than to some other entity but I don't speak lawyerese so i'm not sure. Anyway, here is what I keep reading from Motorola...
"The use of open source software, such as the Linux kernel or the Android platform, in a consumer device does not require the handset running such software to be open for re-flashing. We comply with the licenses, including GPLv2, for each of the open source packages in our handsets"
My point of discussion is this, why aren't we asking Google what they can do? Why can't Google simply state that "we will not allow our software to be damaged in this way"? Why do they allow Verizon, at&t, Motorola, HTC or anyone else manipulate their software in a way that brings so much resentment? Is it not in Google's best interest to force this platform to remain open? I realize this is a double edged sword because open means people can do what they want, which holds true for companies also but I think that everyone realizes that Google's intent was that this would benefit everyone, not just the companies.
Also, everyone seems to forget that HTC is messing around with trying to lock down the NAND. Just because geniuses get past the protection doesn't mean that HTC isn't trying. If the Droid X is a huge success, even with this restriction in place, then what makes any of you think that the rest will not follow suit?

Because open means that you can do whatever you want with it. There is nothing stopping anyone from using it, modifying it for their own uses, and putting it in any device that would support it. That's why a company can strip down all of Google stuff from it and put Bing if they want to, and Google wouldn't be able to complain. The whole point of open and free software is that you compete by actually being the best at something. You keep Google stuff in Android because well, they work best.
Now, when you put Android in a device you manufacture, you do have the rights to do whatever you want with the device. This seems to be a hardware protection on top of the software ones. You know how DRM'd mp3 stop working? well, it's not much different, except that now there is physical damage.
True, these measures defeat the whole purpose of being open, but what the heck. Being truly open means making a great product, and then not complaining when someone grabs it and beats you with it. You have are always competing to deliver the best product, and that's why open is awesome.
Who was it that said: "I can't agree with what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

Open goes both ways. The company (Motorola) has every right to lock down the bootloader and prevent others from flashing.
You guys are looking at it as if Motorola did this to prevent people from flashing custom roms. The real reason they did it was to prevent others from stealing their rom and porting it to another phone. If you like the "ninjablur" UI, you need to buy the DroidX.

Ryan Frawley said:
Open goes both ways. The company (Motorola) has every right to lock down the bootloader and prevent others from flashing.
You guys are looking at it as if Motorola did this to prevent people from flashing custom roms. The real reason they did it was to prevent others from stealing their rom and porting it to another phone. If you like the "ninjablur" UI, you need to buy the DroidX.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, I don't agree. I'm pretty sure one could extract those widgets if you really wanted to. (They "Ain't all that" if you ask me. - And yes, I did buy an X yesterday and love it. Just ain't crazy about those widgets).
I think the real reason this is locked down is to prevent custom ROM/Root access to enable tethering. There are other issues I'm sure, but at the top of the list is to protect that revenue Big Red is trying to generate.
As to Google 'Stopping' the carriers from locking this down, please understand that if the carriers can't protect their revenue streams, they simply won't allow the phones on their network, and that would hinder the growth of the OS in general.
Don't take any of my words as endorsement of VZW/Moto actions. I'll be first in line to flash/root my phone when/if its ever possible. I'm just a realist. VZW wants $20/month for WiFi Tether. They are going to do as much as reasonably possible to keep you from doing that for free.
In a related note, 2.2 Froyo does tethering natively. I expect this to be crippled/disabled when we get our update in a couple of months.

I don't agree with the idea that companies would stop supporting the platform. The Droid has been a cash cow for verizon and it is an open book. Google could easily ask that their platform remain open for all to enjoy.
Beyond that, if Google allows them to gimp their OS then Google has created something entirely for the benefit of companies and not at all for the general population. I don't believe this is true. I think that the changes will start with Android v3.0. Google will start getting more pissy about custom crap especially if it makes their product seem worse and increase the chance that Android will be looked upon negatively.

Despiadado1 said:
I don't agree with the idea that companies would stop supporting the platform. The Droid has been a cash cow for verizon and it is an open book. Google could easily ask that their platform remain open for all to enjoy.
Beyond that, if Google allows them to gimp their OS then Google has created something entirely for the benefit of companies and not at all for the general population. I don't believe this is true. I think that the changes will start with Android v3.0. Google will start getting more pissy about custom crap especially if it makes their product seem worse and increase the chance that Android will be looked upon negatively.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its the same problem with windows, the OS gets blamed for what hardware vendors do to it... we see this $400 computers getting compared to Apples $1500+ computers and thats some how proof windows sucks, I never had problems with Vista being slow, but people and there $400 computer did.
The problem with Android, specifically the scrolling smoothness, is the vendors custom Android OS setups...

