Ngng koq aneh sih? bukannya emang tujuannya untuk mencegah "Draconian future" ya? so knapa takut klo ga dapet google service? klo ketergantungan google service malah Draconian future bakal terjadi. Kan enak bwat para device manufacturer klo aosp ga pake google service. Misal nokia bisa adopsi AOSP bayangkan search bisa diubah make bing and map-nya pake nokia lens. imho gw lebih prefer maps di lumia windows phone daripada googlemaps. So para manufacture giants tersebut bisa fokus di ecosystemnya masing2. Dan developernya bisa jualan di banyak tempat misal jualan di samsung app store, nvidia, amazon dll dengan hanya sekali develop sekali karena platformnya tetep sama yaitu android.
On Monday, October 21, 2013 4:02:26 PM UTC+7, hanafi f wrote: > > Errrr... > Jadi kepikiran.... > Pantes samsung penuh *bloatware* > > Apa ini jangan2 alasan *Hugo* pindah ke xiaomi? > > Google = Evil? > > ******************* > > http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/ > ******************* > > Six years ago, in November 2007, the Android Open Source Project (AOSP) > was announced. The original iPhone came out just a few months earlier, > capturing people's imaginations and ushering in the modern smartphone era. > While Google was an app partner for the original iPhone, it could see what > a future of unchecked iPhone competition would be like. Vic Gundotra, > recalling Andy Rubin's initial pitch for Android, stated: > > He argued that if Google did not act, we faced a Draconian future, a > future where one man, one company, one device, one carrier would be our > only choice. > > Google was terrified that Apple would end up ruling the mobile space. So, > to help in the fight against the iPhone at a time when Google had no mobile > foothold whatsoever, Android was launched as an open source project. > > In that era, Google had nothing, so any adoption—any shred of market > share—was welcome. Google decided to give Android away for free and use it > as a trojan horse for Google services. The thinking went that if Google > Search was one day locked out of the iPhone, people would stop using Google > Search on the desktop. Android was the "moat" around the Google Search > "castle"—it would exist to protect Google's online properties in the mobile > world. > Enlarge / Android's rocketing market share > Smartmo / Ron Amadeo > > Today, things are a little different. Android went from zero percent of > the smartphone market to owning nearly 80 percent of it. Android has > arguably won the smartphone wars, but "Android winning" and "Google > winning" are not necessarily the same thing. Since Android is open source, > it doesn't really "belong" to Google. Anyone is free to take it, clone the > source, and create their own fork or alternate version. > > As we've seen with the struggles of Windows Phone and Blackberry 10, app > selection is everything in the mobile market, and Android's massive install > base means it has a ton of apps. If a company forks Android, the OS will > already be compatible with millions of apps; a company just needs to build > its own app store and get everything uploaded. In theory, you'd have a > non-Google OS with a ton of apps, virtually overnight. If a company other > than Google can come up with a way to make Android better than it is now, > it would be able to build a serious competitor and possibly threaten > Google's smartphone dominance. This is the biggest danger to Google's > current position: a successful, alternative Android distribution. > > And a few companies are taking a swing at separating Google from Android. > The most successful, high-profile alternative version of Android is > Amazon's Kindle Fire. Amazon takes AOSP, skips all the usual Google > add-ons, and provides its own app store, content stores, browser, cloud > storage, and e-mail. The entire country of China skips the Google part of > Android, too. Most Google services are banned, so the only option there is > an alternate version. In both of these cases, Google's Android code is > used, and it gets nothing for it. > > It's easy to give something away when you're in last place with zero > marketshare, precisely where Android started. When you're in first place > though, it's a little harder to be so open and welcoming. Android has gone > from being the thing that protects Google to being something worth > protecting in its own right. Mobile is the future of the Internet, and > controlling the world's largest mobile platform has tons of benefits. At > this point, it's too difficult to stuff the open source genie back into the > bottle, which begs the question: how do you control an open source project? > > Google has always given itself some protection against alternative > versions of Android. What many people think of as "Android" actually falls > into two categories: the open parts from the Android Open Source Project > (AOSP), which are the foundation of Android, and the closed source parts, > which are all the Google-branded apps. While Google will never go the > entire way and completely close Android, the company seems to be doing > everything it can to give itself leverage over the existing open source > project. And the company's main method here is to bring more and more apps > under the closed source "Google" umbrella. > Closed source creep > > There have always been closed source Google apps. Originally, the group > consisted mostly of clients for Google's online services, like Gmail, Maps, > Talk, and YouTube. When Android had no market share, Google was comfortable > keeping just these apps and building the rest of Android as an open source > project. Since Android has become a mobile powerhouse though, Google has > decided it needs more control over the public source code. > > For some of these apps, there might still be an AOSP equivalent, but as > soon as the proprietary version was launched, all work on the AOSP version > was stopped. Less open source