I can see how it can be done, but my point is it's being done by a group 
of companies claiming to support the OHAs vision for Android.

If a non-OHA member had created made changes to close off certain bits 
then fair enough, they haven't signed up to the OHA vision so it's their 
call, but T-Mobile, HTC, and Google have all signed up to the OHA vision 
but are knowingly delivering something which doesn't comply with it.

It makes me question the future stability of the OHA when it's members 
aren't sticking to some of it's core claims for Android from day 1, 
because it basically means that anything that the OHA say will happen to 
Android can't be relied upon to become reality from a end-users perspective.

Al.

Disconnect wrote:
> Its apache-licensed.  Just pretend that the upstream is 'equal' and 
> they created a closed-source fork of it. (Since, realistically, thats 
> what happened with the dream product tree. Compounded when they merged 
> it to their p4/cupcake instead of the old master, basically making it 
> forever unreachable.)
>
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Al Sutton <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>
>     But  a group of OHA members made the first deployment where a
>     number of
>     apps aren't equal (e.g. Market using locked down APIs, 3rd party
>     diallers being unable to call emergency services, etc.).
>
>     So if the OHAs own members aren't sticking to that idea, why are
>     the OHA
>     claiming it's one of features of an Android system?
>
>     Al.
>
>     Muthu Ramadoss wrote:
>     > "All Applications are created Equal"
>     >
>     > holds true for all applications created on top of Application
>     Framework.
>     >
>     > It does not mean that the applications created will be open or free!
>     >
>     > take care,
>     > Muthu Ramadoss.
>     >
>     > http://linkedin.com/in/tellibitz +91-9840348914
>     > http://mobeegal.in - mobile search. redefined.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 7:51 PM, aayush
>     <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>     > <mailto:[email protected]
>     <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     >     The adage that all applications are created equal cannot
>     hold true in
>     >     a real commercial rollout by a carrier.
>     >
>     >     Carriers would want to achieve service differentiation and a
>     >     competitive edge over their peers. So they would always want
>     to lock
>     >     down some apps to provide them to only their customers.
>     >     If all applications would be equal, what value proposition
>     will they
>     >     show to their customers ?
>     >
>     >     So i think, that this statement of application equality does
>     not hold
>     >     good....no matter how good the intentions may be..the
>     carriers wont
>     >     tolerate it !
>     >
>     >     Aayush
>     >
>     >     Muthu Ramadoss wrote:
>     >     > I guess "All applications are created equal" will hold
>     true when
>     >     you roll
>     >     > out your own custom Android implementation. If we consider
>     the G1
>     >     > implementation of Android, of course the Carrier is going to
>     >     lock down a lot
>     >     > of Apps which the Carrier believes is important enough to be
>     >     locked down for
>     >     > various reasons.
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     > take care,
>     >     > Muthu Ramadoss.
>     >     >
>     >     > http://linkedin.com/in/tellibitz +91-9840348914
>     >     > http://androidrocks.googlecode.com - Android Tutorial.
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Al Sutton
>     <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>     >     <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>>
>     wrote:
>     >     >
>     >     > >
>     >     > > Debate on the policy is another (probably lengthy)
>     discussion,
>     >     the fact
>     >     > > is that the policy exists and because of that all apps
>     are not
>     >     equal as
>     >     > > the OHA site claim that "All applications are created equal"
>     >     doesn't
>     >     > > hold up.
>     >     > >
>     >     > > Al.
>     >     > >
>     >     > > Shane Isbell wrote:
>     >     > > >
>     >     > > >
>     >     > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:27 AM, Al Sutton
>     >     <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>     <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>     >     > > > <mailto:[email protected]
>     <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]
>     <mailto:[email protected]>>>>
>     >     wrote:
>     >     > > >
>     >     > > >
>     >     > > >     They would need stretch that somewhat and define
>     the dialler
>     >     > > >     application
>     >     > > >     as non-core for that to work in relation to the
>     block on
>     >     third party
>     >     > > >     diallers calling emergency services.
>     >     > > >
>     >     > > > This is one area I agree with Google on. If there is a
>     >     hostile app,
>     >     > > > dialing out false emergency requests, clogging the system,
>     >     people
>     >     > > > could die. Of course, Google deserves all the other
>     crap you
>     >     give
>     >     > > > them, so keep swinging. Maybe some candy will fall out.
>     >     > > >
>     >     > > > Shane
>     >     > > >
>     >     > > >
>     >     > > > >
>     >     > >
>     >     > >
>     >     > > --
>     >     > > ======
>     >     > > Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales
>     with the
>     >     > > company number  6741909. The registered head office is
>     Kemp House,
>     >     > > 152-160 City Road, London,  EC1V 2NX, UK.
>     >     > >
>     >     > > The views expressed in this email are those of the
>     author and not
>     >     > > necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates,
>     >     or it's
>     >     > > subsidiaries.
>     >     > >
>     >     > >
>     >     > > >
>     >     > >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > >
>
>
>     --
>     ======
>     Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the
>     company number  6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House,
>     152-160 City Road, London,  EC1V 2NX, UK.
>
>     The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not
>     necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's
>     subsidiaries.
>
>
>
>
>
> >


-- 
======
Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the 
company number  6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House, 
152-160 City Road, London,  EC1V 2NX, UK. 

The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not 
necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's 
subsidiaries.


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Android Discuss" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to