FtL1776 said:
Its the same problem with windows, the OS gets blamed for what hardware vendors do to it... we see this $400 computers getting compared to Apples $1500+ computers and thats some how proof windows sucks, I never had problems with Vista being slow, but people and there $400 computer did.
The problem with Android, specifically the scrolling smoothness, is the vendors custom Android OS setups...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
To be fair, I think the scrolling smoothness is half crappy hardware and half Android's lack of hardware acceleration.

Mikerrrrrrrr said:
To be fair, I think the scrolling smoothness is half crappy hardware and half Android's lack of hardware acceleration.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No some custom roms fix those issues because they enable the hardware acceleration, which again shows that Google really should crack down on some of these custom versions of Android on phones.

Zaphod-Beeblebrox said:
Actually, I don't agree. I'm pretty sure one could extract those widgets if you really wanted to. (They "Ain't all that" if you ask me. - And yes, I did buy an X yesterday and love it. Just ain't crazy about those widgets).
I think the real reason this is locked down is to prevent custom ROM/Root access to enable tethering. There are other issues I'm sure, but at the top of the list is to protect that revenue Big Red is trying to generate.
As to Google 'Stopping' the carriers from locking this down, please understand that if the carriers can't protect their revenue streams, they simply won't allow the phones on their network, and that would hinder the growth of the OS in general.
Don't take any of my words as endorsement of VZW/Moto actions. I'll be first in line to flash/root my phone when/if its ever possible. I'm just a realist. VZW wants $20/month for WiFi Tether. They are going to do as much as reasonably possible to keep you from doing that for free.
In a related note, 2.2 Froyo does tethering natively. I expect this to be crippled/disabled when we get our update in a couple of months.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Motorola has said so itself. The reason Droid X is locked down is because they don't want people stealing their custom UI. Widgets are only part of this UI. The inability to flash custom roms is merely a consequence of protecting their UI.

FtL1776 said:
No some custom roms fix those issues because they enable the hardware acceleration, which again shows that Google really should crack down on some of these custom versions of Android on phones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah. Didn't know that.

Android and openness

Hello,
Im currently writing an academic paper on android and openness in my master's programme. If all goes well, it will be submitted for a conference soon.
I'm looking for your opinions on having an android device open for operating system level modifications or not. As you may know, some phones have a signed bootloader such as the Motorola Milestone, t-mobile g2 (who made the phone reinstall stock OS when breached), and probably many others. Google however, make their devices open, even though they are sold as consumer devices. Many others do not bother to install circumvention mechanics.
Obviously, the people here will be biased towards allowing modification to the OS, therefore, i would like to get a discussion going, to discern what problems and possibilities you see in the long run for hardware manufacturers.
1. Does the possibility of making OS level modifications affect your willingness to purchase an android product? i.e. do you check if it can be modified before buying? And how much of an impact does it make on your desicion?
2. Why do you think hardware manufacturers put in measures to prevent custom android OS builds to be installed? Put on the corporate hat and try to see their strategy.
3. Do you think manufacturers have anything to gain by making devices open and free for modification, with source code for drivers and the like publically available?
I would really appericiate your opinions and discussion!

1. Does the possibility of making OS level modifications affect your willingness to purchase an android product? i.e. do you check if it can be modified before buying? And how much of an impact does it make on your desicion?
As a beginner app developer, this has yet to bother me. I do enjoy being able to add apps that add functionality to my phone but I haven't bothered to get down into the "root" area. So no I do not check nor does it impact my decision...I own a Samsung fascinate by the way
2. Why do you think hardware manufacturers put in measures to prevent custom android OS builds to be installed? Put on the corporate hat and try to see their strategy.
My opinion on measures to prevent changes is all about PR and performance. If enough people hacked a phone and the hack caused the phone to work below is ability then the only news report you will see is the phone sucks.
3. Do you think manufacturers have anything to gain by making devices open and free for modification, with source code for drivers and the like publically available?
This is also a give and take if question 2 is not of a concern to them, then its def a gain for the company and to all of the developers out there that do search for the best phone and nick pick around until they find it.
Are there enough of those kind of people out there to affect a companies buttom line. Maybe not yet but in another couple of years who knows.

