Database Users

whats up with google's lack of widget development?

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.

what do google and android want out of this?

I know that when Android began development their focus was on apple and they wanted to compete with the iPhone. Which is a commmendable goal because the iphone ineluctably changed the mobile device world for the better. This makes me think Android has a lot they want to do with the stock ui and not just fixes to further stabilize the software but to give the UI a seeker look and add functionality.
On the other hand I've read here that Google just wants to make a stable UI available for companies like MOTO and HTC to skin and for developers to customize and improve.
Id like to think that Android has big plans for my new nexus one.
So do you guys think Google looks at HTC's sense and says " its all going according to plan, companies are taking our software and vastly improving it so we do the leg work and get our software on mass amounts of phones and manufacturers can customize it to their liking and their customer preferences" or do you think they say " wow HTC has really made phenomenal improvements on our software so we need to step up our game and make 2.2 and on more competitive"
I do understand its open source implying the intention for third party customization. but if android didnt want their own ui to be the preferred ui i don't think theyd even offer phones that way, i just hope android isnt stopping short on purpose to let developers put the finishing touches, thats a great option to have but id rather not be compelled to root.
I'm not saying android stock isn't very solid. Other than sense its the best ui available. I'm just trying to clarify whether android wants stable software by them at the heart of every mobile device and customized by those manufacturers or if they want android stock to be competitive in and of its self. Personally I'm hoping for the latter.
Your thoughts?

I don't know if their focus is so much of pushing people to make their own but more of focusing on the availability. They seem to want to always have the availability of customization and freedom. I think they see Sense UI as "Hey people actually love our work and are willing to spend days/months on working to make something of our product."
Unlike with Apple, they're like "WTF? You're not allowed to do this! No you can't see the specs of our phones you have to guess!!"

Unlike with Apple, they're like "WTF? You're not allowed to do this! No you can't see the specs of our phones you have to guess!!"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
touche.....

i can't see google having any problems with sense UI, any improvement is great. Anything that will make more people use android and use google's services, im sure they will be happy with. Somehow i don't think they are happy with the deals the other companies have made with bing and yahoo though.

DMaverick50 said:
but if android didnt want their own ui to be the preferred ui i don't think theyd even offer phones that way
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're completely missing the point about why Google wants Android.
They don't care if the stock UI isn't the best or most popular.
They don't care about Blur.
They don't care about Sense UI.
You're missing the big picture here.
Every time you search...
Every time you use maps...
Every time you use voice input, Google Goggles, Gesture Search, Listen, etc.
Every time, they're collecting that data, selling it, using it to improve their services even more and thereby making even more profit on their improvement in services..
Mobile ads within apps, and elsewhere within the UI...
Not to mention taking a cut out of sold apps.
Nothing is free, especially not data, and you can bet your ass Google is cashing in on it since that's what they do best.
Stop thinking about the UI, and start thinking behind-the-scenes. Look at the big picture.

O
Paul22000 said:
You're completely missing the point about why Google wants Android.
They don't care if the stock UI isn't the best or most popular.
They don't care about Blur.
They don't care about Sense UI.
You're missing the big picture here.
Every time you search...
Every time you use maps...
Every time you use voice input, Google Goggles, Gesture Search, Listen, etc.
Every time, they're collecting that data, selling it, using it to improve their services even more and thereby making even more profit on their improvement in services..
Mobile ads within apps, and elsewhere within the UI...
Not to mention taking a cut out of sold apps.
Nothing is free, especially not data, and you can bet your ass Google is cashing in on it since that's what they do best.
Stop thinking about the UI, and start thinking behind-the-scenes. Look at the big picture.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I definitely understand what you're saying, that they want their software on as many devices as possible. That was actually the first of the two possibilities I offered. Officially google initially indicated they wanted to compete with apple (the second possibility I offered) and as a nexus owner I hoped for the second but it makes a lot more business sense to make their software/applications ubiquitous. And at the end of the day, google has a bottom line to worry about. So I guess in the end the manufacturers using android but customizing it probably offers a more thoughtful interface (though many, many prefer stock) but having stock android is more likely to receive updates fastest while some customized skins may not receive them period. Seems like a win-win for consumers regardless of android and Google's strategy.

I never saw Android as a competition to iPhone. There are huge differences between them. To start with, iPhone is a hardware and Android is an OS.
Android is not just targetted towards phone.. but also a more lucrative platform buisness. Android is targeted towards Windows and Linux and not iPhone.
Windows CE and Linux are pretty much the only choice for platforms. Many GPS units, car control systems, Controllers for many equipment etc.. are all Windows CE or custom linux. Android is targeting this market share. Therefore it is not surprising that Android has similiar policies like Win CE and linux to keep the core seperate from UI. Customers can choose their UI to adapt their implimentation. e.g. many of us don't even relaize that our car GPS has windows in it or our routers has linux in it.
Of course there are other advantages of controling a platform. They have been nicely sumarized by paul.

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