Android ROM Modder gets Cease and Desist from Google(maximumpc.com)
maximumpc.com
Android ROM Modder gets Cease and Desist from Google
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/google_issues_cease_and_desist_letter_android_rom_modder
The original site this article references times out for me.
18 comments
I was actually considering an Android phone, the Instinct Q to be precise. I got a Palm Pre two weeks ago, which is also Linux-based, and now I feel that I made the right decision.
With Windows Mobile, I was always running custom ROMs and tweaking. The Pre doesn't have any custom ROMs per se, but that's because the whole thing is so simple that you can easily apply patches (about 90% the user-visible system is created with plain text files--HTML, Javascript, JSON, et cetera).
I work at a T-Mo call center, and there are a lot of reps here who say the myTouch is complete crap without custom ROMs. If Google really wants to build a loyal following--particularly in the tech community--this decision needs to be reversed and /never/ repeated.
With Windows Mobile, I was always running custom ROMs and tweaking. The Pre doesn't have any custom ROMs per se, but that's because the whole thing is so simple that you can easily apply patches (about 90% the user-visible system is created with plain text files--HTML, Javascript, JSON, et cetera).
I work at a T-Mo call center, and there are a lot of reps here who say the myTouch is complete crap without custom ROMs. If Google really wants to build a loyal following--particularly in the tech community--this decision needs to be reversed and /never/ repeated.
Google's official response is here: http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2009/09/note-on-googl...
I still don't think they've adequately covered it. The key to me is in the penultimate paragraph, where they first say
Count me as another who was just about to buy an Android phone, and is now seriously reconsidering.
I still don't think they've adequately covered it. The key to me is in the penultimate paragraph, where they first say
"With a high-quality open platform in hand, we then returned to our goal of making our services available on users' phones.",
"We make some of these apps available to users of any Android-powered device via Android Market, and others are pre-installed on some phones through business deals."
Count me as another who was just about to buy an Android phone, and is now seriously reconsidering.
That's an interesting interpretation of what really amounts to a position statement on software licensing, a position that I'm sure most of all already accept and live by. The base android code is open source. Google has not open sourced the apps they provide that integrate with their other service offerings. These apps are proprietary. Any carrier or handset maker is able to use the android platform, which is open source. I think it's reasonable to allow, and expect, the same entity, be it individual developers or companies, to provide software under multiple licenses. Proprietary software is available for open source operating systems run on desktop computers, and Android helps enable that same software ecosystem on cellphones also. This hardly seems like a reason to NOT get an Android phone, but rather the reason to get one.
No one expects any app developer to open source their app just because it is sold or available in the Android Market. And app developers are welcome to get a carrier or include their app as part of a base install, which is effectively what Google has done as part of being an app developer. If the carrier pays the developer for that, or the developer pays the carrier for that, or if money doesn't change hands for that, maybe the developer just wants increased exposure and usage of their app that would come from it being in a default install, that's between those two parties.
EDIT to add:
It's unfortunate that Google is saying that they license their apps to distributors. What would it take for ROM creators to become licencors? Alternatively, since Google presumably has an interest in people actually using their apps, that they don't provide a way for users who are using a properly licensed phone/ROM who are using those apps to be installed other than through the base install seems kind of shortsighted. Some of their apps are available in the market (like the Finance, My Maps Editor, there was an update to the core Maps app that you installed from the Market), but an alternative of allowing the people who should be able to use the apps, because they've purchased a phone with a ROM that is licensed to, update them seems necessary and right.
No one expects any app developer to open source their app just because it is sold or available in the Android Market. And app developers are welcome to get a carrier or include their app as part of a base install, which is effectively what Google has done as part of being an app developer. If the carrier pays the developer for that, or the developer pays the carrier for that, or if money doesn't change hands for that, maybe the developer just wants increased exposure and usage of their app that would come from it being in a default install, that's between those two parties.
EDIT to add:
It's unfortunate that Google is saying that they license their apps to distributors. What would it take for ROM creators to become licencors? Alternatively, since Google presumably has an interest in people actually using their apps, that they don't provide a way for users who are using a properly licensed phone/ROM who are using those apps to be installed other than through the base install seems kind of shortsighted. Some of their apps are available in the market (like the Finance, My Maps Editor, there was an update to the core Maps app that you installed from the Market), but an alternative of allowing the people who should be able to use the apps, because they've purchased a phone with a ROM that is licensed to, update them seems necessary and right.
