It is interesting to note that the term "Open Source" was coined as a counterpart/in opposition to "Free Software" by those who were interested in sharing code but who did not ascribe to some of the more extreme aspects of Stallman's philosophy. It is interesting, because really, what has Android being "Open Source" really done? Are customers less beholden to telecoms for their devices? Have prices dropped or competition increased? What percent of Android device owners have compiled their own kernel? Have read the Android source?
> In ten to fifteen years' time, we will look back and regard Android as the technology that enabled even the poorest people in this world to have access to the web (and thus, knowledge), just like we regard Nokia as the company that put the mobile phone in every corner of the globe.
...and just like we regard Microsoft as the company that put computers into every home.
Ok, I know it's cool to make snarky comments about Microsoft, but what Microsoft has managed to achieve with Windows during the 90s was a truly historic leap. They created incredibly accessible OS that could be used by the masses even without any previous computer experience. And to give credit to Microsoft marketing, they sold this product so well that they had over 90% of market share. It's debatable whether that's a good thing or not. But if it weren't for Windows 3.1, 95, and 98, I am pretty sure millions of people wouldn't have purchased their first computer for years to come during the 90s.
My comment wasn't intended to be snarky. I do not begrudge Microsoft their success. Rather, I wanted to point out that Android's success, much like Microsoft's in the 90s, is due to it being a commodity OS during a period of rapidly decreasing commodity hardware costs. "Open" really has little to nothing to do with it.
What Microsoft managed to achieve in the market with Windows was impressive. Windows itself has never been particularly interesting interface-wise, or technologically. Microsoft was successful at putting their software in front of people. If they didn't, someone else would have - in all likelihood, someone else with superior software such as Apple or Commodore.
Good heavens, that's a complete rewrite of history. It certainly wasn't the case that Microsoft created this incredibly accessible OS. What they did was make a crude and far less accessible copy of the Apple OS. What they did well, was allow it to run on generic hardware (what we used to call "IBM clones"). It was simply a strategic marketing decision that made it affordable and therefore brought it to the masses.
Windows and Mac OS both derived their GUI idea from Xerox lab. While it is true that Gates got a glimpse of it initially from working with Jobs, Windows is hardly "a crude and far less accessible copy of the Apple OS". This statement you made is the one that's sensationalist and fictional rewrite of history.
Yeah, the Apple OS source code (loaned to microsoft for the purposes of writing Word for Mac) that ended up in the windows code base was just .. uh... That was really from xerox. Honest! Oh no wait, it was just an accident, and had nothing at all to do with copying the Mac OS and it'll never happen again.
Microsoft's monopoly power originated from their success with Windows, and was used to abuse competitors later on. Without the initial success of Windows, they wouldn't have had that power. Make no mistakes, Microsoft was evil (and probably would be if it wasn't such a shell of its former self), but the initial success of Windows was (more or less) legitimately won.
Remember DOS? The operating system, if you could call it that, of the original IBM PC, and MS-DOS, the OS that ran on all the IBM-compatible clones? The PCs that took the market away from Apple? The ones that established Microsoft's monopoly?
The market was different back then. There were a lot of choices, like PC-DOS, and even other computer systems like Mac, Atari, Amiga etc. MS-DOS itself did not give them a monopoly. It was an advantage of course, but not a "competition killer". It could have been IBM's OS/2 that would have "won", or a world with more cross platform development.
I think prices are lower than they would have been without android. Without debating the openness of the software, Android still gave phone manufacturers a huge code base for their smart phones that they would have had to develop otherwise, and their software probably wouldn't have been as good. Just look at the selection of "free" smart phones from T-mobile: http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/phones/?shape=smp
I doubt the diversity and quality of those phones would have been possible without Android.
I think the biggest thing Google brought to table isn't necessarily the code for the OS, but a platform with momentum that others could easily tap into. I'm sure Huawei could have developed their own mobile OS platform, but convincing a ton of developers to develop for it would have been hard.
The cost of a Windows license was never a material factor in the cost of a computer. Windows just happened to work on the widest range of hardware, much like Android. Being "open" has little to nothing to do with that.
What I find lacking in all of this Android chest-bumping is the recognition of what made it possible for so many smart phones to be priced reasonably: the decreasing price of flash storage. If we're going to point to anything as the cause for smart phone ubiquity, shouldn't we consider what Apple has done to drive down the price of flash?
The difference in this case is that Android can be customized and tailored however a carrier or manufacturer wants, because the source code is in fact available. Windows never allowed for that.
What it's largely done is allowed people who are nothing to do with Google to produce devices with the OS on them, and made it possible for things like CyanogenMod to exist.
>> It is interesting, because really, what has Android being "Open Source" really done?