1. Does the possibility of making OS level modifications affect your willingness to purchase an android product? i.e. do you check if it can be modified before buying? And how much of an impact does it make on your desicion?
It hasnt yet been a deciding factor on which device to get, primarily because sooner or later they all get cracked open.
2. Why do you think hardware manufacturers put in measures to prevent custom android OS builds to be installed? Put on the corporate hat and try to see their strategy.
One reason could be that the carriers demand it as a way to keep any revenue that they get from the preinstalled bloatware.
3. Do you think manufacturers have anything to gain by making devices open and free for modification, with source code for drivers and the like publically available?
The percentage of people that actually tinker in this area is very slim, so the manufacturers most likely don't see that as a big market opportunity.

Don't have any answers, but would like to read your paper when done...sounds interesting and a Masters Thesis is always fun to read! LOL

It's not a thesis, just a short article. I might make a survey for it but I need to ask the right questions.
Not all devices get fully customized, root is common, but in my phone for example it is not possible to load a custom kernel, as the bootloader checks for signed code (Motorola's secret key). There's been a massive uproar from the owners of the Milestone, as people didn't expect to be hustled like that when getting an android phone. The main problem is of course, that Motorola takes a long time to release updates. Even as of today, Froyo has still not been released for my phone by Motorola.
While I am not sure about it, I suspect Sony Ericsson X10i owners are in the same boat, and they will get a really rotten deal, seeing as 2.1 has been officially declared the last version the device will recieve. Yet, an enthusiast could release a perfectly fine version of 2.3 if the phone accepted custom firmware and he had access to drivers etc.
So basically, you buy a piece of hardware that is very capable, but The Company decides for you which software you could run.
Imagine if you bought a Windows Vista PC right before Windows 7 was released, and the only way you could get Windows 7 on it was if that particular PC manufacturer released an official update containing all it's bloatware and applications you don't want. Since the update needs to go through all kinds of verifications and approvals, it might be delayed for a half a year, or maybe 9 months, after the new OS release. Why do we accept this on our phones and tablets?

Hi,
1. Does the possibility of making OS level modifications affect your willingness to purchase an android product? i.e. do you check if it can be modified before buying? And how much of an impact does it make on your desicion?
For me personally, yes, most definately. I like to be able to get in and play, see how things work, change stuff. And i think custom ROMs IMO are a big drawcard of Android.
2. Why do you think hardware manufacturers put in measures to prevent custom android OS builds to be installed? Put on the corporate hat and try to see their strategy.
To try and ensure the device works as they want it to. Minimise support costs etc.
3. Do you think manufacturers have anything to gain by making devices open and free for modification, with source code for drivers and the like publically available?
Definately. Encourages improvement of existing features, and development of new stuff beyond the manufacturers initial product scope, which can be integrated in future products.
Android OS its self is an example of this - the developer community is writing apps, logging bugs, and contributing code to the benefit of future releases of Android, which in turn benefits device manufacturers.
- jc

my two cents
1. Does the possibility of making OS level modifications affect your willingness to purchase an android product? i.e. do you check if it can be modified before buying? And how much of an impact does it make on your decision?
>> Personally, I feel like the ability to modify my phone at the core level is something I as a power user can use to tailor my phone's experience in the way I need to make it the most efficient device it can be. This is especially necessary as my phone is my primary connectivity device (I really only use my laptop for things the phone just really isn't capable of handling yet, such as video conversion)
2. Why do you think hardware manufacturers put in measures to prevent custom android OS builds to be installed? Put on the corporate hat and try to see their strategy.
I think this is less the decision of the manufacturers and more of the carriers themselves. This really is because each device has to be tailored to be sold to the average user, rather than power users (read: 85-90% of people who will read this reply) and as a result is designed with an experience in mind. To the suits, anyone who take a phone that is supposed to have a specific experience in mind, and changes that, it becomes a different phone, and anyone who looks at that phone will see that. This means, TMo/HTC can't sell a G2, because everything that my office mates will see when they look at my phone is my android customizations, not a G2. my office mate, who is shopping for a phone, can get an android phone anywhere... but they can only get a /G2/ from TMo/HTC. Similarly, if I like my G2 experience, when i get a new phone, i will be more inclined to continue enjoying that experience with a G3, rather than buying any on sale android phone and making it just like my last one. Hence the need to have a G2 experience on every G2 phone. Just my 2 cents. I am not a businessman, lawyer, or doctor.
3. Do you think manufacturers have anything to gain by making devices open and free for modification, with source code for drivers and the like publically available?
Yes, but nowhere near as much as they can get by keeping their cards close to their hand. see my answer to number 2.

