|
|
|
|
|
by ignoramous
3992 days ago
|
|
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. |
|
>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.