Like Techgeist? Donate.
Need to Contact Us? Read This. Also, find out more about us on the About page.
Advertisement
Advertisement

How Google Just Hurt Itself A Whole Lot

By Michael Klurfeld on September 27, 2009

The Story

While that video might be taking things a little far, it does reflect a sentiment which a lot of people have right now.

Once upon a time (read: earlier this week), there was a little ROM that could called CyanogenMod. Basically, it is Android as it should be. It’s faster, works better, and has a whole slew of features that Google just didn’t build in. For example, you can’t run applications that are stored on an SD card with the standard build of Android, despite the small size of the on-board ROM. CyanogenMod doesn’t have this problem.

But Cyanogen, the developer behind the mod, recently received a cease and desist notice from Google. Essentially, despite Android’s being open source, many of the applications in it such as Gmail and Google Maps are closed source and can only be distributed by an entity licensed to do so. In those advertisements for “<insert Android handset name here> with Google,” the with Google bit indicates that Google applications are on the phone.

And We Will March On

Cyanogen recently updated his site to to say that development on CyanogenMod would not cease, but it would be slowed down a bit. Future releases will be “bare bones,” meaning that they will only include the open source bits such as the core components of Android and the applications which allow you to make phone calls and SMS messages. If you want to actually use your Android phone as a smartphone, you’ll first need to back up the applications you legally obtained with a separate tool, one which Cyanogen is developing. So eventually CyanogenMod will start coming out regularly again, though it’ll take a while to get things up to speed.

Taking The ‘Open’ Out Of Open Source

In my last post on this, I talked about how, unfortunately, this is well within Google’s legal rights. But really, Google would have been wiser to ignore that.

Google’s new stance on who can do what with Android places a massive barrier in the way of real open source projects. One of the reasons why Android seemed so cool initially is because it’s a prominent project from one of the most well-known tech companies in the world, and it’s open source. Or so we thought. Technically, parts of Android are still open source, but the experience users have come to hold in such high regards is certainly not. Thus the evidence has shown that Android is not open source.

Don’t Be Stupid

I don’t want to talk about whether or not Google is being evil, but rather say just how Google is being really stupid.

The first part is that Google has just burned up a ton of social capital. Even though we in the tech world are coming to see Google as the super-corporation which is slowly but surely taking over our lives, there’s still good will towards the company. Now a lot of that is gone. Android was supposed to be a fully functional alternative to the eternally closed platform that is the iPhone. It’s almost as if Google had turned us around just long enough to stick a knife in our backs.

And it’s not like that social capital was spent on anything good. Basically, Google came down on someone who was doing something good for them. CyanogenMod had one of the most rabid fanbases of any Android project out there, and rightfully so. The product was damn good, to the point that many people went out and bought their own Android handsets just so they could get in on the awesome, modified operating system. Now modders and developers across the world can’t make anything like that anymore lest they want to face the same legal threats that Cyanogen saw.

There’s not much Google can do to win back the community. Sure, people will keep using Android, but not with that same wide-eyed excitement. The simplest course of action would be to create a separate status for entities like small modder groups so that they could distribute Google’s closed applications. That way, development could keep going strong and Google would still have legal authority to take action if a major handset maker violated a licensing agreement. Unfortunately, it is rare for a major corporation, even Google, to change its position.

[Thanks for the tip, Dmonzel]

Share
You can comment either manually filling in your personal information, or you can use your Facebook Account to fill in the information for you. Just click the button below to sign into Facebook.
Have Nothing To Say? Share this article with your friends using one of our share buttons above.

Leave a Comment.

