Related
I just had to start a thread on this issue because I think it's surprising more people aren't angry at Google for taking an 'open', GPL licensed (at the very least the kernel) set of code (Honeycomb) and not releasing it to the public in the form of source code. Not only is it completely NOT in the spirit of open source, but in fact may even be illegal (although I have not done quite enough research to say exactly what is and isn't GPL, I know the kernel IS GPL, the OS itself I am GUESSING is GPL as they have claimed it to be open source). I understand that certain APPLICATIONS are not open source (market, youtube, gmail, etc) but if the operating system is supposed to be open source (and/or GPL) why are more people not outraged that they will not release it?
I understand they want to prevent every fly-by-night operation from building garbage tablets that "cheapen" the name of android tablets, but for better or worse that's what android is, and it's what makes android great. If you just want to get your feet wet, you should be able to take a cheap nook color and load up honeycomb. If you're not happy with the performance, you can go buy a nice xoom or transformer.
I know we all love android, and its open source nature, but just because we hate apple/M$ doesn't mean we have to love every action google takes.
compuw22c said:
If you just want to get your feet wet, you should be able to take a cheap nook color and load up honeycomb.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the nook has honeycomb.
austin420 said:
the nook has honeycomb.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Based on the sdk.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
lynyrd65 said:
Based on the sdk.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True, prerelease sdk too. Personally, I think this may be what pushed Google to do what they did. That or Motorola freaking out saying "You PROMISED we'd be first, we invested time and energy here you better do something about this". Android was supposed to be "The People's OS". Unfortunately things seem to be changing hands and its becoming more about keeping carriers and manufacturers happy. Not necessary I say. Pandora's box has been opened, no matter what google does, carriers and manufacturers will still use Android. To stop carrying android phones would be suicide on their part. Give us all root access as part of stock android and be done with it!
Sent from my pocket rocket
compuw22c said:
I just had to start a thread on this issue because I think it's surprising more people aren't angry at Google for taking an 'open', GPL licensed (at the very least the kernel) set of code (Honeycomb) and not releasing it to the public in the form of source code.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are quite a few folks who are unhappy with Google for their decision not to release Honeycomb platform sources, and there's a good debate there. However, there's nothing unlawful about Google's actions.
First, the majority of Android source code isn't GPL licensed, but rather Apache License v2.0, which does not require publication of modified sources. This is why Samsung hasn't (fully) released sources for the Epic's Android platform code, which is much more problematic for us.
Second, AOSP is the sole copyright owner of much of the Android platform code. This enables them to release and relicense that source code however they wish, even if the code were nominally GPL licensed (although it's Apache).
Third, the portions of Honeycomb that are GPL licensed, to which AOSP is not the sole copyright owner, have been publically released. However, this code is mostly comprised of the Linux kernel and a few underyling libraries. In other words, it isn't the interesting/useful part of Honeycomb.
Furthermore, just to clarify, the GPL does not require source code to be published publicly, just that it be made available to those who legitimately acquite the binary code, i.e., who actually purchase Honeycomb tablets. That said, public publication of that code is often the easiest/most efficient method of making it available to tablet owners.
Edit: The copyright of much of the Android sources are claimed by "The Android Open Source Project", which is the "overseeing" organization Google established. I'm not sure what the policies of code licensing are among Google and other AOSP partners, but the point is that AOSP as the copyright owner is not bound by the existing license for that code.
mkasick said:
First, the majority of Android source code isn't GPL licensed, but rather Apache License v2.0, which does not require publication of modified sources.
Third, the portions of Honeycomb that are GPL licensed, to which AOSP is not the sole copyright owner, have been publically released.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Beat me to it, but I figured I'd re-quote you with a shortened version in bold.
It's been long known. Android is OPEN SOURCE (Apache). It is not FREE SOURCE (GPL).
Further, I think the author misunderstands what the linux kernel is. You can't really do much with it alone, but it is a powerful piece. On a train, it's like the transmission that connects the engine to the wheels of the train, but you still need the body and the train tracks to go anywhere (Android).
jnadke said:
Beat me to it, but I figured I'd re-quote you with a shortened version in bold.
It's been long known. Android is OPEN SOURCE (Apache). It is not FREE SOURCE (GPL).