An Open Letter to Android via Google and Forwarded to Samsung

Hi XDA-Samsung Users,
I've been a member of XDA since Jan last year. I went from owning a Nexus One to a Samsung Galaxy S i9000. The reason for the change was for the better specs and superior hardware of the Samsung Galaxy.
The phone is an incredible piece of machinery, but is severely hampered by the modifications that Samsung makes to the Android OS. I admit that the codec support within TouchWiz is impressive, but too much of the core framework of the phone is inefficient and sluggish.
Even using the latest release of unofficial firmware Samsung, Android 2.2.1 (JPY), there is still the occasional hang and the missing RAM (which is there somewhere, but not for user applications).
Samsung is mostly to blame, but there is also a quality control element that Google should be responsible for.
I have prepared an open letter that I sent to Android via Google Press and then forwarded on to Samsung for their reference. This were all through publicly available channels so will have to filter through customer service centers and the like.
I'm not expecting much, Google appears to use Amazon's customer service approach, "No customer service is good customer service".
But would like to post it here to hopefully get it out into the wilderness.
I tweeted it here http://twitter.com/#!/ibproud/status/27528781828722688
and would appreciate if you agreed with the content to retweet it. Hopefully it should give it a bit more weight.
It would be interesting to get the communities feedback on how mature they believe Android is.
Do they need to keep trying to make everyone happy or can they start to use the weight of their OS to get manufacturers to align the user experience?
Dear Android Team,
I am writing this letter to air my frustrations and to hopefully get some peace of mind that your strategy for Android will resolve some of the main issues plaguing the platform.
I have now been with Android for over 12 months. I used to be an iPhone user, but couldn’t stand the walled garden that Apple put me in. I couldn’t download directly to the phone, replace the messaging app or sync wirelessly. I went to Android because I wanted the freedom to use my phone more as a desktop replacement than as a phone/mp3 player.
When I joined the Android family (January 2010), I started with the Google Nexus One. I was so keen to get into the Android community I didn’t even wait for it to be on sale in Australia to get it, thus I hit eBay and bought it outright.
I was very pleased with the platform but could still see a few rough edges around the Operating System. It had the usability I was looking for but was lacking the polish I had grown use to with Apple. There was good news on the horizon with an Éclair update that would give the already beautiful phone a nudge in the right direction. As I was in Australia and the phone wasn’t here yet, I had to push the update through myself, after seeing how easy this was and getting the feeling of being a little phone hacker, I was hooked, I started preaching Android to the masses. Australia is still building momentum for the platform and it’s taking some time. Most of the major carriers stock between 4-6 Android devices, most of which are low end or outdated in the overseas markets.
I follow all the key players in the industry through Twitter and have a majority of Google News trackers picking up articles with android related words. I have also now converted my Wife to Android (HTC Desire Z, also not available in Aus) and I picked up the Samsung Galaxy S and gave my sister the Nexus One. The problem I face now is that I’ve run out of money and can’t go out and buy a new Android phone just to be up to date with the latest Android OS (Gingerbread), this would also be the case for most consumers. The Nexus S is so similar to my current hardware that I must be able to leverage the extra performance from the update.
But alas, we reach the major problem with the platform. Fragmentation. I’m not referring to the Fragmentation of the various app stores and apps available based on different OS versions but more to the Fragmentation of the OS based on the custom skins and manufacturer update cycles. The open platform that is closed at 2 levels, Manufactures and Carriers. I will continue to buy my phones outright as it gives me the freedom and flexibility to upgrade my plans as better ones become available. This always guarantees that I’m free from the bloatware that is preloaded on most Carrier bought phones and free from 1 of the barriers to the true AOSP experience. The next barrier is one that is running rampant in the interwebs rumour mill at the moment and that’s manufacturer updates and in my case I refer to Samsung.
Samsung Galaxy S phones come loaded with Android 2.1, most of them internationally are running Android 2.2 and just recently as select group of the devices is getting Android 2.2.1. This is now a month after Android 2.3 was released. For Samsung I would consider this largely negligent, considering they had the opportunity to work with Google to build a Google Experience Phone (Nexus S). The specs of this phone are so similar to the Galaxy range that a port shouldn’t be too difficult. I understand that there are a lot of constraints and dependencies in the development cycle that could cause delays as well as manufacturers agendas (mostly in unit sales). It is great that Samsung have sold so many devices globally but at a cost of the user experience as well as potential damages to long term retention.
I understand the Open nature of Android and the push to encourage manufacturers to put there own spin on the platform, but Android is getting bigger and more mature, it doesn’t need to be High school girl bending to the whims and peer pressure from the carriers and manufacturers.
There are a team of Devs in Germany who are working to port CyanogenMod 7 (Gingerbread) to Galaxy S i9000, but these guys have now spent over four months just trying to get through Samsungs drivers. The team didn’t start just to customise the phone but to actually make the phone work properly, I of course refer to the RFS lag issue and Samsungs modification to the framework that slowed it down. The goal of the team is to maximise the potential of the hardware and operating system.
It would be great to see some muscle from Google thrown into the mix, there doesn’t need to be requirements dictated, but maybe ethics encouraged.
There seems to be a few options here:
- Encourage device manufacturers to share their drivers, if it is too sensitive to share at least work with the community to help them do it themselves.
- Start to break down the way the platform is customised so that way the manufactures (Samsung/HTC/Motorola) skin the platform can sit a layer above the core code, thus be a quick implementation/customisation to get their skins working.
- Get each manufacturer to offer the AOSP experience to advanced users. This can be done through an agreement between the user and manufacture that states this will void the warranty and have its own terms and conditions.
- This last one is a long stretch, but how about taking all the manufacturers drivers into a repository, the way Windows do updates. When a new Android version is developed the drivers can be updated or incorporated and be packaged out through the Android SDK.
I may be completely off the mark. I’m not a developer and couldn’t pretend to know what effort is involved at any stage of the process, from building Android to rolling it out into the latest and greatest phone. The one thing I am though is an End User, a person that wants my phone to do more, to get close to being a desktop replacement.
Maybe I’m also being a bit idealistic.
I hope the Android platform continues to flourish and for it to become the Windows of the mobile era.
Sincerely,
Irwin Proud
E: [email protected]
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

