[ignoramous]

> Google gets the best of both worlds here. As an open source project, Eddystone gets lots of hardware support from vendors, but if developers want to give users the best experience and have an easier time themselves, they have to submit to the walled garden. Eddystone doesn't need to be tied to Google though, and if developers want to use their own cloud solution or client API

This is a killer. This isn't really open source at all [0]. Google controls the eco-system, and has most of the other vendors at its mercy (like how they flip search algorithms, give Google products a prominent listing in the search page, blacklist developers/websites etc). More than Search, its the mobile OS and API monopoly that Google is trying to build that's going to hurt even more.

I work on AOSP, and I think it is ridiculous that Google owns so much of the eco-system [1] and continues to get praised for being "open" as well; very much like how this article seems to be praising them now.

Besides, whatever happened to proposing to a central body and getting stuff standardized (I get that its political and slow, and no ones like slow)? Google works with W3C to get stuff in the HTTP standard [2], with ECMA too [3], but seems to have problem engaging standards body for other things where it has a near monopoly. Not long after Chrome has taken over a large market share, Google would start treating W3C the same, if it hasn't doing been that already [4].

[0] http://techcrunch.com/2009/12/22/google-open-when-convenient...

[1] http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-...

[2] http://www.tomsguide.com/us/google-spdy-http-internet-w3c,ne...

[3] https://brendaneich.com/2015/06/from-asm-js-to-webassembly/

[4] http://www.neowin.net/news/microsofts-pointer-events-becomes...

/rant /offtopic

[bitmapbrother]

>I work on AOSP, and I think it is ridiculous that Google owns so much of the eco-system [1] and continues to get praised for being "open" as well; very much like how this article seems to be praising them now.

They own so much of the ecosystem because they produce 99% of the code. It continues to amaze me how ungrateful people are to Google and their AOSP project considering they're the ones spending millions on R&D each year, yet that still isn't enough for the vocal pro RMS minority.

[ignoramous]

So are countless other companies (Mozilla, Segment, Facebook, Netflix) and individual developers open sourcing their code the right way unlike Google which seems to be using that as either to gather community consensus or to attract businesses (Hey! You're not tied to us, just roll your own Google Play Store equivalent, and replicate Google Play Services, and you're done, its all too easy, and if you don't trust us, fork the project, its all open source! But you know what... if you don't sign the OHA we'd not provide any support, and if you do sign the OHA, then you must install our closed source apps).

If you worked with AOSP, you'd rather be more frustrated than grateful. Google is getting a lot of the bugs fixed for free! And its model has none of the downsides. Mind you, Google doesn't develop AOSP in the open. It releases source drops every other month or so, I think. There's a rumour that their internal branch and one that's open sourced isn't the same. If you'd recall, Google refused to release code for Android for Tablets (honeycomb) at all. So that's there too.

[bitmapbrother]

What part of Google's AOSP do you disagree with? Is it that they don't perform every single commit in public or is it that their services aren't open sourced? As for your reference to the Google Play Store - this makes no sense at all. It's a service hosted and maintained on Google servers. Did you really expect Google to give this service away to any competitor that decides to fork Android?

>But you know what... if you don't sign the OHA we'd not provide any support, and if you do sign the OHA, then you must install our closed source apps).

Why would Google support a version of Android that refuses to pass the CTS? Do you really think Google would allow a device to use their services that was incompatible with Android? Also, why else would a company join the OHA other than to get the Google Apps and Services?

>If you'd recall, Google refused to release code for Android for Tablets (honeycomb) at all.

The code wasn't in a state to be released as it was incomplete. When they pushed ICS out they also included the Honeycomb source. So, it was released eventually.

>Google is getting a lot of the bugs fixed for free!

Would you by chance know the percentage of bugs fixed by people not employed by Google? I'm going to guess that percentage is very very low.

[ignoramous]

There's no real collaboration with external parties as far as I am aware ala the Node Foundation, the Linux Foundation etc;

And even if a device passes CTS, Google would not automagically hand you the keys to the Google Play Services kingdom.

As for Play Store / Play Services is concerned, they've been moving a lot of code to closed-sourced APKs. For instance, the default browser was open source, now the default browser that's Chrome isn't. The default keyboard was, now it isn't. The Camera app was, now it isn't. They started out being more open than where they are now. And that's my beef with AOSP.

I don't have the count of number of bugs non-Google employees fix. The percentages may be negligible, but the impact is high-- They do seem to be looking at mods elsewhere (swipe to dismiss notification? battery percentage in the status bar? open apps from lockscreen? CyanogenMod had them first), and they did just brought in Knox from Samsung recently.

Also, I am not asking for free Play Store support, no sir; I am asking for an open and standardized integration of multiple appstores and related services. But I guess that's not possible (see first line), and elaborate hacks such as MicroG need to be put in place https://github.com/microg (a loosing battle, IMO).

[Oletros]

> And even if a device passes CTS, Google would not automagically hand you the keys to the Google Play Services kingdom.

Why they should give it? CTS has nothing to do with Play Services

[ignoramous]

I know. It was in response to what the other fellow HNer commented: "Why would Google support a version of Android that refuses to pass the CTS? Do you really think Google would allow a device to use their services that was incompatible with Android"

[Oletros]

> if you do sign the OHA, then you must install our closed source apps

This is not true

[ignoramous]

http://googleweblight.com/?lite_url=http://arstechnica.com/g...

[dannyr]

But then people complain that Samsung, HTC, etc changes Android so much that they clamor for Google to control the OS more.

Damn if you do, damn if you don't.

[pjc50]

This would be much less of a problem if it were as easy to reinstall the OS on your phone as it is on a PC.