Further, I think the author misunderstands what the linux kernel is. You can't really do much with it alone, but it is a powerful piece. On a train, it's like the transmission that connects the engine to the wheels of the train, but you still need the body and the train tracks to go anywhere (Android).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, I do understand what a kernel is and what it does (small main-brain controller of hardware, usually with a few modules built into it). I've recompiled mine on my media server a few times. I do see your point though, you're right, not much you can do with it all by itself for sure.
I also understand that they aren't breaking the law, I guess I just thought part of the gpl was that to use gpl software in a project, that project must also comply (which I now understand is false). Always assumed that to be the reason Apple uses a UNIX kernel rather than a LINUX kernel for osx.
So I guess they do have a right to do what they're doing, but the idealist in me still wishes they'd do the right thing...
Anyone wanna make a Ubuntu port to phones...complete with dialer, launcher, dalvik vm (for running android apps)? j/k
Sent from my pocket rocket
mkasick said:
There are quite a few folks who are unhappy with Google for their decision not to release Honeycomb platform sources, and there's a good debate there. However, there's nothing unlawful about Google's actions.
First, the majority of Android source code isn't GPL licensed, but rather Apache License v2.0, which does not require publication of modified sources. This is why Samsung hasn't (fully) released sources for the Epic's Android platform code, which is much more problematic for us.
Second, AOSP is the sole copyright owner of much of the Android platform code. This enables them to release and relicense that source code however they wish, even if the code were nominally GPL licensed (although it's Apache).
Third, the portions of Honeycomb that are GPL licensed, to which AOSP is not the sole copyright owner, have been publically released. However, this code is mostly comprised of the Linux kernel and a few underyling libraries. In other words, it isn't the interesting/useful part of Honeycomb.
Furthermore, just to clarify, the GPL does not require source code to be published publicly, just that it be made available to those who legitimately acquite the binary code, i.e., who actually purchase Honeycomb tablets. That said, public publication of that code is often the easiest/most efficient method of making it available to tablet owners.
Edit: The copyright of much of the Android sources are claimed by "The Android Open Source Project", which is the "overseeing" organization Google established. I'm not sure what the policies of code licensing are among Google and other AOSP partners, but the point is that AOSP as the copyright owner is not bound by the existing license for that code.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well said...
Help support autism awareness,it only takes 2 seconds to help make a difference...
http://picketfenceblogs.com/vote/3616
I don't understand how if Android is Opensource and borrows code from Linux kernel and other OpenSource projects, how Google can legally hold back the honeycomb sourcecode?
I'm not really interested in Honeycomb source myself, nor the OS dev scene, but what I DO care about, is that some of my favorite apps are broken on my Tablet, and the developers all point the finger at Google, saying the flash API changed in Honeycomb, and they need the source to get it working.
The biggest broken apps for me are:
Opera Mobile 11
BBC iPlayer App
Opera even come out and tell us why Flash does not work on Opera Mobile 11 on Honeycomb:
https://market.android.com/details?id=com.opera.browser&feature=search_result
(What's New Tab)
"Flash not supported on Android 3.x due to Google not releasing necessary platform code"
"Open source" doesn't mean what you think it means.
The Linux kernel source is available under the GPLv2, this mean that is you ship a product you must provide the source, hence its the device manufacturers responsibility to give us the kernel source because it's them we buy the product from.
The Android framework and the Dalvik virtual machine are all available under an Apache licence, this allows anyone to take the source code and make a closed proprietary product and/or addition (Like Blur/Sense/Touchwiz) without this Android would not have caught on anywhere near as fast, but it also means that there is no requirement for future derivative products to have source code released. Even if the person doing that is Google.
All the API's that people _should_ be using are documented, the problem is that the products you mention are trying to mimic the native browser and use internal only method calls, if you step out of the approved API box then you have problems like this.