It's really an excellent summary. Consider there're even more black sheeps out there. For example Sony Ericcson which ones recently made a statement like Android is their favourite Smartphone OS and left Symbian in Nokias hands.
But we found also the good ones like HTC, which every Manufacturer should have HTC as its Paragon concerning Android Software Development.

Great write-up; I agree 100%

I agree with your post fully, and concur that the Windows Phone 7 model for OS updates is more efficient, and strikes a happy medium between iOS and Android's approach to upgrades. However it is also more restrictive in terms of handset hardware limitations
I suppose the idea is that customers should vote with their wallets and buy from companies with good software and firmware support. The problem with that is a majority of phone users (android or otherwise) are technically savvy enough to take such support into consideration when looking at the latest and greatest fancy phone in a store. We could all buy the Nexus One or Nexus S only, but this too is restrictive to the customer as other phones offer more/different features

my 2 cents worth:
I agree on your points - but I'd skip the first few paragraphs if I were the one who write the letter. Other than that, thank you for making the effort.

What exactly are you hoping to achieve with this letter? Google has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that samsung don't want to update their phones. In these type of situations it's just better to vote with your wallet and buy another manufacturer's phone next time and let Samsung know why you don't want to use their phones in the future.
Writing letters like these is just a waste of time imho.

What Google should do?
Toss3 said:
What exactly are you hoping to achieve with this letter? Google has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that samsung don't want to update their phones. In these type of situations it's just better to vote with your wallet and buy another manufacturer's phone next time and let Samsung know why you don't want to use their phones in the future.
Writing letters like these is just a waste of time imho.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Please allow me to politely disagree. Google can do a lot about this and they have done this also. When I say they have done this - I am talking about not having Market application on Android OSes which come on non-phone hardware.
Google should put similar restrictions for loosley coupled skins, upgradable drivers. I had been giving this a lot of thought lately. I will sum up my thoughts with above letter as above:-
i) Device manufacturer skinning - Google should mandate that it should be just another APK within AOSP and users should be given a choice to turn it off.
ii) Device Drivers - Google should mandate there should be a better way of installing device drivers - similar to what we have in MS Windows (MS Windows is an excellent model of how hardware device should be handled - this lead to the exponential growth Windows is enjoying now).
iii) Android OS Update - If Google can achieve the above two, then the choice to upgrade the OS should be at user discretion. Of course, Google should mandate that there is OTA availble as an option. And obviously this OTA would be served by Google, not by device manufacturers. This would also free up time, effort and cash spent by device manufacturers in upgrading the OS.
So this is in the best of interest of everybody.
These restrictions if put in place, would free us all from this phenomena of running outdated OS.

