Well the rationale is probably simple: it avoids vaporware. Which has been rather common in the IT field.
By not announcing anything you can never miss your targets, at least in public. You are buying yourself the priviledge to release when it's done and not before because some PR person told the world that you'll have it ready yesterday. The drawback is that you've got even less of a roadmap than most opensource projects. Examples include gmail which is sold to enterprise customers and at the same time labeled "beta". Andreas Mariano Kamp <[email protected]> hat geschrieben: >I wouldn't actually consider building a working image from the source the >gold standard. I think it is essential the pre-requisite to breath some life >into independent activities outside Google. Al providing nightly builds are >a prime example. >But I agree that Google is probably working on that and it's just in line >with the prevailing communication style not to make this transparent. > >Btw. I would be really interested in an explanation what the rationale >behind this communication style is. > >On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Tom Gibara <[email protected]> wrote: > >> My opinion, and its nothing more than that, is that the ability to "build a >> working system from the public repository which represents what most users >> are using" represents a gold standard that the Android community can aspire >> to but not expect any time soon. I simply don't think such a simple binary >> metric is adequate to evaluate such a large project. >> >> A few clarifications to my previous post: by Android I (approximately) mean >> the public repository. When someone derives something from Android - say by >> using it as the operating system for a new mobile phone - I do not regard >> that as Android. Immediately, this resolves our differences on (1) and (2). >> As for (3) and (4) I wasn't making a case that any of my criteria are >> pre-requisites for a project to be deemed "open source", only that they >> contribute to my evaluation of the openness of any given software project. >> Incidentally, just because a bug's status is not being updated in the public >> tracker doesn't mean it isn't being tracked internally in a separate system. >> >> I never expected that all of the source code necessary to build say a fully >> working image for the G1 or Google's applications would be open because I >> always expected Android would be a platform that would be built upon by >> closed-source applications and devices. It's unfortunate that many people >> seem to feel betrayed that these things are not available. I think few >> people argue that the use of Linux in closed devices makes it less open and >> I see Android as little different. >> >> Disconnect's post about the deficiencies of the current process has a valid >> point to the extent that that the relationship between the closed and open >> trees seems to be inverted, but why assume that Google's engineers don't >> know this aren't working extremely hard to address it? I would tend to >> assume the opposite. >> >> Tom >> >> >> 2009/4/11 Al Sutton <[email protected]> >> >>> >>> Tom, >>> >>> My metric is simple; Can I build a working system from the public >>> repository >>> which represents what most users are using?, and the answer to that is >>> currently no. >>> >>> To me there are many products being labelled Android; There are the ones >>> that are used on devices, there are the ports that people have made to new >>> platforms, and there is the public repository, and although all these are >>> different in their own way people seem to pick attributes from each and >>> say >>> that's what Android is. >>> >>> As I see things, the answers to your metrics are; >>> >>> (1) You can for the Android open source project, but not for the version >>> of >>> Android that's shipped on the G1, Magic, or ADP1. I will happily admit I >>> am >>> wrong if someone can give me the git revision numbers from the open source >>> project which will build all the open source components of the "official" >>> updates for these platforms. >>> >>> (2) Again, yes for the open source repo, but again builds from the open >>> source repo are not what's in use by a majority of Android users. >>> >>> (3) I've contributed code to "closed source" products before after the >>> source code was made available to me under an NDA. I did not work for the >>> company at the time and I did not get paid for the contribution, so I'm >>> not >>> sure it's a metric of an open source project. I've also had contributions >>> to >>> projects considered as open source sit in a review tree for 6 months and >>> then one another developer submit the same code and it gets integrated >>> (this >>> was a 1 line fix, and so the fix was *exactly* the same). Therefore I'd >>> say >>> this metric possibly isn't a charactistic that identifies an open source >>> product >>> >>> (4) I would again disagree that bugs are ignored, as I stated in my >>> original >>> email there are bugs that are still marked as new after five and a half >>> months. This means they haven't even reached the "reviewed" stage even >>> though many later bugs have. I would also disagree it's a metric of an >>> open >>> source product as there are