Database Users

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.

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

Who is causing the upgrade and source code issue?

Here in this forum we discussed a lot about the Android upgrade issue and the facts, that we don't get the source codes. I thought it's Xiaomi's fault, other say it's Mediatek's fault. I still don't know. I just know that I want to get a new phone instead of that crappy device. So I checked for alternatives and discovered the Umi Z.
It looked interesting and not too expensive but when I read a review there was a point saying something about Android Updates. The Umi Z has MM and on their social media or website they announced, that the Umi Z will get an update to Nougat, but the problem is, that Mediatek didn't release the source codes yet to allow them to update their Android.
So that sounds very familiar and weird. Is Mediatek really so obsessed with their source codes and why do they do that? I mean, what do they lose? This kind of behaviour would rather make people stay away from Mediatek devices. But I guess there are enough people just happy without custom roms, updates and source codes.
Can it be, that Umi just said that to blame someone else for lack of updates? The difference between Umi and Xiaomi is that Umi has a normal Android surface and not an own like Miui. But at least they keep their customers up-to-date, inform them and show interest in updating. And they announced, that they plan an update for April. I don't know how they can be confident but I wouldn't wonder if they won't get their update in April, May or June.
So in conclusion, I think it's the fault of both, Xiaomi and Mediatek and I want to stay away from both in future. I'm thinking about getting a Sony, or if I get a chinese brand again then a Snapdragon and for sure no Xiaomi!

The answer to this is we are dealing with "fabless" companies i.e. they do not actually make anything themselves but outsource to companies that do.
It is the miriad of screens, sensors etc, that cause the problems with Android upgrades, not the use of MTK or Qualcomm SoC. MTK does release source code (occassionally) - users are disappointed when they find that it is almost useless because it does not include vendor blobs for their specific hardware platform - that is the fault of the vendor - not MTK. We have had MTK source for MT6795 for a long time now.
At least some China phone brands like UMI (but definitely excluding Xiaomi) have truth in their advertising and go to lengths to point out what brand and model of ancillary parts go into making the whole

My concerns about ROMs are exacerbated by the outcome of this attempt to host an official UMI ROM and also this attempt. If the report is true, one might presume that perhaps UMI have a good reason to seek to prevent people from hosting their official ROMs, but it still makes me wary ...

will project treble successed

As seen here
https://www.reddit.com/r/LineageOS/...ect_trebel_devices/?utm_source=reddit-android
LineageOS team state that project treble is in its baby shoes and completely dependant on google to optimize it even more since as of now gsi rom requires certain adjustments for each device, so will project treble successed?
any1 has an insight please share.

I think it needs more adjustment. The kernel should be universal and updateable along with the OS, it's pretty universal as it is at the moment. Drivers should also be standard and updateable, at least for standard items. There should be a driver model where possible to support other devices, and any phone specific changes could be done through manufacturer supplied drivers. There's really no reason why it can't be done, it would be along the lines of how Windows works. Of course, it can be tailored to suit phones.
System updates should realistically come from Google, it would mean all phones and devices would be up to date with the latest security updates. The phone can also check with the manufacturer for specific updates. If Google keeps them apprised of any changes they can update their specific updates in time. This model would mean individual service testing for a new OS update etc wouldn't be a problem since it should at least be compliant with the base model.
Don't forget Google tracks down security leaks in other OS like Windows, which isn't even a direct competitor, and releases the security leak information if it isn't patched within 30? days. How many Android devices are updated with security patches within 30 days by the manufacturer? It's very much a double standard. Google really needs to think of an even more universal model like I just depicted for Android 10 Quinoa Slice (or whatever they call it).
Will Treble succeed? It's a step in the right direction, but needs more work. Not only should something like I just described be done, it should be made mandatory for all new devices. It doesn't mean custom versions are out, but custom versions would have to have OTA updates and be updated quickly along with the standard OS.

To say whether it succeeded or not, I think you'd first need to define what's its goal.
I still don't even know the answer as of today.
Some people say that the goal is to have a system image controlled and updated by Google.
But I don't see this happening any time soon. Google would need to test their GSIs on many devices, and they didn't even test P GSI over O-MR1 Pixels!
It seems to me that their goal was simply to make updates easier to OEMs. Considering Essential PH-1 getting Pie day-one, this might seem a success.
But we'll need to compare Oreo adoption rate to Pie's to confirm.

Oooh someone made a thread so i can moan cheers
The main problem with treble for me is that it's splintered between a plethora of devices, so one dev will release a treble rom and a multitude of device owners will flash it, each with their own subjective problems and issues, requests and wants.
And there lies the problem, it's difficult even when it's a dedicated rom thread for a particular device to get help at times.
So when you have a bunch of users talking about completely different devices you haven't got a hope in hell.
I think there should be branches to each thread for each specific device, that way help threads can be more linear rather than the chaos that it is at the moment.
Least that's my thoughts
My only rom i've flashed is RR and besides a few missing features, Fingerprint, Stereo and NFC i think it's brilliant.