Not sure what ti say on this one. It's true that Samsung has failed on some levels, however I must say that this is the first phone that has allowed me to get to know so much about the internals of the Android OS.
Modifying kernels, ROM's, reading about different file-systems etc... it's not a thing for the common user but I expect the people on this forum to be interested in such things.
Ok, if Samsung had done it right, we may have discussed these things anyway but it would've drawn less attention as people would not be looking for solutions to their problems.
But of course we have to strive to quality for everyone and this letter may just open some people's eyes at both Google and Samsung.

Thank you so far for the feedback.
poundesville said:
my 2 cents worth:
I agree on your points - but I'd skip the first few paragraphs if I were the one who write the letter. Other than that, thank you for making the effort.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Remember most members of XDA would be a cut above the average user. The reason this letter was written the way it was, was to demonstrate that I am a typical end user. Although I would consider myself leaning slightly to the more advanced side I wrote the letter based on a very general experience of the platform, an experience a lot of consumers would go through.
Toss3 said:
What exactly are you hoping to achieve with this letter? Google has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that samsung don't want to update their phones. In these type of situations it's just better to vote with your wallet and buy another manufacturer's phone next time and let Samsung know why you don't want to use their phones in the future.
Writing letters like these is just a waste of time imho.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What am I trying to achieve with this letter?
I really don’t know, but it helps to just get the thoughts out there.
With approximately 300,000 activations daily, I don’t think Android sees the true reflection of how their platform is received.
When the Galaxy range of phones was released in the US, they would have been seen as the closest thing to an iPhone that non-AT&T customers could get. So sales and activations shouldn’t be seen as the indicator of clever consumers or consumers wanting an open platform, but of consumers who wanted an iPhone but for the various reasons didn’t want to go with AT&T.
Remember: The international Samsung Galaxy is the only Android phone I know of that looks more like an iPhone than any other phone.
What I would really like to see is, that annually google will release a major version of Android. So V1, V2, V3, etc…. the mobile manufacturers commit to any minor or incremental updates per major version. So if Google says they are releasing Android 2.4 then they are saying to the manufacturer that this version will also work on any phone that currently supports v2.1 to v2.3.
As more and more people move to smartphones and tablets, more and more will we see hackers, spammers, botnets and so on attempt to access our devices. If we can’t have the latest updates that close any open holes then our phones become a huge liability.
Pierreken said:
Not sure what ti say on this one. It's true that Samsung has failed on some levels, however I must say that this is the first phone that has allowed me to get to know so much about the internals of the Android OS.
Modifying kernels, ROM's, reading about different file-systems etc... it's not a thing for the common user but I expect the people on this forum to be interested in such things.
Ok, if Samsung had done it right, we may have discussed these things anyway but it would've drawn less attention as people would not be looking for solutions to their problems.
But of course we have to strive to quality for everyone and this letter may just open some people's eyes at both Google and Samsung.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not really sure if Samsung has failed as such, but have put too much focus on unit sales rather than quality control and great user experience. They started releasing different iterations and modifications to the same phone without considering that each minor tweak to the hardware would mean more resources to develop updates and maintain each device.
I also agree that without Samsung I would know very little about linux filesystems, kernel and custom roms, but shouldn't all of these be more to push the phone above it's limits and not to just get it working properly?
There's nothing wrong with knowing the advanced stuff, however it shouldn't be a necessity.

The problem ironically is that Android is open source. I agree wit the letter above, but I can;t see how you can stop manufacturers doing what they want.
Also the Drivers being proprietary isn't going to change and device manufacturers aren't going to suddenly start releasing their closed driver sources.
Agreed Google should stand up and restrict the Skins to a single APK that can be removed, this would stop all the associated problems with HTC and Samsung skinning too deep in to the OS that it becomes impossible to remove it. The problem with that is, then any manufacturers APK will be installable on any phone. Which is something we know they don't want.
We already know Androids biggest downfall and so does Google. Fragmentation.
I believe once Google has the strong position they want and users demand Android when they buy a new phone, they will start to put their foot down and try to enforce standardisation across Manufacturers, but until they get to what they feel is that point, we're stuck.
Anyway much luck with the letter, I hope someone who matters get's to see it.
Logicalstep

Porting S Voice to other device. Is this Illegal??

