Ask the average Android fan why they love their device and you’ll surely hear them utter the words “open source.” With Android, your smartphone is free of chains. You can do anything you’d like with it and aren’t held back by either Google or the hardware manufacturer.
Open-source suggests endless possibilities and freedom, and everyone agrees that’s great. Yet reality often forces an ideal to conform with restrictions that aren’t immediately obvious. Android is no exception and, on close examination, the advantages provided by the open-source platform are slim indeed.
An App Store by another name
Central to the argument for Android’s openness is disdain for Apple’s App Store. Cupertino’s PR department has repeatedly had to deal with bad press related to the banishment of certain apps from its store’s virtual shelves. These issues are offered as proof that Apple is a evil empire willing to sacrifice customers and developers on the altar of profitability.
If Google doesn’t think your app should be on the store, then it won’t be – and that’s final.
Yes, there are other ways to grab apps for Android, but Google Play’s dominance makes this irrelevant. If a developer wants to make money with an app, or gain a broad audience, their app must be on Google Play. The number of people who use alternative app stores, or simply download app from the Web, is infinitesimal. Open development is meaningless if one company controls the only widely used channel for distribution.
What’s openness good for?
What can be accomplished on Android that can’t be accomplished on the iPhone?
The list is short. Some Android phones can tether without being rooted, which is nice as long as your carrier doesn’t catch you. Users also are given more out-of-the-box ability to customize the look of the operating system, which is nice, but usually a matter of form over function. Oh, and Android users can swap out certain baked-in apps, like the keyboard.
What about root? Well, what about it? An iPhone can be jailbroken just as an Android device can be rooted. In both cases you void your warranty and risk bricking your device in exchange for complete control over the OS.
Android experts will argue that jailbreaking isn’t the same as rooting because, via root, an Android device can load a custom ROM. You could even install an entirely different OS, such as the new version of Ubuntu for smartphones. Jailbreaking only allows the installation of unauthorized apps.
That’s true, but again – what’s it good for? The various custom kernels for Android tend to be buggy, unreliable, and slow. Only a handful of projects update with anything resembling rigor and each supports only a fraction of the devices currently on the market. Even if you go to the trouble of rooting your device, thereby voiding your warranty, there’s no guarantee the end result with be better than what you had before.
The power of one
Android’s supposed openness is as much a myth about individual accomplishment as anything else. Die-hard fans of the platform often see themselves as rebels, toiling away at custom kernels in the belief that they’ll be able to craft something better than what comes from labs of stodgy companies with more money than sense.
… Google has chosen to develop Android with only a facade of openness.
The story might be different if Google gave developers more say in he OS itself. Chrome OS, which has been built with far more community feedback, proves that this path is possible. Yet Google has chosen to develop Android with only a facade of openness.
Why? Advertising. Android was created with the goal of bringing Google ads to mobile devices. If the community was more deeply involved developers could insist on features that move away from that goal. They might create easy way to install apps directly from websites or circumvent the mobile ad features baked into the development kit. Don’t let Google’s preaching fool you – in the end, it’s all about the Benjamins.
I’m not sure i agree with the sentiment of this article. Having owned an android device for the last 2 years I can say I’ve benefited from the open source nature. I own a Galaxy S on T-Mobile which left me forgotten in time when pretty much every carrier offered OS upgrades when ICS became widely available. Samsung opted not to extend the same upgrade for my phone because of a business decision, not a technical one. Fortunately for me there is a large rom community and I was able to replace the horrendously buggy version of Gingerbread on my phone for a much better performing custom rom. Sure there are plenty of buggy roms out there but if you do your research you will find one that runs better than stock. I’m sure this puts off a lot of people who just want it to work, well yep, i want it to just work too but i don’t think anyone, apple included, sells a phone that “just works” the way we want it to.
I have a 2 year old HTC Desire rotting in my drawer because I can’t update it past Android 2.3. Had to root it and install a few ROMS before it was stable enough to run Facebook without crashing. I made the switch to a used Windows 7.8 phone and it JUST works. I receive Gmail from multiple accounts along with my Outlook accounts, Facebook and Twitter integration works great as well. Calendars also sync nicely between Google and Windows Live. Android devices are so cheap these days that everyone and their dog can get one free on a contract. Does it mean they’re exploiting it to their full potential? No.
So what was the point of this article again? That Android is not open? So can someone please explain to me how Amazon using Android without Google app store and how Android is everywhere in China. I have excess to the android code so if that is not open then someone show me what open is. Android is open please deal with it. Thanks.