code means more work for Google's > competitors. While you can't kill an open source app, you can turn it into > abandonware by moving all continuing development to a closed source model. > Just about any time Google rebrands an app or releases a new piece of > Android onto the Play Store, it's a sign that the source has been closed > and the AOSP version is dead. > > *Search* > > We'll start with the Search app, which is an excellent example of what > happens when Google duplicates AOSP functionality. > > In August 2010, Google launched Voice Actions. With it, the company > introduced "Google Search" into the (then) Android Market. These were the > days of Froyo. The above picture shows the latest version of AOSP Search > and Google Search running on Android 4.3. As you can see, AOSP Search is > still stuck in the days of Froyo (Android 2.2). Once Google had its closed > source app up and running, it immediately abandoned the open source > version. The Google version has search by voice, audio search, > text-to-speech, an answer service, and it contains Google Now, the > company's predictive assistant feature. The AOSP version can do Web and > local searches and... that's it. > > *Music* > *Calendar* > *Keyboard* > *Gallery/Camera* > > .... > Locking-in manufacturers > > While Google is out to devalue the open source codebase as much as > possible, controlling the app side of the equation isn't the company's only > power play. > > If a company does ever manage to fork AOSP, clone the Google apps, and > create a viable competitor to Google's Android, it's going to have a hard > time getting anyone to build a device for it. In an open market, it would > be as easy as calling up an Android OEM and convincing them to switch, but > Google is out to make life a little more difficult than that. Google's real > power in mobile comes from control of the Google apps—mainly Gmail, Maps, > Google Now, Hangouts, YouTube, and the Play Store. These are Android's > killer apps, and the big (and small) manufacturers want these apps on their > phones. Since these apps are not open source, they need to be licensed from > Google. It is at this point that you start picturing a scene out of The > Godfather, because these apps aren't going to come without some > requirements attached. > > While it might not be an official requirement, being granted a Google apps > license will go a whole lot easier if you join the Open Handset Alliance. > The OHA is a group of companies committed to Android—Google's Android—and > members are contractually prohibited from building non-Google approved > devices. That's right, joining the OHA requires a company to sign its life > away and promise to not build a device that runs a competing Android fork. > > Acer was bit by this requirement when it tried to build devices that ran > Alibaba's Aliyun OS in China. Aliyun is an Android fork, and when Google > got wind of it, Acer was told to shut the project down or lose its access > to Google apps. Google even made a public blog post about it: > > While Android remains free for anyone to use as they would like, only > Android compatible devices benefit from the full Android ecosystem. By > joining the Open Handset Alliance, each member contributes to and builds > one Android platform—not a bunch of incompatible versions. > > This makes life extremely difficult for the only company brazen enough to > sell an Android fork in the west: Amazon. Since the Kindle OS counts as an > incompatible version of Android, no major OEM is allowed to produce the > Kindle Fire for Amazon. So when Amazon goes shopping for a manufacturer for > its next tablet, it has to immediately cross Acer, Asus, Dell, Foxconn, > Fujitsu, HTC, Huawei, Kyocera, Lenovo, LG, Motorola, NEC, Samsung, Sharp, > Sony, Toshiba, and ZTE off the list. Currently, Amazon contracts Kindle > manufacturing out to Quanta Computer, a company primarily known for making > laptops. Amazon probably doesn't have many other choices. > > For OEMs, this means they aren't allowed to slowly transition from > Google's Android to a fork. The second they ship one device that runs a > competing fork, they are given the kiss of death and booted out of the > Android family—it must be a clean break. This, by design, makes switching > to forked Android a terrifying prospect to any established Android OEM. You > must jump off the Google cliff, and there's no going back. > > Any OEM hoping to license Google Apps will need to pass Google's > "compatibility" tests in order to be eligible. Compatibility ensures that > all the apps in the Play Store will run on your device. And to Google, > "compatibility" is also a fluid concept that an Android engineer once > internally described as "a club to make [OEMs] do what we want." While > Google now has automated tools that will test your device's > "compatibility," getting a Google apps license still requires a company to > privately e-mail Google and "kiss the ring" so to speak. Most of this is > done through backroom agreements and secret contracts, so the majority of > the information we have comes from public spats and/or lawsuits between > Google and potential Android deserters (see: Acer). > > .... > > ******************* > > Next.... > > http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/ > > > -- > | @h4nafi | japri : y...@terserah.de <javascript:> | > -- ========== ID-Android on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u81L8Qpy5A -------------------- Web Hosting, Zimbra Mail Server, VPS gratis Raspberry Pi : http://www.hostune.com -------------------- Aturan Umum ID-Android: http://goo.gl/MpVq8 Join Forum ID-ANDROID: http://forum.android.or.id ========== --- Anda menerima pesan ini karena Anda berlangganan grup "[id-android] Indonesian Android Community " dari Grup Google. Untuk berhenti berlangganan dan berhenti menerima email dari grup ini, kirim email ke id-android+berhenti berlangga...@googlegroups.com .