numerous public criticisms of Windows, and the >>> developers complaining over problems submitting iPhone apps are well >>> publicised, and both of these are closed source projects. >>> >>> I think the main point of our differences is that you see Android as one >>> thing, whereas I see Android as the basis for many things which are >>> trading >>> off a brand, and to me that's like saying IBMs HTTPD is open source >>> because >>> it has a codebase built on Apache (Thanks to Disconnect in >>> http://andblogs.net/2009/04/android-and-open-source/ for bringing the >>> IBM/Apache link up). >>> >>> Al. >>> --- >>> >>> * 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> From: [email protected] >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tom Gibara >>> Sent: 11 April 2009 12:09 >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: [android-developers] Re: SDKs & comparison with the iPhone >>> >>> >>> Hi Al, >>> >>> >>> I think my response might best have been posted to android-discuss, but >>> I'll >>> reply here anyway. >>> >>> Pre-empting a debate about whether Android is open source with the >>> argument >>> "...let's be honest..." isn't adequate. I don't know whether there are >>> established metrics for measuring a degree to which a project rates as >>> being >>> "open source", but here are some of mine: >>> >>> (1) Can I make use of the code and do so freely? >>> (2) Can I distribute the code free of onerous conditions? >>> (3) Can I contribute? >>> (4) Can I be openly critical? >>> >>> By all of these metrics I regard Android as open source. >>> >>> (1) I regularly access the git repository to learn how various Android >>> components work. I downloaded and successfully built an SDK based on >>> cupcake >>> for a preview of forthcoming IMF. On a few private scratch projects, I've >>> copied widget code out of the android framework and tweaked it to make my >>> own UI components. I neither sought nor needed permission from Google to >>> do >>> any of these things because the code was licensed so as to give me these >>> freedoms. >>> >>> (2) Since almost all of the source code is licensed under the Apache >>> License >>> I feel very comfortable distributing any software I derive from it since >>> it's an extremely permissive and well understood license. I've seen a >>> number >>> of people post in this, and other groups, that the absence of some code >>> from >>> the repository disqualifies Android from being open source; even that the >>> inability to create an installable phone image betrays a malign intent. I >>> don't hold with these arguments - they would carry weight if Android was >>> only operable on one model/brand of hardware but since that's demonstrably >>> not the case I'm contemptuous of them. >>> >>> (3) I have to-date made one very modest contribution to the Android code >>> base, but intend to make more when time permits. My limited experience so >>> far is that the Android engineers are extremely receptive to contributions >>> pitched at a technical level and supportive of anyone trying to commit >>> code. >>> Perhaps others have had a different experience. I do anticipate that >>> programmers who think they are going to sweep in and carve out whole new >>> areas of functionality inside the core frameworks will probably be >>> disappointed, but due to an inadequate understanding of how large projects >>> need to operate rather than by intransigent Google staff. >>> >>> (4) This is an important freedom that is not necessarily guaranteed by the >>> preceding ones. I include a public bug reporting system as an element of >>> this. Android has one and there is little evidence that Google engineers >>> ignore the bugs filed there. It's clear that there is insufficient public >>> visibility of the statuses of issues, but that's not the same thing. >>> Reading >>> the android related groups demonstrates that criticisms of Android, >>> irrespective of how well founded they may be, are freely accommodated even >>> though the groups are moderated by Google employees. >>> >>> Given the personal observations above, I find the argument that Android is >>> not an open source project simply misguided. Perhaps it arises in many >>> instances from a lack of experience with open-source or alternatively >>> large >>> scale software development. I'm not denying that there are some key >>> problems, especially concerning the state of the master branch. >>> Nevertheless, having closely observed the progress of the android project >>> since its first public announcement I believe that things have improved >>> considerably and that they will continue to improve; both the core Android >>> team and the community (as with your interim builds) will have a role to >>> play >>> >>> I'm not qualified to comment on the experience of releasing iPhone >>> applications, and I'm inclined to believe what you report - that the >>> experience of most iPhone developers is not as negative as many websites >>> like to report. For companies and individuals who are looking to generate >>> more revenue more quickly that they might with an Android application, I >>> would do nothing to dissuade them from investigating other opportunities; >>> the iPhone foremost. >>> >>> Nevertheless, I regard it as almost