Why BBC iPlayer needs flash I don't know, all 3.1 tablets can play the flashhigh and flashhd (h.264) iPlayer streams natively I use get-iplayer and transfer the files to my Transformer for viewing and it works beautifully. I guess the Android app team are just lazy (or iPhone developers who don't know Android very well)
SilentMobius said:
The Android framework and the Dalvik virtual machine are all available under an Apache licence, this allows anyone to take the source code and make a closed proprietary product and/or addition (Like Blur/Sense/Touchwiz) without this Android would not have caught on anywhere near as fast, but it also means that there is no requirement for future derivative products to have source code released. Even if the person doing that is Google.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While this is true, it is not the real reason why Google can hold back the souce code. Google owns the copyright to DalVik and the Android platform. All contributions checked into the Android tree in the end have their copyright assigned to Google, regardless of who wrote them.
Because they own the copyright, they can do whatever the heck they want with the code, whenever they want. A copyright owner can not violate their own license, the license is only applicable for other people (who have no copyright to the code) to use it in their projects.
It's a subtle but very important distinction, because even if Android was all GPL they still would not have to be releasing any changes, because they own it.
The only part of the code Google is obligated to release, is their kernel changes (because it is Linux, which is GPL and they don't have the full copyright to) - and they do release these, always.
brunes said:
While this is true, it is not the real reason why Google can hold back the souce code. Google owns the copyright to DalVik and the Android platform. All contributions checked into the Android tree in the end have their copyright assigned to Google, regardless of who wrote them.
Because they own the copyright, they can do whatever the heck they want with the code, whenever they want. A copyright owner can not violate their own license, the license is only applicable for other people (who have no copyright to the code) to use it in their projects.
It's a subtle but very important distinction, because even if Android was all GPL they still would not have to be releasing any changes, because they own it.
The only part of the code Google is obligated to release, is their kernel changes (because it is Linux, which is GPL and they don't have the full copyright to) - and they do release these, always.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually no, just because they hold the rights doesn't mean they don't have to obey the license. It's just that Android is released under the Apache license which states that source must be released, but doesn't say WHEN the source has to be released, so they can hold it back as long as they deem fit.
seshmaru said:
Actually no, just because they hold the rights doesn't mean they don't have to obey the license. It's just that Android is released under the Apache license which states that source must be released, but doesn't say WHEN the source has to be released, so they can hold it back as long as they deem fit.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, no!
The ASL is not a copy left licence, so if Google so wish they do not have to release the source code for Honeycomb ever. In much the same way, I can download Android code from AOSP, create my own unique version, and I don't have to contribute my code back to AOSP, nor do I need to supply it to anyone on demand (with the exception of GPL'd kernel code of course).
Regards,
Dave
foxmeister said:
Actually, no!
The ASL is not a copy left licence, so if Google so wish they do not have to release the source code for Honeycomb ever. In much the same way, I can download Android code from AOSP, create my own unique version, and I don't have to contribute my code back to AOSP, nor do I need to supply it to anyone on demand (with the exception of GPL'd kernel code of course).
Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's correct that it is not copyleft, and I was aware of this. All android releases however are released under the Apache license, which means the source for android itself has to be there, but any further modifications can use whatever they want. So yes google has to make Honeycomb open source eventually since it was released under the Apache license. Any derivatives of honeycomb wouldn't need to provide the source though.
seshmaru said:
So yes google has to make Honeycomb open source eventually since it was released under the Apache license. Any derivatives of honeycomb wouldn't need to provide the source though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No they don't! That is the *whole* point. Honeycomb, at this point in time, is *not* an open source project because no source has been released, and the license of its antecedents is not a copyleft licence.
Honeycomb is, broadly speaking, a derivative of an earlier Android build (Froyo/Gingerbread whatever), and in this respect it is no different to say HTC's Sense builds which are also not open source.
Regards,
Dave
Hey ice cream will be open sourced. I don't think they want honeycomb plopped onto phones so they won't push it to aosp. Ice Cream will be a hybrid.
Sent from my HTC Vision using XDA Premium App
Have also wondered this myself.. but reading all of this has made me more confused than I was before.. who's right? :S
It's correct that Google hold the copyright for the bulk of the android framework, and as the copyright owners they are not subject to license terms, so they don't need to release anything but that only works for Google products. If the licence had been GPL then manufacturers would need to supply source with their products, not Google but ASUS/Samsung/HTC/etc/etc.
Short version: Google don't need to release anything, app developers shouldn't use internal APIs and rely on having platform source to make things work.
