“We’re evolving Android and creating an open computing platform that will change the way consumers interact with their mobile devices,” said Kirt McMaster, CEO of Cyanogen Inc. “Foxconn and our diverse group of strategic investors and partners reflect the mobile value chain, from device manufacturers and mobile network operators to chipset makers and 3rd party developers. They see the great potential of what we’re doing in creating the next major paradigm shift in mobile computing.”
If you’re into Microsoft Android, Cyanogen is just the thing for you. I wouldn’t trust such a venture capital-backed startup spouting such grandiose words only to bite the hand that feeds it – Google – while being in bed with Microsoft. New Microsoft or no, it has a history of patent abuse towards Android and Linux, and by letting it infect your Android device you’re just asking for trouble.
with your concerns, Thom.
Right now, Google IS Microsoft in the way that it has a complete dominance on Android’s ecosystem. Android is hard to use without the google services framework. What we need is android to be open enough that it allows any service, whether Yahoo’s, Microsoft, Yandex, etc, to be used in drop-replacement of Google’s services. That would truly make android open. So what Cyanogen is doing is simply giving users the choice of using another vendor’s services other than Google. There is nothing wrong with that because it opens up the possibility of having other services besides Microsoft’s to be used.
It already IS like that. How do you think Cyanogenmod, Nokia X, Yandex.Kit, and the Chinese Android versions work in the first place?
That’s exactly why Cyanogen’s words sound so cheap. The only reason that are able to claim they are going to do X with Android is BECAUSE they can do X with Android.
Yet you seemingly are suddenly hostile towards Cynogen because they are doing X… The only reason I can fathom (because frankly they have been doing X for a long time), is because suddenly now they are getting funded by MS.
I get the resentment toward MS, really I do. I resent them all the time… But ultimately this isn’t about MS, it is about Android, and Android was intentionally licensed to allow this sort of thing to happen. That is in no small part why a lot of us love it…
Do you feel the same hostility towards Amazon? Or [name a Chinese Android maker]? Isn’t Cynogen doing the same thing, just in a better way? I don’t see Amazon or any of the other Android-minus-Google integrators distributing community builds for their competitors phones… Do you?
I’m sorry. I do get it to a degree, but I just think it is far from fair to throw Cynogen under the bus at this point. Can we just give them a small amount of benefit of the doubt until we see where they are going with this? These guys did more work to make AOSP usable, portable, and approachable by normal humans than anyone else I can think of. That earned them a bit of leeway in my book.
As long as they do what they say they are doing, I don’t see the problem with it. Sure, they will be giving Microsoft an opportunity to provide platform services for some Android phones. What if along with that some really good alternatives become available too (something that cannot happen as things are now)? Wouldn’t that be a good thing?
I would rather buy a phone that gives me a choice in my services than one that forces them on me (which is pretty much all existing phones).
Edited 2015-05-19 01:01 UTC
I agree completely with this. And to sum it up my own way: how is Google better than Microsoft / Apple / (insert favourite company here)? 🙂
It certainly is not. Many applications require google location service and there is no alternative that provides the same ABIs.
Edited 2015-05-19 09:52 UTC
I don’t think you really understand what we’re talking about here.
How, then? Someone said Android should be open enough to allow drop in replacements for Google services. You said it already is possible to do so.
There are no replacements for the interfaces that google services provide at the moment (There should be).
Microsoft can provide additional services but most apps out there are using google’s services. Hence, Microsoft’s services are not drop-in services (Drop-in replacement means it provides the same function names, ABIs, etc…)
Think of it as such: Both Gtk+ and Qt provide similar widgets,etc… but you cannot uninstall Gtk+ and install Qt and expect your precompiled applications to use Qt instead. They need to be ported over.
Edited 2015-05-19 15:33 UTC
How is that Googles fault?
Google location service interacts with the system the same way as any other service, using published apis and methods.
So the only thing you need in order to replace google location service, is to create an alternate implementation which implement the same api and install that instead of google location service.
I didn’t say it is Google’s fault.
I only said Microsoft’s services are not drop-in replacements.
They ARE. That’s what you’re not getting. Android DOES allow for drop-in replacements for these services (it’s a core design consideration for Android), it’s just that application developers opt not to support them. Microsoft’s services are drop-in replacements, but few Android developers support them – and you can’t blame them. Not only do they suck, nobody is using them (or other replacements like Yandex).
I know Android allows drop-in replacements.
I think your definition of drop-in replacement is wrong. Drop-in replacement means no need to manually add support or recompile existing software (not even reconfiguration or “reprogramming of the system”(. It means uninstall A and install B and everything works as normal. For example, libressl is not a drop-in replacement for openssl since applications have to be recompiled and in some cases adapted to API changes (in Android’s case, a lot of prorietary software that vendors can’t recompile).
Do you remember when you installed Xorg and removed xfree? That was a drop-in replacement.