I have been a fan of XDA and appreciate the development and support the devs provide. But last few days a thought is bugging me continuously. We saw a lot of posts about S Voice and other apps being ported to other devices. Specially for S Voice, I believe that it's illegal as this could potentially cause Samsung to lose sales. My views:
1] We know that this is re-designed vlingo. vlingo is available in market, S Voice is NOT. Clear indication that they (as in Samsung) don't want the app to be used with other devices and they are not willing to sell it separately. Using vlingo from market is NOT same as using S Voice.
2] Did Samsung give us the permission to use/modify and distribute the app?
3] There is some infrastructure costs associated with running the services. It costs money to install and maintain servers and network. I work in enterprise storage management, so I am aware of costs associated with such massive infrastructure. Who pays for the non-SGS3 devices using the services?
4] Did Samsung every promise that SGS2/Nexus or other phones will get S Voice? So, why should we assume that other Samsung-device owners have the divine right to use a feature meant for SGS3?
5] It is one of the main USP for SGS3. Check here. This is listed as the top-most feature in the SGS3 product page. Hacking this app to be used with other phones is going to harm the phone sale. Is that not clear enough?
6] When Samsung started blocking connections from other devices - was that not an indication that they want the service exclusive for SGS3?
7] How is this different from movie piracy? The uploader never gains anything, but the studios/producers lose money.
8] What if Samsung starts locking their device in future with locked bootloaders/DRM/encryption because of such activities? Can we then blame Samsung for locking the devices?
9] Android is open source - but why assume that every feature in any Android is also open source? If someone can show me that S Voice is open source software, I will retract my statement.
It's sad that most people here equate freedom with piracy. Freedom and piracy are not same thing. Such act in the name of open source and community-feeling does not make it right. Maybe Samsung won't do anything about it -- but it does NOT make this act any better. It will just prove that Samsung considers this to be a petty nuisance (I am not using the word crime as I know nobody is doing this for any monetary gain).
Though I support open initiative with regards to Android, but I can't support such act.
Last check this statement from Samsung in VERGE
An initial test version of S Voice which was found online has been blocked as Samsung Electronics does not want consumers to judge the quality of the voice feature based on a test version. When the product is launched, users of GALAXY S III will be able to fully experience S Voice.

Exactly my thoughts. Though I am not sure what can be done to stop it.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

rd_nest said:
I have been a fan of XDA and appreciate the development and support the devs provide. But last few days a thought is bugging me continuously. We saw a lot of posts about S Voice and other apps being ported to other devices. Specially for S Voice, I believe that it's illegal as this could potentially cause Samsung to lose sales. My views:
1] We know that this is re-designed vlingo. vlingo is available in market, S Voice is NOT. Clear indication that they (as in Samsung) don't want the app to be used with other devices and they are not willing to sell it separately. Using vlingo from market is NOT same as using S Voice.
2] Did Samsung give us the permission to use/modify and distribute the app?
3] There is some infrastructure costs associated with running the services. It costs money to install and maintain servers and network. I work in enterprise storage management, so I am aware of costs associated with such massive infrastructure. Who pays for the non-SGS3 devices using the services?
4] Did Samsung every promise that SGS2/Nexus or other phones will get S Voice? So, why should we assume that other Samsung-device owners have the divine right to use a feature meant for SGS3?
5] It is one of the main USP for SGS3. Check here. This is listed as the top-most feature in the SGS3 product page. Hacking this app to be used with other phones is going to harm the phone sale. Is that not clear enough?
6] When Samsung started blocking connections from other devices - was that not an indication that they want the service exclusive for SGS3?
7] How is this different from movie piracy? The uploader never gains anything, but the studios/producers lose money.
8] What if Samsung starts locking their device in future with locked bootloaders/DRM/encryption because of such activities? Can we then blame Samsung for locking the devices?
9] Android is open source - but why assume that every feature in any Android is also open source? If someone can show me that S Voice is open source software, I will retract my statement.
It's sad that most people here equate freedom with piracy. Freedom and piracy are not same thing. Such act in the name of open source and community-feeling does not make it right. Maybe Samsung won't do anything about it -- but it does NOT make this act any better. It will just prove that Samsung considers this to be a petty nuisance (I am not using the word crime as I know nobody is doing this for any monetary gain).
Though I support open initiative with regards to Android, but I can't support such act.
Last check this statement from Samsung in VERGE
An initial test version of S Voice which was found online has been blocked as Samsung Electronics does not want consumers to judge the quality of the voice feature based on a test version. When the product is launched, users of GALAXY S III will be able to fully experience S Voice.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Samsung will have known about this,
If they explicitly didnt want it to be shared with other android phones they could have prevented this easy in one of 2 ways,
1. integrate it into touchwiz framework
2. link the phones imei or unique identifier to the app and set up a database on the servers, similar to siri's protection.
Samsung wanted this app to be freely available as they have done nothing to protect its redistribution. I dont think they mind this because they have NO competitor in the Android market and are far superior to any other OEM that produces android phones.
PS. The Android OS is open source but there are many applications that have closed source to protect their business. Touchwiz source is never fully open sourced and neither is Sense.
I remember a year ago with the CM team asking for help from Samsung for little bits of protected code to get the camera fully functioning on the stock android rom (CM7 ROM).
JD