That said I want to change some of the browser behaviour and plumb back in handling for the .mkv file extension (because the container parsing is already in there) So I'd love to get my hands on the HC source, no matter how messy.
david279 said:
Hey ice cream will be open sourced. I don't think they want honeycomb plopped onto phones so they won't push it to aosp. Ice Cream will be a hybrid.
Sent from my HTC Vision using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And yet, it didn't seem to worry them when the first flurry of tablets came out with a phone (Froyo/GB) OS. Sorry, but to me, that excuse doesn't fly.
Divine_Madcat said:
And yet, it didn't seem to worry them when the first flurry of tablets came out with a phone (Froyo/GB) OS. Sorry, but to me, that excuse doesn't fly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually they did worry, that's exactly why they made honeycomb you derptard and exactly the reason they aren't releasing the source to honeycomb.
And yes they don't want manufacturers shoehorning a tablet OS into a phone just so they can say OH OUR PHONE HAS ANDROID 3.0 INSTEAD OF 2.3.
Derptard... certainly a new one for the books. haha
I found this today:
http://developer.bada.com/events/bada2.0-Power-App-Race?rlWlfcp=duq&isReturn=Y
and I thought that it is a great idea of Samsung to do that because money is of course a huge motivation factor to develop apps.
Contest runs from the 18th of October til the 31st of December.
First 10 developers who develop an App and put it on Samsung Apps will get a chance to win $100000 if their App will be downloaded 100000 times in the above called time-range. The App has to be developed with the bada SDK 2.0 tool (or above).
For further information visit the link above.
So please all of the great devs who are around here please develop great apps for Bada because it is Bada`s biggest problem to have a lack of useful apps but I like Samsung`s approach to this kind of problem, they are really trying to push their OS higher and higher.
I hate the idea of that contest and i announce it from now
We (Team VEA) are not going to enter that challenge because we are not sure if bada users will make 100,000 downloads of Voluntas in that short time
it is contest for games in our eyes not apps
Best Regards
If they wouldn't be sure of this, they wouldn't have set the download numbers so high
There are many millions of Bada handhelds, so I don't think that would be the problem
mylove90 said:
I hate the idea of that contest and i announce it from now
We (Team VEA) are not going to enter that challenge because we are not sure if bada users will make 100,000 downloads of Voluntas in that short time
it is contest for games in our eyes not apps
Best Regards
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
if Voluntas works well and will be uploaded gratis on the market I think it'll reach 100'000 download in about 10 days or minus.
However I also don't like this type of contest, the download counter could be increased with some stupid tricks.
polaris office ? XD
uhmmmm
Voip ?
sms free
browser
Voluntas
editor photo, Video
It is also kind of weird that Samsung starts a Bada 2.0 contest when Bada 2.0 isn`t even officially released yet. I mean devs have to test the developed App on the device itself before putting it up on Samsung Apps (or am I wrong here?), so Samsung insists that developers who already start to develop an app do early testing of their app on a Beta Firmware, which isn`t the best thing to do I guess.
I don`t know if this is a smart move from Samsung starting a contest when the main firmware for it isn`t even out yet...
So I read today that apparently it has been known for quite a while that Sailfish OS' "Alien Dalvik" feature will be unavailable on all non-Jolla phones which makes it impossible for those of us who want to install Sailfish on their own devices to use Android applications and need to be locked to the Sailfish native applications.
This is due to Alien Dalvik being proprietary and licensed software from the Myriad Group, thus cannot be bundled with ports of Sailfish OS (that includes the Nexus 4, i9305, Nexus 7 ports). As far as I can see it's sold as well, so installing it on the side like Gapps seems to be out of the question.
Has Jolla mentioned anything about this? All I can find are community members saying Alien Dalvik will be unavailable on ports due to the licensing of the product. Without it, Sailfish OS might suddenly becomes a much less interesting as a whole to many, as the ability to install and run Android applications were one of the key features of a otherwise very interesting OS. Any thoughts or more light to shed on this? Will Sailfish OS users that aren't using Jolla phones be stuck with native applications permanently? Or is this something Jolla will change as the product matures?