inevitable that those with power will >>> ultimately abuse it. As a consequence I believe that Apple will ultimately >>> abuse their monopoly of the App Store. In contrast, I expect the open >>> source >>> nature of Android to protect its community of users from egregious abuses >>> that could be countenanced by present or future management of Google or >>> the >>> OHA. >>> >>> I regard the ceding of software to its related community via the process >>> of >>> "open sourcing" it as analogous to the establishment of a democracy which >>> forces the government to be reasonable with those governed and thus >>> protects >>> against the worst excesses of its corruption. Companies that open source >>> the >>> software they produce are serving their users by protecting them against >>> the >>> potential actions of future management. Given the significant commitment >>> that I must make to any new platform I adopt, I regard this as any >>> extremely >>> beneficial provision. >>> >>> Tom >>> >>> >>> 2009/4/11 Al Sutton <[email protected]> >>> >>> >>> >>> Now before I start on the iPhone comparison I'm going to pre-empt >>> the normal >>> "But Android is open source....." response by saying lets be honest >>> and >>> admit it as it stands Android is not an open source project because >>> the >>> public "open source" repository is pretty worthless in its' current >>> state. >>> >>> The last time I tried to build the master branch it failed missing >>> some >>> Google internal API classes. The SDKs I've produce from the cupcake >>> branch >>> seem to be considered by Google employees as pretty useless with >>> comments >>> like "This is why we want to be clear it is "unofficial," because >>> it >>> is not >>> actually a working SDK" being thrown around and networking in the >>> emulator >>> still being broken a week after users started reporting the >>> showstopper >>> problem (And Romain did hint that Google have a fix, I read >>> >>> http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers/msg/41fcefc36bd16d44 as >>> "there is a version where this is fixed"). And as we all know you >>> can't use >>> it to build the exact versions of the open source parts of either >>> of >>> the two >>> firmware versions that have shipped on the G1. >>> >>> To me it seems little more than code dump which is aimed at >>> ensuring >>> Google >>> can keep saying "But it is open source and not just a Google >>> project" >>> >>> Now, in the last week I had few conversations with iPhone >>> developers >>> so I >>> could compare the Android developer experience to that of what is >>> perceived >>> as our nearest competitor and they are laughing at us (seriously, >>> when I >>> mentioned the G1 most of them responded by initially chuckling). >>> The >>> general >>> consensus among them was; >>> >>> - Yes, you pay $99 for the iPhone dev kit, but you get "free" >>> external >>> testing (i.e. at apple) and commercial quality support with many >>> queries >>> being turned around in hours or a couple of days at worst. Compare >>> that to >>> some of the support queries on b.android.com for basic problems >>> things like >>> a Android failing to connect to wireless lans with hidden SSID >>> (http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=1041) which, >>> after *five >>> and a half months* is still marked as "New" and doesn't have a >>> single >>> response from a Google employee. >>> >>> - The most common cause of App Store listing rejections are things >>> that >>> users would complain about anyway. This includes things like >>> performance >>> characteristics, UI anomalies, and inconsistent behaviour. This is >>> the type >>> of stuff that is left for users to find out on Android and only >>> comes to >>> light when 1* or 2* comments are posted and even then you don't >>> know >>> if it's >>> a one off on the users device or possibly something specific to >>> their region >>> (http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=2372). >>> >>> - The normal amount of time from submission to app store listing is >>> around 7 >>> days. Some apps take months to go through the approval process, but >>> that is >>> because of intellectual property concerns, concerns over offensive >>> content, >>> or is because the app has to be re-reviewed a few times to meet the >>> apples >>> performance and behaviour guidelines. Yes it's not as fast as >>> Android, but >>> you know that once it's on the market it's of a quality where >>> you're >>> not >>> going to get bombarded with user queries about problems straight >>> off. >>> >>> - Most of the developers actually feel valued by Apple and feel >>> that >>> Apple >>> does what it can to make sure they get the tools they need to do >>> their job >>> and ensure they're apps. This has been re-enforced by allowing the >>> developers to beta test the new firmware and develop against it. >>> >>> Personally, it's made me shell out $99 for an iPhone SDK, dust off >>> my Nokia >>> N81, and spend $75 on eBay on a Blackberry so I can explore the >>> alternatives. >>> >>> Al. >>> >>> --- >>> >>> * 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > >> > >> -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9. Please excuse my brevity. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