JupiterdroidXDA said:
Samsung will have known about this,
If they explicitly didnt want it to be shared with other android phones they could have prevented this easy in one of 2 ways,
1. integrate it into touchwiz framework
2. link the phones imei or unique identifier to the app and set up a database on the servers, similar to siri's protection.
Samsung wanted this app to be freely available as they have done nothing to protect its redistribution. I dont think they mind this because they have NO competitor in the Android market and are far superior to any other OEM that produces android phones.
PS. The Android OS is open source but there are many applications that have closed source to protect their business. Touchwiz source is never fully open sourced and neither is Sense.
I remember a year ago with the CM team asking for help from Samsung for little bits of protected code to get the camera fully functioning on the stock android rom (CM7 ROM).
JD
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My view is that we took the application and made it compatible with other devices, Samsung never explicitly gave the permission.
Maybe they thought it would be easier to upgrade the app if it's not integrated into the TW. But I fear such activity may force them to become less dev-friendly in future.
It's a different story if in future they make the code available for CM9 or other projects separately. I just hope not, but the way it's being spread over the internet, I fear they will react in some way. Also throws a bad light over XDA.

JupiterdroidXDA said:
Samsung wanted this app to be freely available as they have done nothing to protect its redistribution.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They obviously didn't want it to be freely available because they have blocked it now.
Anyway, I don't get this mentality that if something is not impossible to take, it's ok to take it.

I will ask about the validity of ripping/porting the samsung apps and post back to this thread. If there is anything illegal about it (and im not sure there is unless the apps have been licensed specifically to the Galaxy S3) then any links on xda will be taken down.
I cant do anything about the rest of the internet though lol.
Mark.

mskip said:
I will ask about the validity of ripping/porting the samsung apps and post back to this thread. If there is anything illegal about it (and im not sure there is unless the apps have been licensed specifically to the Galaxy S3) then any links on xda will be taken down.
I cant do anything about the rest of the internet though lol.
Mark.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Much appreciated. I wanted this to be brought to the notice of MODs. Nobody wants XDA to be in bad light for such a petty affair.
As for the apps (specially S Voice) being exclusive to SGS3, I think so. That's what I infer from Samsung's statement in Verge:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/22/3037943/samsung-blocking-s-voice-app-leak
But please do verify with relevant authorities and take appropriate actions (if required).

Mac OS X doesn't require a product key, but that doesn't mean my friend can just use my installation DVD legally, it all depends on the T&C's
The fact Samsung have blocked it for other devices should give an indication of their decision towards people using this software on another device. They may not send the FBI to kick down your door and arrest you, but cracking it to spoof a SGSIII for example would probably get a DMCA take-down notice pretty quickly. They almost certainly won't want all and sundry freely enjoying one of the big features of their new flagship device.

I have e-mailed Samsung PR dept on their views about this issue. Not sure if they check their Inbox

Unless we hear otherwise from Samsung, we will follow the normal site policy. In this case (though it is an edge case) for the moment we're allowing it.

If this is the case, then all devs who port roms from other models are in breach also.
Is this thread trying to stop dev work, and has the OP loaded the program, if he has shame on him for going against his beliefs, now let us and the devs get on with it.:what:
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
Edit: phone model is Arc, now why did I change the prop build?

OP - Care to share how this is any different from all of the Sense ports to other devices? It's not.
I also like how you thanked Mark for checking into this - and that you were waiting to hear.... And then not even an hour later you go and contact Samsung PR? It sounds to me like you have an ax to grind.

I think everything that needs to be covered has been