It's obviously a "pay to play" situation. To rectify it, Jolla would have to charge users a fee to install Sailfish on 3rd party handsets or violate their TOS with Myriad. I don't see that happening. Maybe if enough users come on board, Myriad will find it attractive to offer a license/apk directly to Sailfish users?
Consistant said:
Will Sailfish OS users that aren't using Jolla phones be stuck with native applications permanently? Or is this something Jolla will change as the product matures?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Stuck? Really? I think it's a great opportunity for Android developers to start making applications for Sailfish instead of free riding on Android apps. It's open source, open to modifications, fast, smooth & capable. A true mobile Linux OS. There aren't much excuses not to develop for Sailfish.
Arty. said:
There aren't much excuses not to develop for Sailfish.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, there is. The lack of a larger user base.
I'd love for developers to make apps for Sailfish, but the tiny user base will scare AAA developers away from the platform as they would rather develop for a bigger niche OS like Ubuntu Touch or Firefox OS, Sailfish is rather obscure compared to those. Plus the fact that the native apps are required to be free at this point in time with no form of paid transactions being possible. Most of these AAA developers won't have the same view on open source, especially considering how few applications are open on other platforms.
The alien dalvik was one of the main things that could make Sailfish triumph over other niche mobile operating systems. It was of the key selling points to get people to convert to Sailfish from Android once the porting really starts happening. Otherwise they'll simply ask how big the app store is and once they hear answer is a number with two digits where most of them which are most likely rather lacking in features compared to applications on other platforms will scare people off big time.
The Android VM was one of the huge advantages Sailfish had to attract the niche user base and thus developers to make native apps and now I can see most potential converters sticking with whatever they had making Sailfish DOA together with Firefox OS and Ubuntu Touch. I'd really hate to see that happen.
Consistant said:
Yes, there is. The lack of a larger user base.
I'd love for developers to make apps for Sailfish, but the tiny user base will scare AAA developers away from the platform as they would rather develop for a bigger niche OS like Ubuntu Touch or Firefox OS, Sailfish is rather obscure compared to those. Plus the fact that the native apps are required to be free at this point in time with no form of paid transactions being possible. Most of these AAA developers won't have the same view on open source, especially considering how few applications are open on other platforms.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And how is Ubuntu touch bigger than Sailfish? Jolla launched and started selling their Sailfish phone way before Canonical. They have a more finished OS than any of these guys. They have all the needed tools to develop. Heck they even made an emulator to test apps. I don't see this being more obscure than others. Unlike Ubuntu's marketting schemes, Sailfish is here & it's happening now.
I agree on the open source part though. I tried to refer to the developers here that mod Android by saying open source.
Consistant said:
The alien dalvik was one of the main things that could make Sailfish triumph over other niche mobile operating systems. It was of the key selling points to get people to convert to Sailfish from Android once the porting really starts happening. Otherwise they'll simply ask how big the app store is and once they hear answer is a number with two digits where most of them which are most likely rather lacking in features compared to applications on other platforms will scare people off big time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Will any others have dalvik on their images? Don't think so.
Consistant said:
The Android VM was one of the huge advantages Sailfish had to attract the niche user base and thus developers to make native apps and now I can see most potential converters sticking with whatever they had making Sailfish DOA together with Firefox OS and Ubuntu Touch. I'd really hate to see that happen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Me too so instead of saying there aren't any reasons to develop for these OS's we should show that there are.
And time is needed for the large user base. People are always skeptical about new and rather "different" things. Hopefully these players will get more tracktion by time.
Is this final? Without Android Apps no Sailfish for me and many others I guess...
Gesendet von meinem GT-N7100 mit Tapatalk
IceTe said:
Is this final? Without Android Apps no Sailfish for me and many others I guess...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This has pretty much been set in stone. Jolla are paying Myriad for the licensing per Jolla phone, they can't distribute it for free as it would break their deal and be illegal. You won't be seeing any Alien Dalvik on non-Jolla phones unless a "fix" to make it happen comes around which certainly wouldn't be legal.
The only way I can see Jolla fixing this issue is by having licenses for the Alien Dalvik being sold in the Jolla Store or something similar and that it can be activated through the store. That doesn't seem to be happening soon, unfortunately. Especially considering nothing can be sold in the Jolla Store at this moment in time.
