The big huge block on the front of android.com says: <http://market.android.com/>
See the top applications available now on Android Market and publish your own. Not "buy a g1 to get android market".... On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 6:30 AM, Al Sutton <[email protected]> wrote: > > And the products you buy are called the G1 and HTC Magic which are > devices which run the Android OS, you don't buy "Android". > > Android.com does not say that Market, IM, Sync, etc. is part of the OS > (in fact the "What is Android?" page doesn't even mention Market let > alone giving the impression that it's a part of the OS), it shows what > apps can be run on Android, and on the front page their is a 4x3 block > of apps icons, none of these ship as part of the OS, yet they're still > shown on Android.com. > > We all would like to see a lot of things in Android, but our wishes > don't dictate what Android is. > > Al. > > Eric Friesen wrote: > > Yes, obviously. But they call it Darwin not OSX. They are not trying > > to pass off Darwin as anything it's not. So what is your point? > > > > -E > > > > On Mar 19, 1:05 am, Al Sutton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Ermm... Have you neve seen Apple Darwin? > >> (http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html) > >> > >> Al. > >> > >> > >> > >> Eric Friesen wrote: > >> > >>> It's not an argument that Google shouldn't be allowed to have their > >>> closed source apps, or that carriers are taking the open source code > >>> and modifying it. I think we all understand why these things happen. > >>> The problem is that they take this approach but then want to pass off > >>> that closed source stuff as if it were part of their magnanimous open > >>> source effort. Either, A, make sure any Android phone can run the > >>> Market and Google Sync stuff (not necessarily by even open sourcing > >>> it) or B don't advertise that functionality as being a part of Android > >>> (like they do now). > >>> > >>> A good analogy would be like this. Apple announces tomorrow that they > >>> are Open Sourcing OSX as an operating system to smash Windows once and > >>> for all. Because it's open source you can port it to any device you > >>> want, or add any feature you want, don't want iTunes? You can replace > >>> it. All apps created equal, all device drivers created equal! A month > >>> from now they open up a repository where you can download BSD. The > >>> only people who can actually commit to the Operating System are Apple > >>> engineers. They start some forums for interested people to discuss it. > >>> When people ask how they can get it to run on their PC systems they > >>> say "Download the code and get it to work yourself.". Then people > >>> download the code from the repo to get it to work themselves. They > >>> then post "Hey? where is the code for Finder? Where is the code for > >>> Carbon? Where is the code for iTunes?" > >>> > >>> It would be absolutely their right to keep all their code private etc. > >>> But if they are doing that they should say "we are open sourcing the > >>> underpinnings of OSX" etc or somehow make a clear distinction that OSX > >>> does not include Finder, or Safari etc as opposed to videos of > >>> employees introducing OSX by saying "One of the great features I love > >>> about OSX is how easy it is to navigate files using Finder." > >>> > >>> When Android.com lists the Marketplace as a feature of Android, you'd > >>> expect it to be a part of Android. It's a small detail, but the whole > >>> open source relationship is very much hurt when they say one thing and > >>> do another. The "Why don't you just submit a patch?" mentality found > >>> all over the place here doesn't feel very inviting when it looks like > >>> if someone did all the work to port Android to some existing handset > >>> hardware they wouldn't even be allowed to install all the advertised > >>> features of Android. And I very specifically say Android and not the > >>> G1. > >>> > >>> I don't know if others would agree but it just seems like if the PR > >>> speak was a bit more inline with reality then perhaps there would be > >>> more motivation to keep Android on the open path as well as help keep > >>> the community from getting discouraged. > >>> > >>> -E > >>> > >>> On Mar 18, 8:32 pm, Eric Mill <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> That's exactly what I'm saying, Disconnect. Android is a completely > >>>> open source OS. That's the abstraction. What gets shipped is a > >>>> partly-closed source fork of Android. > >>>> > >>>> Android Market is not a part of the OS; it's an application written > >>>> for it. Under what advertising campaign do you see Google implying > >>>> that their open source codebase includes the code for Market? The > >>>> only marketing Google runs is for the G1, which doesn't mention > >>>> anything about being open source (since the G1 isn't). > >>>> > >>>> That's why everyone should keep their anger directed at the > >>>> *carriers*, and not the Android project itself, which is an entirely > >>>> free and open source OS that anybody can put on any phone. > >>>> > >>>> -- Eric > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Disconnect <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Linux is a bad example here. (BSD is better.) The devices all come > with a > >>>>> closed-source fork of "android". Try doing that with debian.... > >>>>> > >>>>> The other posters are correct, android is advertised (by google and > others) > >>>>> as having all of these things built in. (Easy low-hanging fruit: > ANDROID > >>>>> MARKET....) > >>>>> > >>>>> And its not "a completely open source OS" because -completely- is an > >>>>> important word.. there is an open source android OS. Unfortunately, > that is > >>>>> not what is being shipped -by anyone-. What is being shipped is a > closed > >>>>> source OS with some example implementations. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Eric Mill <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Guys, this is ridiculous. Android, like Linux, is a completely open > >>>>>> source OS, and we are all running variants of it, with pieces of > >>>>>> preinstalled software of varying openness and licenses. All the > >>>>>> different RC updates are packaged for a specific client (T-Mobile), > >>>>>> for their customer base. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Also, it gets said all the time on this list, but again: the G1 > isn't > >>>>>> Android. The Android codebase is a pure abstraction, whereas the G1 > >>>>>> is a specific implementation of it, and is full of compromises (like > a > >>>>>> closed-source Market app, and not having root access). The > developer > >>>>>> phone has far fewer compromises, but even that has at least one (no > >>>>>> access to copy-protected paid apps). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If you want a phone with no compromises, start a phone manufacturing > >>>>>> company and make one. Thanks to Android, it's a whole lot easier to > >>>>>> do exactly that. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- Eric > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Muthu Ramadoss > >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Anything not opensource and not part of android must be yanked out > of > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>> android website and must be part of the particular implemetation > like > >>>>>>> g1, g2 > >>>>>>> etc., > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2009 1:30 AM, "Eric Friesen" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Well this reasoning has been brought up numerous times but I think > it > >>>>>>> is quite lame. Visit android.com. More specifically visit > >>>>>>> http://www.android.com/about/videos.html#category=peeks > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Here you can see an "Android" phone boasting about features that > >>>>>>> AREN'T android. This would be like going to Microsoft's website for > >>>>>>> WindowsXP and having it boast about the features of the paid > version > >>>>>>> of Microsoft Office. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> If they aren't going to make these bits of code a part of Android, > >>>>>>> they shouldn't show them off on any OHA or android.com website. > They > >>>>>>> should only be on T-Mobile's website for why you should buy a G1. > And > >>>>>>> they shouldn't be bragging about how there isn't a googlephone > there > >>>>>>> are many googlephones. Since it looks like the hardware doesn't > exist > >>>>>>> and if it did exist, wouldn't even have the full boasted software > >>>>>>> stack. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> They want to eat their cake and have it too. "Android has all these > >>>>>>> great features.. They just aren't actually provided" > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Mar 15, 11:56 am, MrSnowflake <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Even > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>> open source trees (mas... > >>>>>>> > >> -- > >> > >> * Written an Android App? - List it athttp://andappstore.com/* > >> > >> ====== > >> 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. > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > * Written an Android App? - List it at http://andappstore.com/ * > > ====== > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