You are right of course, and I think I was mostly -- mostly -- over-reacting. I always thought they were entirely within their rights, just that they handled it in a rather unfortunate fashion.
The main point I was trying to make was that they were justifying opening android in order to be able to have a consistent platform to provide their services on, but are now effectively saying that they want to restrict who uses them.
Again, quite within their rights, but if all they cared about was people being able to access their services it would seem to be a non-issue. I'm pretty sure nuclear_eclipse is on the money.
I do agree with your update, and that seems to be effectively the compromise cyanogen has worked out (http://www.cyanogenmod.com/home/the-current-state); we'll have to see what sort of experience that provides.
The main point I was trying to make was that they were justifying opening android in order to be able to have a consistent platform to provide their services on, but are now effectively saying that they want to restrict who uses them.
Again, quite within their rights, but if all they cared about was people being able to access their services it would seem to be a non-issue. I'm pretty sure nuclear_eclipse is on the money.
I do agree with your update, and that seems to be effectively the compromise cyanogen has worked out (http://www.cyanogenmod.com/home/the-current-state); we'll have to see what sort of experience that provides.
Well, "provide" in the sentence "justifying opening android in order to be able to have a consistent platform to provide their services on" has a meaning from the standpoint of the provider. They own the proprietary code of the individual apps (gtalk, mail, voice search, youtube, etc), and in order to be able to _provide_ these specific apps written in this specific code, they needed to open source the platform to encourage other vendors to buy in.
It's actually kind of similar to their stance on the Chrome browser: the web browser itself is open source, and they are providing that in order to enable a consistent platform for their apps (mail, gtalk, youtube, whatever). Just because the browser is open source doesn't mean they need to, or anyone expects them to, open source the code to gmail. If you consider the line between the user and the service to be at the device/UI level, and not at the network level, then this makes sense. They are enabling a better experience by providing functionality that can run more locally to you. This is, however, a huge risk on their part. They know that their software is easier to reverse engineer once it is not running just on their servers -- which, considering the complexity of the gmail android app, makes me wonder why no one has done enough reverse engineering to be able to recreate the UI and still use their backend -- the desktop browser gmail service doesn't require SSL, so it's easy to take a look at the protocol (much easier than trying to network-sniff an SSL session on the android platform itself, if the gmail app uses SSL) and recreate it. And now that they've created and released an app that runs locally they are more tied to a consistent API than they were with just a browser based app, so the rationale of "they'll just change the API and we'll always be playing catch up" against reverse engineering is moot. It's most likely against the gmail TOS though.
Incidentally, I'd like a thirdparty gmail app because I want to access a gmail account that isn't tied to my phone from my phone (like my work account, we use google mail service for company email), however the web based interface is pretty strong. While it's interesting from a UX standpoint to have EVERYTHING tied to one google account, it's not pragmatic and doesn't work with the goal people accessing using/their services.
It's actually kind of similar to their stance on the Chrome browser: the web browser itself is open source, and they are providing that in order to enable a consistent platform for their apps (mail, gtalk, youtube, whatever). Just because the browser is open source doesn't mean they need to, or anyone expects them to, open source the code to gmail. If you consider the line between the user and the service to be at the device/UI level, and not at the network level, then this makes sense. They are enabling a better experience by providing functionality that can run more locally to you. This is, however, a huge risk on their part. They know that their software is easier to reverse engineer once it is not running just on their servers -- which, considering the complexity of the gmail android app, makes me wonder why no one has done enough reverse engineering to be able to recreate the UI and still use their backend -- the desktop browser gmail service doesn't require SSL, so it's easy to take a look at the protocol (much easier than trying to network-sniff an SSL session on the android platform itself, if the gmail app uses SSL) and recreate it. And now that they've created and released an app that runs locally they are more tied to a consistent API than they were with just a browser based app, so the rationale of "they'll just change the API and we'll always be playing catch up" against reverse engineering is moot. It's most likely against the gmail TOS though.
Incidentally, I'd like a thirdparty gmail app because I want to access a gmail account that isn't tied to my phone from my phone (like my work account, we use google mail service for company email), however the web based interface is pretty strong. While it's interesting from a UX standpoint to have EVERYTHING tied to one google account, it's not pragmatic and doesn't work with the goal people accessing using/their services.
Like they say on LWN.net, this might just be an incentive to develop free alternatives to Google's apps. The problem is not Android itself, but the stuff they add on top of it; maps, gmail, etc...
Another alternative would be for Google to simply offer those apps for downloaded as they do for their software on any other platform. I wonder if there is some Google authentication glue that they have not yet modularized enough to allow this to happen.