A drop-in replacement for google services is what tiller described earlier. Another software the provides the same APIs while internally the code can be completely different.
Edited 2015-05-19 19:10 UTC
Where on my Samsung Note do I go to switch my mapping provider to Microsoft Maps? Or my app store to Amazon?
These things are not just apps when you are talking about system level integration, you can’t even install gapps without root. Google’s approach to this is all or nothing – you cannot pick and choose between service providers for different things, it is a giant monolithic patch for the whole ball of wax. It only works because it is completely non-standardized and all the plumbing is internalized (which is not part of AOSP).
This is what you are not getting… Yes, Android is built to allow services to be changed, but only by developers. There is no defined standard or framework to do this, it is all based on defacto APIs defined by Google for their own services. Sure, developers can substitute something in if they can make it expose the same surface as Google’s APIs do – but its then baked into the build, and Google can break it whenever they feel like.
There is no existing framework to allow users to pick service providers in any meaningful way. That is what Cyanogen is trying to build; a standard way of exposing hooks for this stuff so that such services can be installed and selected by users, and so that apps can be built in a way that would allow them to work with different service providers providing said hooks in a supported and maintainable way that isn’t tied to Google’s API of the week.
Why is that so damn bad? I am a huge fan of Google’s services. I use them all the time, and I have little want or need to switch from them. But even I can see this is a good idea, and a long time coming. Why the hate?
Edited 2015-05-19 19:23 UTC
Very objective and professional tone. Kudos… Uhm, not.
Yeah, that’s the reported intent. From what I understand, all of these non Google services will have to maintain compatibility with the google services apis. So thats great that they might be compatible with the current google services on Lollipop today. Google has taken to updating the services more frequently than android itself, and providing it on multiple android versions as a way of removing a source of fragmentation. So does anyone think that Microsoft, Yandex, or anyone else will be quick at updating their services?
This kind of thing really belongs more in AOSP, if that’s still a real thing that actually works and isn’t just Google’s playground.
but it IS google playground, and (arguably), I would say probably, better for it.
I really actually want Microsoft to have turned a corner in it’s anticompetitive practices of the past and openness etc – and especially when they have the wherewithall to be fully IN and committed, all-steam-ahead ON THEIR OWN mobile platform. proper 3 or 4 way competition would be ideal
I wish they would do this rather than meddle in others ..playgrounds, babies whatever we wish to call them.
is it exclusion of play service/ gapp API from core Android or AOSP that you object too..?
Heck if it lowers the fragmentation it’s all good!
And Android may only be half opensource, but it’s a lot more than iOS, Windows Phone OS
Edited 2015-05-18 17:19 UTC
Its difficult to really discuss this, given my lack of clear understanding of the code involved.
1) I would like the ability to switch out service providers in much the same way that one can switch out windows managers in traditional Gnu/Linux desktop distros.
2) I would like a system that is nicely integrated and works well together.
You could argue that 1 & 2 are at odds with each other. On one hand you have desktop gnu/linux and on the other hand you have something like ChromeOS. I know which one my parents would have less problems running. So maybe its a dream, but I’d like 1 & 2 on my phone as well.
Google really is no different than Apple or Microsoft in the sense that all three are huge businesses with their bottom line the only real thing they care about. And that’s fine, if you go into a smartphone purchase with that firmly in mind. Given that common ground, you have to then approach it from “does the platform do what I need it to?” since any semblance of openness is a farce, no matter which major OS your phone runs.
That said, you can come pretty close to an “open” phone if you don’t mind the legwork, and the only platform this is close to possible on is Android. Unfortunately, at this point the only way to get a truly Google-free Android experience is via Replicant on an older phone, and it’s not yet complete enough for daily use. Barring that, one could forego openness and settle for just Google-free; get a Samsung phone and use only Samsung and third-party apps, leaving the Google-provided apps out of the picture. Still, Google is watching even if you don’t sign into your Google account on those devices.
Another possibility is using a Blackberry Z10 or Z30 and running Android apps on it via sideloading or the Amazon app store. That’s something I’ve been itching to try, but from what I’ve read you’re almost better off just avoiding the Android apps altogether and finding Blackberry equivalents or using web apps, since APK support on Blackberry is hit-or-miss. And it’s still not “open”, just once again trading one corporation for another as the source of your must-have apps.
Edit: I almost forgot about Firefox OS, but the last time I tried it, it definitely wasn’t ready for daily use despite actually being released in a few countries. It’s buggy as hell, slow, and while “everything is a web app” is a nice concept, it doesn’t work well in practice. Still, I’m hoping for the day I can switch to it and be completely free of the other major platforms.
Edited 2015-05-18 17:51 UTC
… Or any Android Rom that doesn’t contain gapps. Possibly even the Amazon fire phone, if you don’t mind Amazon watching everything.
I think Microsoft Android sounds like a brilliant idea. You get Android with Google removed, and then when you don’t use any Microsoft software, you come out on top!