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. > I’m honestly asking, because I didn’t know that, and I’m willing to be educated if so. However, I think it’s important to differentiate between "nice" features like the Market and the Google contacts-synching system, and essential ones without which the device is basically useless as a computing or telecommunications system. The SetupWizard is proprietary to google. That’s one of the things that’ll have to be pulled. Now, devs have already figured out how to enable a phone without this, but… as it stands you’d be limited to Wifi only. No network for data transmission. (Calls, yes. Data, no.)

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  2. Clearly, Cyanogen needs to move over to the Maemo/N900 side of the playing field. At least there he’ll be appreciated.

  3. From [this article](http://techgeist.net/2009/09/google-sends-cease-desist-notice-android-modifier/): >The issue that Google has levied is that CyanogenMod’s developer is not just rewriting the open source bits of Android, but some of the closed bits, too. This means the Gmail and Gtalk applications, among others. So basically, Google served a C&D letter to a developer who attempted to rewrite some of their closed-source applications. I don’t see how this is "stupid" or "evil". I would label it "expected".

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  4. Corporations are evil because their motives have to do with profit, not with helping people. Why would Google be a special case? Their claim that they are not evil is just clever marketing.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  5. robertgentel, I’m gonna call you out on your bullshit sensationalized title. Android aside, Google plays a huge part in contributing to the open source world. Through the Summer of Code, they give millions of dollars to students and open source organizations for projects that improve open source applications; they help host projects through Google Code; they’re involved in hosting and sponsoring open source conferences; and they have a number of important internal projects like Unladen Swallow and Chromium that are transparent and give code back to the community to be included in upstream projects. That said, I think there are some good points made in the discussion of this on /r/Android. Maybe Google has made some bad moves over the course of this situation, but I wouldn’t conflate that with Google’s overall stance on open source, which you seem eager to do.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  6. We are all EVIL because we all work for profit. How many programmers do you know that work for free.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  7. [...] How Google Just Hurt Itself A Whole Lot, techgeist.net [...]

  8. Google evil? That’s unpossible! — Ralph Wiggum

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  9. Google is using Open Source as a tool, in the same way Microsoft has used commodity computing as a tool. Google’s core product (their Search Engine) is not open source, and it will never be open source. They’re just as closed as Microsoft is with Windows in this regard. It surprises me how few people realise this. Microsoft give away an absolute *ton* of stuff around their core product (Windows) too, with the sole purpose of making their core product popular, like Google do. They both do a ton of stuff to advance computing, to push things forward for us, but at the end of the day they do it to *push their core product*. Saying Google stands for Open Source is like saying Microsoft stands for commodity computing manufacturers like Dell and HP. Like duh. But it’s important to remember that the only reason they do it is to get you dancing around their core product. Open Source is pushed by Google like it’s the right thing to do, and yet there’s no chance in hell they’ll ever make their core product Open Source. They’ll give you an entire operating system (Chrome OS) and its source code, but no let you anywhere *near* their search engine source. Go figure. Disclaimer: before putting on your OSS fanboy hat on and down-voting ignorantly, please give it some thought. If you’re legitimately down-voting, please do clarify where you feel my argument breaks down.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  10. Annotations need to switched to auto on , on the embedded player. You cant see the words

  11. > So basically, Google served a C&D letter to a developer who attempted to rewrite some of their closed-source applications. Actually, the developer was distributing the closed-source applications unmodified, not rewriting them. Rewriting wouldn’t have been a problem, since it would not be Google’s code anymore. (Although the author of the article you link to seems to mean something else by "rewriting".)

