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".

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.

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.

It's not Rooting, its Openness says google

I found this article VERY interesting, and thought some of you may enjoy it.
Posted by Google themselves; http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2010/12/its-not-rooting-its-openness.html
If you don't understand that, the people at digimoe made it more clear...
http://digimoe.com/google-says-andr...droid-os-is-made-for-rooting-nexus-s-included

As a developer phone, that's certainly true. I don't know. I mean Samsung doesn't have a reputation for locking their phones down hard, even on the non-google line. A reputation for **** development and longterm support, perhaps. And maybe that was google's thinking in choosing them as the Nexus 1 follow up. Certainly google has plenty to gain by helping Samsung out on the Galaxy S line. We'll see what the future brings.
But it's also easy for Google to talk about openness while sitting in the comfy confines of Mountain View. Can anyone go find me Google's support number for the Nexus S?

Not exactly Google's number, but there is this:
http://www.google.com/nexus/#/help
Google provides the OS, but Samsung is the manufacturer and the one in charge of quality control is responsible for support. This is as it should be.
They do provide a direct support phone number, it is just for Samsung.

good read.

T313C0mun1s7 said:
Not exactly Google's number, but there is this:
http://www.google.com/nexus/#/help
Google provides the OS, but Samsung is the manufacturer and the one in charge of quality control is responsible for support. This is as it should be.
They do provide a direct support phone number, it is just for Samsung.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My point was that it's easy to call for openness when you don't care about the consequences. Would you rather Tmobile/Samsung provide a link to root your phone at the time of purchase that also immediately voids your warranty? I doubt most here would take that offer.
I like Google's talk about openness, as selective as it may be. But I suspect the manufacturers and carriers roll their eyes when they get these lectures, and I don't necessarily blame them.

WoodDraw said:
My point was that it's easy to call for openness when you don't care about the consequences. Would you rather Tmobile/Samsung provide a link to root your phone at the time of purchase that also immediately voids your warranty? I doubt most here would take that offer.
I like Google's talk about openness, as selective as it may be. But I suspect the manufacturers and carriers roll their eyes when they get these lectures, and I don't necessarily blame them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Except for 1 thing, they are choosing to of their own free will sell a device that is based on a free, open source operating system that has a license that states a requirement of openness, and even that their source modifications are required to be submitted back to the source tree.
The drivers are proprietary, and that is fine - even if it is the reason for the requirement for us to use leaked ROMs to get all the hardware to work. Rooting does not change the drivers, and this discussion ended at rooting. That said even after rooting the parts that get changed are just the open source parts that the devs have the source for because it is in the AOSP depository.
If they don't want to support your changes to the OS that is their prerogative, but they still have a responsibility to support the hardware for defects.
At some point I would like to see someone with the money, time, and conviction sue their carrier when they refuse to honor the warranty because it was rooted. See that clause breaks many of the original licenses that make up the various parts of the OS. In fact they are required to provide a copy to the GPL or at least a link to it AND the source itself. They know they can't win this, which is why I think they like to say it voids the warranty, but as long as the phone looks like it is stock (which is more about not supporting errors you introduced) then they don't really look too hard.
If they don't want to let people exercise their rights under the various open source licenses, then they should stick to devices with enforceable, proprietary operating systems like iOS, Windows Mobile, Symbian, and Web OS.

"Openness" is an excuse, obviously.
I like how Google is trying to save face, and that other site is trying hard to help them along.
People these days seem to just be less concerned about security.
Actively fixing security holes doesn't matter for an OS that cannot be esily pushed out to users as updates. Does it really matter if you fix security holes, but half o fyour users never recieve those fixes?
Well, yea, it does... Just not as much as they think it does.
Also the sandboxing thing is a joke, studies have been conducted and lots of Android apps are sharing data with each other foe the benefit of Advertisers, etc.

The HTC seems not to unlock the hboot .v.

here!!
(In Traditional Chinese)
Only HTC doesn't seem to unlock the hboot now!!

For those wondering here is a google translate version of the text on the page - that is why it is in bad english
Sony Ericsson last month promotional offer for mobile phone unlocking Bootloader, as it were the entire mobile phone industry has some new territory like. Samsung announced soon also Twitter 『If Google does not oppose, they will also unlock the phone Bootloader』. Motorola has been silent today audible.
Motorola promised by the end of this year's Android device for its offer unlocking services, users can own brush from a ROM.
Now even unlock a Motorola also provides that only four brands in the Android HTC did not respond due to the unknown when it said it will adhere or surrender it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

Sounds like HTC made no commnet
So I would say this article is one way or another. Plus maybe something is lost in that translation a little.
HTC, to this point, seems pretty good with being unlocked. I've had my Evolution now since it came out and its fully customized. The new Evolution after it also looks that way. I really thing, aside from Motorola, that the carriers may start being he ones to ask to lock or unlock he bootloaders. ISPs in the US finally out caps on bandwidth last year, I would see locked bootloaders being next. Really time will only tell, but hopefully we get to keep our freedoms. The FCC approved a device is ours when we buy it, therefore we should be able to do what we want. Hopefully companies keep that in mind instead of trying to lock stuff down.
The big business rreason is that an unlocked device lets a user stay with that device longer, as it can be customized wig the latest software features. Unlocked devices really force companies to invest in research to give us better hardware now, costing them more money. As anyway can really developed the software that goes into the phones.
My thoughts anyway...
~Max
√ This Message Sent From CM7 Nightlies HTC-Evo4G ™