Comments

  1. To clarify my previous post, they do release a lot of software that gives them a competitive advantage, even with their search infrastructure. tcmalloc is one of the better examples as it’s the sort general, low-level optimization that can be applied to almost any project, or at least its underlying libraries. Keeping it closed would have made for a clear competitive advantage throughout all of their infrastructure. As noted, it’s just one example. Google Code lists [761 projects](http://code.google.com/hosting/search?q=label:Google), and while the majority are samples and libraries built on top of their projects, well over a hundred are important infrastructure tools. You won’t find the entirety of their search infrastructure neatly packaged together, but the bits and pieces Google has open sourced represent a significant and valuable portion of their core infrastructure.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  2. You know what? Google didn’t have much choice in the matter; if 3rd party proprietary software is a part of the whole then google has to abide by their rules. Just like people can’t develop commercial software without following the GPL for example if they use GPL software. What this guy was doing is neat but it is against other agreements that google has going internally and with other software makers and the various phone companies.

  3. At best, it’s ethical egoism — that is, people do good things because it is beneficial. Expecting altruism from a corporation is silly; getting angry because your expectation is not met is worthy of ridicule.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  4. Google doesn’t need to open source their core product to support open source. Google’s core product (the search engine) isn’t software, its a service, that they provide to you as raw data, which you then have the open source tool of choice to use to interpret. I’m an open source advocate, but I don’t understand when people get upset about websites not releasing the source to their *in house* software, (but I do appreciate when it is open!) its not getting distributed.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  5. Just keeping Google’s services running faster than the competition’s is short-sighted. If by releasing tcmalloc’s source, then the typical Apache deployment is sped up, and the typical Firefox installation is sped up, and even if the competitor’s search engine is sped up, then in turn users use the Internet more. And when users use the Internet more, they click on more ads.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  6. Google is really starting to rear that ugly proprietary head. I was really looking forward to picking up a phone from my provider so I could tinker with cyanogen. Fuck it! I’m getting an iPhone!

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  7. Does this kill graphs and pictures?

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  8. If we want to use 100% Open Source Software, we need to take searching the internet into our own hands. However for that to happen there needs to be more dominating public support of open source operating systems and software. It’s a political thing, and currently the Free Software "party" doesn’t have the majority in the "House" or "Senate". When searching is dominated by Free Software like web servers are now, I think we can say that developing using Open Source has finally succeeded.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  9. Wow, didn’t realize this came along with a video, after that loaded title. Now I can see why this has just as many down votes as it does up votes.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  10. No doubt those bits are valuable, but they are in no way threatening to Google. Like I said, the stuff that matters, the stuff that could actually hurt their bottom line is the stuff you’ll never see as open source. It’s easy to give away bits that don’t matter to you while touting customer choice. It’s easy to tout customer choice when it’s Microsoft buying Yahoo’s search traffic but ignore it when it’s Google buying DoubleClick. That Google is duplicitous and speaks out of both sides of their mouth on the issue of openness and customer choice is self-evident. I’m not trying to argue that they aren’t making any valuable contributions to open source. I’m arguing that they only make contributions to open source when it suits their strategy.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  11. > It’s easy to give away bits that don’t matter to you while touting customer choice. If the bits I’ve referred to don’t matter, which bits do? You seem to be defining "important" specifically as "things Google isn’t open sourcing." > That Google is duplicitous and speaks out of both sides of their mouth on the issue of openness and customer choice is self-evident. I don’t see any example of this at play, even in the article in question. Open source is open source, closed source is closed source, and nobody is pretending to commit 100% to one or the other.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  12. Big deal. Right before the update, the user runs an SD-reformatter application, with all appropriate disclaimer and info on what it means.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  13. If we want to use 100% Open Source Software, we need to take searching the internet into our own hands. However for that to happen there needs to be more dominating public support of open source operating systems and software. Its a political thing, and currently the Free Software "party" doesnt have the majority in the "House" or "Senate". When searching is dominated by Free Software like web servers are now, I think we can say that developing using Open Source has finally succeeded. Many of Googles Open Source contributions could be said to keep that from happening for as long as possible. However there is a thin layer of contributions that can be tweaked to have the opposite affect; Chrome, Android, and Unladden Swallow are a few of those.

  14. What about [MapReduce](http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/osdi04/tech/full_papers/dean/dean_html/)?