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  12. I agree with you. But like itsitsitsitsitsits, I feel that robertgentel made the title slightly sensational. To say that they do not believe in open source at all is false. They do come out with open source products (i.e. Chrome). While their core product is in fact closed source you cannot ignore everything else.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  13. Why do their core products have to be open source? How does that impede their ability to contribute to the open source community? Yes, Google benefits from being involved in OSS. In fact, *everyone* benefits from OSS. What Google gains does not detract from what the open source community has gained from them. You have the right to be skeptical, and even cynical, about large corporations using and abusing people for their own gain, but that’s not the case here. However, when you set out to build an open platform like Android, anything you do that makes that platform less open is antithetical and unhelpful. In that sense, I can see the frustration with Google over Android specifically. Also, I should mention that while much of Google’s infrastructure is closed, they have published papers describing key components of their operations (among many other subjects). While this isn’t the same as opening up an implementation, it’s another way they give back.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  14. More like *you cannot ignore their core product*. Google Search and GMail is to Google what Windows and Office are to Microsoft. Everything around Windows and Office can be free for all Microsoft cares – and much of it is, Microsoft has financed a *huge* ecosystem around these products where people feel like they’re getting a ton of stuff free (media player, .NET, directX, massive amounts of learning resources) but it’s all there pretty much to support their core product. Similarly everything around Google Search and GMail can be free for all Google cares. And most of it is. They facilitate this process by supporting Open Source, but they don’t do it out of the goodness of their hearts. They do it because they want as many people as possible building stuff around their centre of the universe, and therein lies the conflict with Microsoft.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  15. So GWT and all the other tools that G has given everyone lee to use is a myth huh? Downvoted for lack of sensibilities.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  16. Fact : Google != Jesus Solution : Get over it

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  17. Are you kehidding? Have you heard of the free software movement? GNU? FSF? Although companies, and therefore, paid employees have made large contributions to these projects, most were started as hobbyist projects (Linux, anyone?), and many are still kept going largely through donated code.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  18. The only thing wrong with your argument is that it’s vacuous. Google is a for-profit company. Of course they are motivated to protect their core product. It’s not very insightful to point out that a for-profit is motivated by profit. I think Google gets picked on more than most companies because of their "don’t be evil" marketing campaign. I don’t know if they deserve that treatment, maybe they do. But the reality is that they aren’t significantly more or less evil than any other for-profit. Lots of companies do good things for the public, and in every single instance, one can always make the argument, "they are only doing it for their own self-interest". Or, "it’s all a big marketing ploy". Or, "they don’t really *believe* in the greater good." But those complaints are bullshit because they are all based on some imagined notion of a company as a person who has feelings and hopes and dreams. And some companies are nice guys, while others are bad guys. But a for-profit company is just a big soulless entity that wouldn’t exist if it didn’t chase a profit. So don’t waste our time by arguing whether X company is a nice guy or a bad guy, because they are all soulless. Instead let’s just compare what they actually *do*. Does Google actually *do* things which are good for the public? Yes.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  19. They still have a day job or else they couldn’t afford the internet bill.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  20. **Good for the public?** Zoom out a little. Follow Google’s activity to its logical conclusion. They want everyone using Google search, regardless of hardware and software, which can effectively be free for all they care. Now imagine at some point all 7 billion people on earth, *every single one of them* is using Google Search to find information. Draw your own conclusion. Google are far more dangerous than Microsoft could ever be, they don’t just want the $50 cut in your computer, they want the entire world’s information flowing through them. It doesn’t matter how many good things you do for the public on the way if you’re headed for a colossal train-wreck.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  21. Logical fallacy anyone?

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  22. > Corporations are evil because their motives have to do with profit, not with helping people. So everything in the natural world (including humans) is evil as well?

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  23. You do realize that you broke the joke, right?

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  24. [Readability](javascript:(function(){readStyle=’style-newspaper’;readSize=’size-medium’;readMargin=’margin-medium’;_readability_script=document.createElement(’SCRIPT’);_readability_script.type=’text/javascript’;_readability_script.src=’http://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readability/js/readability.js?x=’+(Math.random());document.getElementsByTagName(’head’)[0].appendChild(_readability_script);_readability_css=document.createElement(’LINK’);_readability_css.rel=’stylesheet’;_readability_css.href=’http://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readability/css/readability.css’;_readability_css.type=’text/css’;_readability_css.media=’screen’;document.getElementsByTagName(’head’)[0].appendChild(_readability_css);_readability_print_css=document.createElement(’LINK’);_readability_print_css.rel=’stylesheet’;_readability_print_css.href=’http://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readability/css/readability-print.css’;_readability_print_css.media=’print’;_readability_print_css.type=’text/css’;document.getElementsByTagName(’head’)[0].appendChild(_readability_print_css);})();) is a beautiful thing.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  25. Increasing organization size and distance from those affected makes people care less about how their actions affect others.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  26. You didn’t answer my question. Consider an *E. coli* bacterium, which has no notion of community, "helping", or "corporation", and which nakedly acts towards its own short-sighted material gain. Is it evil?