You mean, besides this (from the G+ post conversation): "Historians are, however, going to make note of how the open source Android platform (or its later forks and clones) played a role in facilitating everything from low-cost solar-powered devices in the remotest villages in India and Africa, to a hundred million tablets computers in the classroom each revolutionizing education for children all across Asia and the Middle East, to putting an Internet-connected smartphone in the hands of every man, woman, and child in America, even those from the perpetually overlooked majority that simply can't afford a shiny brand-new iPhone or Galaxy Nexus every Christmas."
This is already happening. Now. And it is happening because Android has successfully commoditized the mobile OS. I'm seeing it happen where I grew up. Where people cannot afford iPhones and Galaxy Nexuses. But they can now afford an Android smartphone.
From the G+ post, again: " That there's now an eminently capable open source mobile operating system, one that is free to use and free to fork, means that the knowledge advantage can be better and more evenly distributed across the planet than ever before."
Anyone, anywhere can build and distribute their own Android-based device. They are already doing this. Isn't that one of the cornerstones of an open source project?
>> " Are customers less beholden to telecoms for their devices? Have prices dropped or competition increased? What percent of Android device owners have compiled their own kernel? Have read the Android source?"
Do you ask this of Apache, Asterisk etc?
You say elsewhere that "The cost of a Windows license was never a material factor in the cost of a computer.". For you perhaps, but it definitely was a factor in my part of the world.
My question to you is why all of this should be attributed to Android and not to the open source movement as a whole? That Google has contributed immensely, more so than any other company of a comparable size, to the open source community is undeniable. However, I would like to believe that the open source community is larger than just Google. Call it Android, call it Linux, call it what you like...just don't get into the mentality that "without Google we wouldn't have all this". That sort of thinking can lead to a dangerous over-reliance on a single, corporate, profit driven entity.
My question to you is why all of this should be attributed to Android and not to the open source movement as a whole?
Because it takes significant financial effort to push forward a complete smartphone OS with a set of basic apps.
Do you know OpenMoko (http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Main_Page)? They were (are?) working on the same goal as Android, just more open and less subsidized. For years they struggled to create an OS which would allow dialing a phone number without invoking a terminal emulator.
What about Moblin/Maemo/Meego? Another Open Source attempt at Smartphones that failed due to inconsistent/missing support from its main financial contributors (Nokia and Intel).
Of course the whole thing is about standing on the shoulders of giants, and all these projects profited immensely from the availability of the Linux kernel, GCC and other large OSS projects. However, all these projects do exist for a long time already, and as the other examples should indicate, it is all but easy to create a SmartPhone experience from them.
With all that said, I do not it like very much either that Android is so closely-coupled to Google. However, they made the breakthrough now and it does not look like there is any "real" OSS competitor left.
> However, they made the breakthrough now and it does not look like there is any "real" OSS competitor left.
That is precisely why it is so significant that Android is also open source.
The bestseller "Android" tablet of this year is probably the Kindle Fire, that is completely divorced of Google. There have been consistent rumors that Amazon will step in with a few more tablet variants and a phone in the coming year. Facebook - Google's direct rival - was rumoured to be trying out an "Android" phone of their own.
All this is possible only because Android is open source.
It is fine to wish that Android is less loosely coupled from Google. Personally I think this is the only pragmatic choice. Android is not pure software, it is tightly integrated with hardware. Linux's achilles' heel for a long old time was device drivers. Android has mostly sidestepped this issue due to Google "owning" the project and working with the hardware vendors.
It would be nice to allow community input (commits, patches etc) into Android, but that I can understand why they don't right now. The thing is, anyone can create a more open fork that does this - and it wouldn't matter due to lack of hardware support.
The next best thing is to work downstream of the hardware, which is what Cyanogenmod and other teams have done. And they have been mighty successful at it too. When you see community teams boot Android on iPhones, Playbooks, Kindle Fires and so on, you are witnessing the benefit of having a free open source mobile OS.
Android may be the Linux variant that has succeeded in the mobile world, but that doesn't mean Android variants can't exist.
Mozilla is still working on Boot to Gecko, which borrows from Android for some of the hardware interface:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/B2G
Needless to say, only possible because it is open source.
I agree with all that you said, and I like the different directions Android-based hard- and software is developing.
However, the first thing many people try to do on their Fire, and something well-integrated into CM's installation process is the addition of Google apps, especially Android Market. And here we have a strong dependency on Google which even Amazon can not break with its own distribution channel (google for "install android market on kindle fire" for evidence).
> In ten to fifteen years' time, we will look back and regard Android as the technology that enabled even the poorest people in this world to have access to the web (and thus, knowledge), just like we regard Nokia as the company that put the mobile phone in every corner of the globe.
...and just like we regard Microsoft as the company that put computers into every home.