(That's not to say that there shouldn't be free alternatives developed.)
(That's not to say that there shouldn't be free alternatives developed.)
Those applications are Google's sole bargaining point with handset manufacturers and carriers to have them build Android devices meeting certain requirements in order to make sure the Google Experience is up to par. If carrier/manufacturers don't agree to Google's terms, then they aren't allowed to distribute those "killer" apps with their phones. Making those apps still available to end-users who potentially may or may not have a Google Experience-worthy phone would kill much of their bargaining factor...
That said, as a user of CyanogenMod on my G1, I'd be absolutely heartbroken if his builds could no longer distribute these apps.
That said, as a user of CyanogenMod on my G1, I'd be absolutely heartbroken if his builds could no longer distribute these apps.
I'm not sure which Apps they are talking about as exclusives- in the Android Market, when I search for "Google, Inc.", I see Maps, Voice, Sky Map, My Maps Editor, Scoreboard, Listen, and Finance. What's left? GMail itself? It seems pretty dumb if they're saying they give away all that other stuff and not GMail... or maybe they're just asserting their rights, should they choose not to give away the apps at some point in the future. Doesn't seem to make much sense, given free, useful applications are their bread and butter on the web...
They still have control over use of the "Google" branding, for whatever that's worth, but you're absolutely correct.
Those applications are Google's sole bargaining point with handset manufacturers and carriers to have them build Android devices meeting certain requirements in order to make sure the Google Experience is up to par.
Not sure that this is such a good idea. As soon as someone builds a phone that is otherwise up to spec but doesn't have a good enough camera, it loses Google Maps. Then the users say, "Android sucks, I can't even see maps" and buys an iPhone instead.
Not sure that this is such a good idea. As soon as someone builds a phone that is otherwise up to spec but doesn't have a good enough camera, it loses Google Maps. Then the users say, "Android sucks, I can't even see maps" and buys an iPhone instead.
Well, considering the G1's camera is about as terrible as it can get on a smartphone, I can't imagine another phone missing out on the Google Experience for that, but I completely understand your point. But at the same time, if you consider the G1 as a "baseline" set of requirements, do you really want manufacturers putting out anything less? It's already more-or-less commodity hardware available or $100 or less from the carrier, so there's not much incentive to skimp any further without destroying the UX.
"Android" is used nowhere in the marketing of any of the Android-based phones. That's why it says "With Google!" instead.
When it comes to the consumer, they're not going to even know what Android is. Go ask any Nokia owner if they like their Symbian phone.
When it comes to the consumer, they're not going to even know what Android is. Go ask any Nokia owner if they like their Symbian phone.
And unlike Apple, Google won't reject your app from the Market for duplicating core functionality or competing with core apps.
These apps are very useful, and it's a shame that they're not open-source like the rest of Android.
Google's attempt at open-source Android apps has been... weak... at best. (Hello, "Mail".)
Google's "Google Experience" is also silly. There is a tablet/media player coming out soon that has Android. (Archos 5) But it won't play YouTube videos because the device does not meet the "Google Experience" criteria due to not having a camera. If you want YouTube, Gmail, and Google Maps, your device has to have a camera. WTF, Google?
(Ironically, I think the iPod Touch has Google Maps but doesn't have a camera. So Google is actually encouraging users to use their competition's product instead of their own. WTF, Google?)
Google's attempt at open-source Android apps has been... weak... at best. (Hello, "Mail".)
Google's "Google Experience" is also silly. There is a tablet/media player coming out soon that has Android. (Archos 5) But it won't play YouTube videos because the device does not meet the "Google Experience" criteria due to not having a camera. If you want YouTube, Gmail, and Google Maps, your device has to have a camera. WTF, Google?
(Ironically, I think the iPod Touch has Google Maps but doesn't have a camera. So Google is actually encouraging users to use their competition's product instead of their own. WTF, Google?)
The original article is more informative because it links to the response.
Original: http://androidandme.com/2009/09/hacks/cyanogenmod-in-trouble...
Response: http://androidandme.com/2009/09/news/google-responds-to-cyan...
Original: http://androidandme.com/2009/09/hacks/cyanogenmod-in-trouble...
Response: http://androidandme.com/2009/09/news/google-responds-to-cyan...
Why not just release a binary patch to an official android firmware image (which the phone owner already has), and a patching program? Then he wouldn't have to distribute any google code.
Either that or do a clean-room re-implementation.