He’s not saying its not open. He’s saying, who’s gives a crap if it is, because the vast majority of people don’t get anything great from having an open OS. The benifits are minimal. And it’s also proven that android is not as open as Ubuntu or Linux. Which are up and coming mobile OS’s. Thanks
Play Store dominates the market for markets so the openess is irrelevant. Who do you think we are? Stupid consumers? And tell that to Amazon: “Hey guys, your App-Store is irrelevant, shut it down already!”
Sideloading Apps? Android is open for all those people who require openess. For all others it is – as you say – just slightly better or probably just as good as the other choices. So? What gives?
Anyway: Look at the Kindle fire and tell me: That possible with iOS and minor competition? Right, it’s not, because, those are not open.
Ah, damn. I did it again, I fell for linkbait.
Matt, whether you are an iPhone user mad about the endless possibilities android has is irrelevant. It’s exactly what you SOUNDED like. Sure for the average user that needs a phone to play a few basic games, text, call, and check email, you are 100% correct, the difference is marginal and they may-as-well get an iPhone. But some people simply ENJOY the tinkering possibilities of their Android. It’s fun to play with apps like Tasker and literally automate everything on your phone the way iUsers could only dream of (including my 100% free antitheft program customized exactly to my desires). I have a Sprint GS3. I am running a ROM that is based on 4.2.2 with tons of extras. The sprint GS3 is still on 4.1.X and filled with bloatware.
Point of this rant? Your iDivice looks/acts exactly like the guy’s sitting next to you with the exception of the wallpaper, the apps installed, and the case. There are no phones that look and act just like mine. That’s why “Open Source” IS a big deal.
I’d almost say this article qualifies for ‘trolling’. Either that, or the Author clearly doesn’t understand the concept of open source, or Android. I benefit from open source on my Linux machines, pads and on my phones. My machines / phones run faster, better and do more than any other operating system I’ve used, including Apple. I can load hybrid OS, compile my own kernel(s) and customize my devices just exactly how I want them. As for the Playstore, I never use it and I know many others that never use it as well. (Since I hang out with other developers, it’s a legitimate statement.) I’m certainly not as biased as the Author is, since I base my findings on fact. If Apple / Windows worked better, I’d use them and I have in the past. The Author banging on open source is clearly a violation of all objective logic.
Open source is for computer nerds such as yourself. I’d say 99% of people with android phones have no idea how to “compile their own kernel(s) lol. The article says who’s gives a crap if it is open.
Who give a crap? I do.
You are the minority.
Count number of likes, see the irony in your remark?
Of course you don’t.
I think you’d find more fandoids read this article. So of course my comment wont be liked. Wah.
You got to look at the bigger picture. Not the black and white of it
Like what this article is saying. Majority wouldn’t give a toss of a OS’s openness.
Thanks
I have owned nothing but Android for the past five years and I agree with the author.
I chose Android because I can have a choice of phones, big screen, small screen, no keyboard, real keyboard etc. However, the phone makers’ attempts to differentiate themselves through software are not beneficial so far. I always try to use stock apps from Google as far as possible because I don’t see how the manufacturers without very much significantly higher investment could produce quality software fragmented over many different models. I don’t want that to happen anyway as the $ per model sold would then be many times that of an iPhone.
Android is not open. If it is open, I would be able to run Shark. But I couldn’t because it says I must root it. Why must I root it? What is root? All my closed Windows PCs come with root since day 1. If Android is open, it should come rooted officially.
You need to understand that Windows CE / 8 is not a ‘rooted’ O.S. Windows on all your phones IS and always has been locked stock, but not in the same way as Andriod / Linux. Many Android phones come rooted, or the ability to root them. Rooting / SU comes from Linux and it’s a whole other philosophy on securing your operating system / device / data. There is a learning curve, but it’s not real hard to learn either. Hence Windows much more vulnerable to viruses, hacks, etc. You and others may not see the benefit from open source, but believe me the quality of the product and the options available because of open source is why Android is currently the number one choice for phones and pads.
i think you misunderstand what rooting is, as it does come from linux but not to secure your system, it’s to gain overall control of the os.
the reason windows gets hacked more and vulnerable to more viruses is because it simply has the most market share. take 100 computers thats 100% now take 2 computers running linux to represent 2% market share…see where i’m going?
also open source mean anyone with source code can contribute to the kernel, but it still must get approved.
oh and android is the number 1 because it’s free, not because it’s open source.