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  15. Android itself *is* open source. Look, you can go download it and do what you like. Some of the apps shipped on Android devices are not open source. That is the way it is and the way it has always been. Nothing has changed.

    Whining that Android isn’t open source because you can’t redistribute the Google Maps app yourself is like saying that Linux isn’t open source because you can’t redistribute it with a copy of Photoshop bundled. You’re fundamentally missing the point here.

  16. > If the bits I’ve referred to don’t matter, which bits do? You seem to be defining "important" specifically as "things Google isn’t open sourcing." Not at all. I’ve repeatedly stated the criteria for what does: "the stuff that could actually hurt their bottom line." You won’t find them sharing their algorithms that make their results ranking better than their opponents. You won’t find them sharing their algorithms that make their contextual ad matching better than their opponents. You will find them share low level algorithms that are old and non-threatening for them to share. > I don’t see any example of this at play, even in the article in question. I’m not restricting my comments to what is contained in this article, which was just the starting point for this discussion. Have you ever seen them say that customer choice is good and competitions is good? If not, I’ll find you examples of them saying that when they oppose competitors buying market share. If they really lived that kind of principle, however, they wouldn’t do things like try to patent the simplicity of their home page, or engage in the same exact same kinds of buying of market share (DoubleClick being a good example) that they criticize when Microsoft is doing it.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  17. Yeah, they’re being paid for *other* work. The open source stuff is still being done for free.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  18. There *is* a perfectly free, open-source version of Android that any manufacturer can use absolutely free of charge. It’s only when manufacturers want to include the Google Experience that money and proprietary apps comes into the equation.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  19. Obviously but the point being that probably 90% or more of the OSS programmers work for companies that make profits. So it’s stupid to act like you don’t understand how Google operates with regards to OSS.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  20. Why are you such an angry FOSS militant?

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  21. Downvoted for typical sensationalist FOSS zealotry.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  22. How’d you get so smarmy, son?

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  23. What makes you assume I’m a FOSS militant? Hint: I’m not.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  24. Well, for one you seem to have some kind of ethical or ideological hangup with a for-profit company also contributing to open source in a way that doesn’t hurt their core revenue stream. I don’t know why anyone with a sane view of open source would hold such a silly position. Why does it even matter if Google "truly" cares about OSS or any underlying philosophy? They benefit the community, do they not? If this arrangement is mutually beneficial there should be no problem.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  25. Perhaps you should avoid projecting. I’ve said not a word about having an ideological hangup. I don’t open source everything I code either (many times because I don’t want others poring over my bad code). > Why does it even matter if Google "truly" cares about OSS or any underlying philosophy? I’ve also never said it should "matter". I’m simply pointing out their duplicity and that they don’t. Jump to conclusions much ephekt?

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  26. >Perhaps you should avoid projecting. Projecting what? >I’ve said not a word about having an ideological hangup. I didn’t say you did. >I’ve also never said it should "matter". I’m simply pointing out their duplicity and that they don’t. Fair enough, I guess. Although, I’m unaware of where you’ve actually done this. What I’ve seen is a bunch of opinions and conjecture. I was simply wondering where this was coming from. >Jump to conclusions much ephekt? Everyone jumps to conclusions; it’s part of our inductive thinking process. And it’s actually a very good thing that we do.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  27. "You might prefer one more than the other, and thus the more popular ones get more applications built, developers move to develop on the platform, and when the developers move, most users don’t realise this, but it’s where the developers like to go that determines what will progress and ultimately be used by you regular folks" Source : http://thinkmoult.com/2009/05/30/beware-of-google/ I dont want to say anything more!

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  28. I think that Google is trying to keep the search waves fair and unbiased. Although they offer alot of competing softwares and programs, Google has never looked at taking a side and has ranked all websites fairly based on its algorithm paramaters. I believe that Google has been the key in the new internet boom and we should be thankful for such an innovative search engine and company.

Leave a Reply