The lack of Alien Dalvik on 3rd party devices is actually a feature to many of us. Having Sailfish on this zooty LG Optimus G i have collecting dust, with no Google nonsense, would finally get me to retire my trusty Nokia N9.
croozah said:
The lack of Alien Dalvik on 3rd party devices is actually a feature to many of us. Having Sailfish on this zooty LG Optimus G i have collecting dust, with no Google nonsense, would finally get me to retire my trusty Nokia N9.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The lack of such a huge key feature should never be a feature in and of itself, rather having the freedom of choice would be.
Having the option to install the VM or not, just like Google Apps, would solve both the problems. Locking many of the potential converters down to using the current sloppy apps in the Jolla Store would not be an advantage for both sides as less people would convert, thus less developers will make quality native applications which will in turn affect both parties.
Even Carol Chen, one of the core Sailfish OS team members, mentioned in a recent Jolla blog post that over half of her apps on her Jolla smartphone were Android apps which means the native apps certainly aren't cutting it right now for many.
Just to clarify...
Alien dalvik allows sailfish OS users to also install android apps? But without it (licensed software only on jolla phones) it is not possible to install these apps on 3rd party phones. And only sailfish or native apps are available?
If this is the case, at least for me, I would be using sailfish as a secondary to my android. I wouldnt be jumping right in, which means that surely other people would be in the same boat. This is also assuming that a port will be fully functional without alien dalvik on a 3rd party phone?
Kesselaar said:
This is also assuming that a port will be fully functional without alien dalvik on a 3rd party phone?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It'll be fully functional (although limited to just a handful of Android devices to ensure a relatively reliable/stable experience), there just won't be a compat. layer for Android apps/content. Such a compat. layer could ofc eventually be offered via the store, but that remains to be seen, people need to be pressing Jolla & Myriad about all of that.
It all depends what you use on Android, if its just the standard stuff plus a few big ones such as whatsapp (check out the port) you'll be fine. To me Alien Dalvik is mostly for those niche apps, that turn up and have everyone going crazy for a few days. Like flappy bird, etc etc
Consistant said:
The lack of such a huge key feature should never be a feature in and of itself, rather having the freedom of choice would be.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your premise is fundamentally flawed. Alien Dalvik is a licensed, patent-encumbered, proprietary software, therefore having it is not a choice unless you somehow buy it; or steal it. The community cannot distribute it; there is no choice.
As I said, and it may be obtuse to some, but this is a feature. A true Linux-based OS that is mostly/completely F/OSS running on modern high-spec hardware is a huge draw. That there is no Android/Google stuff is an added bonus.
Too bad. I really liked the OS before I read this thread...
Oh well, staying on android untill someone figures out how to build an OS that is written in some kind of C for performance and has a VM to emulate existing apps untill they are developed for the OS natively...
ilans93 said:
Too bad. I really liked the OS before I read this thread...
Oh well, staying on android untill someone figures out how to build an OS that is written in some kind of C for performance and has a VM to emulate existing apps untill they are developed for the OS natively...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
buy a jolla phone?!
only the ports on android phones missing alien dalvik. The jolla phone is able to do that. Also it's a linux based mobile os. Many parts, like in android, are written in c. With QT5 they use a technology like kde desktop.
carepack said:
buy a jolla phone?!
only the ports on android phones missing alien dalvik. The jolla phone is able to do that. Also it's a linux based mobile os. Many parts, like in android, are written in c. With QT5 they use a technology like kde desktop.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know, and that's exactly what I like about it.
As for the android phones, I really don't feel the need to upgrade from my galaxy nexus.
I just don't want to see SailfishOS end up like maemo and meego. They were great, but only among us geeks so they didn't become mainstream enough and development stopped (in a way).
If Alien Dalvik could be exported to android hardware then the OS would have a sure future, this way it is uncertain...
ilans93 said:
...If Alien Dalvik could be exported to android hardware then the OS would have a sure future, this way it is uncertain...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If there are enough adopters of Sailfish on Nexus 4 and Galaxy S3, Myriad may offer a license of their Alien Dalvik to those users... For a few dollars you might be able to "have it all."
