Good article, I hadn't realized that the seemingly kind of sudden lack of hostility and conflict between Samsung and Google was pretty much all Pichai's doing. Before, Samsung seemed all but ready to do a full-strength push of their in-house OS and was using it primarily on their watches. Now, that seems to have fallen down to be more of a side project, and they seem to be going all-in on Android with their smart watches.
I think it's a huge win for the overall openness of the ecosystem to have everybody using the mostly-open Android rather then all develop their own in-house solutions because they're trying to hard to win points off of each other.
Can companies do that? I mean, are you suggesting they basically orchestrated this whole piece -- they have that much power over journalistic outlets?
I actually believed it, my friends at Google pretty much say the exact thing the article was saying, that Sundar is a very non-confrontational and amicable guy who wants everyone to get along.
I think the way it usually works is the company will craft a compelling narrative summary that paints the company in a good light and contact bloggers their PR people have good relationships with. Then when one blogger bites, they give them exclusive access, quotes, sound bites, etc. The blogger then writes their own story the way they see it, but they are primed to write the article the company wanted. At least that's the rumor I've heard about how it works.
A choice quote: "A good flatterer doesn't lie, but tells his victim selective truths (what a nice color your eyes are). Good PR firms use the same strategy: they give reporters stories that are true, but whose truth favors their clients."
I'm sure Sundar's a great guy. Meanwhile, I have no information on this subject that everyone else doesn't already have, so I shall refrain from generating any further information-free noise.
GP isn't wrong, but perhaps comes off a bit harsh. I think it's more accurate to say that it's a bit of a puff piece. I don't think anything in it is outright false, but it may not be telling the whole story. Think of it as closer to how Google wants you to see the market than what the real state of the market is. So it's probably not too wrong, and is useful info for people who aren't really into the market, but you definitely shouldn't make any important decisions based on info in an article like this.
What openness exactly are you talking about? This is all closed source code being shared between some of the worlds largest corporations under secretly negotiated contracts.
Also you make it sound as though they somehow made peace rather than Google just defeating Samsung in the negotiation. It's hardly as if Tizen was a viable alternative.
Android, of course. It isn't perfectly open to the satisfaction of open-source ideologues, but what viable smartphone OS is even a tenth as open as Android? I can't think of any other smartphone OS that's open enough for, say, Amazon to fork it and create their own OS.
It sounds to me much closer to them making peace than a straight defeat. Tizen may not be viable today, but Android wasn't all that great when it first came out either. If Samsung made it top priority for years, things might be very different. Although, it is interesting that all of the modern smartphone OSes are made by companies whose primary business is software - makes you wonder how well any hardware company could do.
>>That Android, the one that most people use, is exactly as 'open' as Windows.
Wow. I can't believe even one person in this world believe that.
To Start with, we all have access to Android Source code. If you know where latest version of Windows is available, please let us know.
Because Android source is available, we build several extensions and customizations (Starting from original source code) for android and make money of it.
It's not a contributory community for one thing, and not developed in the open. Google drive development of the platform and then code dump their work every release. FOSS communities end up having to build around the edges of what Google have accomplished, and you get a general sense that the code only gets put out in the best interests of business with the likes of Samsung, not the little guy. Google aren't even very good at giving straight answers to wider community concerns. Then there's bitterness in the end because you're always going to be dependent on charity from the device manufacturers in letting you unlock your device and provide proprietary driver BLOBs.
Also, the parts of Android that are open aren't really the most interesting ones, but the most mediocre. Much of the guts of Android is merely adequate, technically unimpressive, and deliberately selected over better alternatives because using a truly FOSS base would risk commercial isolation. Android is a platform hobbled together well enough to get manufacturers to put it on their phones and ensure people are using Googles data services.
Bottom line: as long as its slightly better to work with than Apple, and slightly more open, it will win the hearts of developers. But that's a pretty miserable threshold.
>Also, the parts of Android that are open aren't really the most interesting ones, but the most mediocre. Much of the guts of Android is merely adequate, technically unimpressive, and deliberately selected over better alternatives because using a truly FOSS base would risk commercial isolation.
Yeah, that's why FireFox OS (HALs, RIL, mediaserver, input system, portions of the graphic system, init, kernel) and Ubuntu Touch (HALs, kernel, RIL, stagefright, input system, etc.) both borrow large pieces from Android. Even Mir uses the Android input system as its base.
You do realize that you're confirming his point. Basically the drivers and low level components are reasonable pieces of open source, and everything else is unusable by people who want to build a complete system.
If a usable open Android existed, those alternatives would be redundant.
No, he said the open source components of Android were mediocre, uninteresting and selected over superior FOSS components. I listed a bunch of the open source components used by two companies who have no problems with using FOSS components, yet still chose to use the Android bits.
Of course they don't use the ActivityManager, the Activity lifecycle is really an Android-ism and doesn't fit Ubuntu Touch or the web. Of course they didn't use WindowManager when they both already have components to do that kind of thing. Of course they didn't use the high level framework APIs, they have their own API surface.
A usable, open Android does exist, but other companies are still going to explore different platform models. I think the fact that they use a number of pieces from Android pretty much wholesale is a huge point in favor of an open, usable Android.
You're still missing the point that I actually rebutted: that Android's open source bits were mediocre and there exist FOSS components which are better.
Regardless, nobody ships AOSP because everyone wants to differentiate their platform by adding their own functionality on top. There are tons of AOSP-based ROMs on XDA, just go look. But with the abundant number of projects to tweak and modify Android, very few people build purely AOSP ROMs. They all add xposed or xprivacy or whatever because that's what they want to use.
Besides, saying nobody ships AOSP only phones doesn't mean they aren't usable, it just means that are better alternatives.
I acknowledge your rebuttal. Those components are fine.
But that doesn't change overall argument that the open parts of Android aren't a complete solution to make a competitive modern phone. What Google calls 'Android' is not just AOSP. So while AOSP provides an open base for a phone platform. Android as Google uses the term, is not an open platform.
> What Amazon forked is not the Android the licencees like Samsung use.
Of course it is. It doesn't come with the Play suite of apps and services, but the code you see in the open source repository is exactly the same as what Samsung gets.
AOSP is open source. GMS is not. Samsung required GMS to make a commercially viable Android handset that consumers recognize as Android.
Therefore the Android that Samsung (and the other Android makers outside china) licenses is obviously not open-source. This is why Pichai and Google have leverage.
Perhaps you should tell them since you are so attached to this definition. That isn't the definition they used at Google I/O so it would seem that you are out of date.
Samsung hasn't slowed their move off of Android at all. This winter, they released the new Gear 2, which ran Tizen instead of Android. Earlier this month they released details on their new Z phone, their first phone to run Tizen. In addition, they announced that they're moving to Tizen for their smart TVs.
They're still trying to move to Tizen as fast as they can; it's just taking time for them to get there.
Samsung doesn't seem to believe Tizen/Android is an either/or situation. They shipped a Tizen watch and now are shipping Android watches. They are actively developing Android and Tizen phones, and it wouldnt surprise me if they shipped the new Google TV.
Samsung will try anything and go with what sells. Many see this lack of strategy as a weakness, but in some ways it's also their biggest strength.
I wonder if he's sidelining Google+. There was no mention of it at IO this year, as opposed to the last one, where Google+ got it's share of attention.
Several of my friends work for him. They all love it. It's great to see him getting his moment in the spotlight.