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  27. Its unfortunate you don’t understand the separation between proprietary software and open source software. Its sometimes difficult to mix the two, but not impossible. The Android Open Source project is still open source. not “ish,” Open; open like the Open Source Initiative defines; under an extremely free set of licences (Apache2 and GPL2) Open source implies the ability to have access to the code upon which software binaries are created.

    Open source does not express the freedom to share binaries made from this source, nor the ability to share other people’s software without right. Don’t sully the open source movement misunderstanding the issues here at hand. A big company and an independent engineer made a couple of faux pas in releasing unpublished software and sending a C&D, but don’t confuse this issue with the openness of the android open source project.

  28. > Consider [...], **which has no notion** of community, "helping", or "corporation" That’s a lot different between bacteria which doesn’t even think versus corporation run by people with brain. Or are you saying that we human is as short-sighted in ability as those bacteria?

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  29. I’m asking whether this idea of "evil" can be applied to any actor, or if there’s some special property of corporations that makes it *bad* that they’re profit-focused, and if so what that property is. And by "no notion" I mean not only that bacteria don’t think about these things, but that there’s nothing they do that could reasonably be described *by us* in those terms.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  30. Yes, and if they start acting in a way that people don’t like then a competitor will rise up and replace them. Obviously a company would want to increase its market share, that’s kind of the point.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  31. The concept of evil is rather loosely defined. Also, it’s not something fundamental about reality like the laws of physics. It’s a consensus reality concept, and there isn’t even an especially solid consensus on the subject. Usually, people talk about evil in contexts where there is presumably consciousness and free will. So, I think most people would not apply the concept to a bacterium. A corporation presumably has people involved in the decision making, so the concept seems more applicable there. Anyways, I don’t think that "evil" *is* anything in particular. I was merely using it to as a label for some forms of behaviour. I felt like posting a brief comment instead of explaining these behaviours and their undesirability in detail.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  32. But Satan believes in Jesus

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  33. [...] How Google Just Hurt Itself A Whole Lot | Techgeist 〈CyanogenMod のアンドロイド改造について〉 [...]

  34. Google’s summer of code is a marketing gimmick to generate goodwill and find good talent. It isn’t because they really care about the philosophy of open source. They contribute tiny things to the open source community for the marketing (goodwill) that it brings. But you will not find a single core part of their infrastructure, the kind of stuff that is actually a competitive advantage, open sourced. Their position is duplicitous. They support the open source community only insofar as it helps them. That isn’t support for open source, that is pedestrian self-interest. It’s to be expected, and there’s nothing wrong with it, but their line about choice always being good for users is a duplicitous one that they only apply when their competitors are trying to buy market share. When it comes to opening up the stranglehold they have on search you’ll never see them support these principles by open sourcing their crown jewels or refraining from buying market share themselves.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  35. Why do you need the apps? Wasn’t the whole point of web 2.0 apps in the browser?

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  36. Dumb article and dumb post. Google doesn’t own the map data for Google Maps. They license it from a third party. It is extremely likely that the license agreement includes a clause requiring Google to protect the licensed IP. If so, they can’t just stand by and let someone make copies, or they risk losing their license.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  37. You said it better than I could. I hope more of us speek out. Maybe google will wake up and change this policy. Thank you for this editorial.

  38. What makes you think that just because they come out with open source projects they actually care about the philosophy? Do you consider that it may simply align with their self-interest? When the stuff that really matters, the stuff that would actually *compete* with them, is not open source it’s a pretty good indication of where they stand on the matter.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  39. You said it better than I could. I hope more of us speek out. Maybe google will wake up and change this policy. Thank you for this editorial.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  40. > They contribute tiny things to the open source community for the marketing (goodwill) that it brings. But you will not find a single core part of their infrastructure, the kind of stuff that is actually a competitive advantage, open sourced. Like [tcmalloc](http://goog-perftools.sourceforge.net/doc/tcmalloc.html)? [protobuf](http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/)? [sparsehash](http://code.google.com/p/google-sparsehash/)? These are just three I’ve made use of this past week alone, and there are hundreds more deriving from Google’s search and serving infrastructure.. Heck, the browser I’m typing this reply with relies on tcmalloc. As I’ve said in the past, there’s no GNU Public Entitlement License. There’s nothing nefarious about not making every single software component open source.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  41. How do any of those compete with Google?

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

  42. > they have published papers describing key components of their operations I agree with most of your other arguments. But the said papers are so light on detail that they dont much make sense as academic treatises.

    This comment was originally posted on Reddit

Leave a Reply