RumoredNow said:
If there are enough adopters of Sailfish on Nexus 4 and Galaxy S3, Myriad may offer a license of their Alien Dalvik to those users... For a few dollars you might be able to "have it all."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What if you can capture the Dalvik RPM from a Jolla phone when downloading from store?
n9 can capture deb from Nokia Store
RumoredNow said:
If there are enough adopters of Sailfish on Nexus 4 and Galaxy S3, Myriad may offer a license of their Alien Dalvik to those users... For a few dollars you might be able to "have it all."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That would be a dream come true!
flotron said:
What if you can capture the Dalvik RPM from a Jolla phone when downloading from store?
n9 can capture deb from Nokia Store
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You could, but that's not exactly legal...
I think the answer may be more simple than you all have considered so far. The phone does not come with the Alien Dalvik included it has to be downloaded, no? Maybe Jolla pays based on downloads of the Alien Dalvik from the store and that's why (or one of the reasons why) the store is not enabled yet on this early Alpha release.
edit: OK I just asked if there will be a way for us to purchase a license in the future on IRC and stskeeps said they are not leaving it out as a possibility but basics are first.
So there is hope. I guess they will decide after they see how everything goes. I guess it's one of those company strategy things. Will letting us have Alien Dalvik lead to less apps being developed for Sailfish or more? I think more simply because it will excite developers to get in on the cover actions.
Looks like Cyanogen moving towards their Google Services(less) future with Microsoft. Eugh.. will just mean a pile of microsoft app bloat that I dont use to be removed, hopefully we will still just be able to flash a gapps package though?
http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/-2010445.htm
I'm actually happy with this. Microsoft apps are great in terms of quality and design. I wish they'd started earlier so I wouldn't have settled to Evernote back in the days.
Rosa Elefant said:
I'm actually happy with this. Microsoft apps are great in terms of quality and design. I wish they'd started earlier so I wouldn't have settled to Evernote back in the days.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
To be fair it may make their OS a little bit more consistent/polished/professional, instead of integrated apps from here and there. But I just dont use any MS products anymore (aside from office programs) and so it wouldnt be of any benefit to me.
Cyanogen Inc. can do as they please. As long as they don't lock me down to anything.
This isn't terrible news. The Microsoft mobile suite is actually really nice. I loved my Windows Phone, the only reason I got rid of it was lack of dev support for apps that I needed.
meh, this just means I definitely won't be using Cyanogen ROMS
I'm all for the idea they have on stripping away Google's influence of Android. However, teaming up with Microsoft doesn't seem the way to do it. It's like trading a Mercedes for a Kia. (no offense to those that drive Kia's)
ciwrl @CyanogenMod said:
To highlight the one take away that matters to CyanogenMod users – We are not bundling or pre-installing Microsoft (or any Cyanogen OS exclusive partner apps) into CyanogenMod.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just like they don't bundle Google services and apps into CM11/12 now which is why you have to flash gapps with nightlies if you want them.
ciwrl @CyanogenMod said:
Your nightlies will not see a sudden influx of Microsoft applications – you can put the pitchforks down. CyanogenMod has historically stayed neutral on your services of choice, whether you use Google, Amazon or Fdroid; we leave that decision to you and we have no intention of changing that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How will it affect nightlies?
ciwrl @CyanogenMod said:
What you will see are new APIs available in the source code, using CM as a platform for other developers to do cool things with. Remember when CM 9 had support for Host Card Emulation well before that functionality was available in Android proper? How about adhoc WiFi support? Those kinds of pushing forward of the Android platform are something we have done for years, and will continue to support whenever we can – but do so in a non-’force you into it’ manner. We’re all about options here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Source
itsamoreh said:
meh, this just means I definitely won't be using Cyanogen ROMS
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 Microsoft products arent optimized, function only the way they dictate. Bugs, backdoors and battery eaters.
demographics: worst strategic move ever, there is a reason Cyanogen users dont own a windows phone.
Microsoft seems to be following Blackberry in this
I'm all for Microsoft. I don't use anything google related that's important enough for me. Email, calendar and contacts are all Microsoft for this guy.
Sent from my A0001 using XDA Free mobile app