Official statement from Google regarding the Cyanogen controvery

Search This thread

blueheeler

Senior Member
Nov 7, 2008
343
0
Corpus Christi
I have no idea where this needs to be posted. There are a number of different threads regarding this topic, and I know at least one of them are locked. So mods, feel free to move, delete or merge this as you see fit.

Google, via the Android Developers Blog, issued a statement a short while back. Here it is ...

A Note on Google Apps for Android
Posted by Dan Morrill on 25 September 2009 at 2:31 PM

Lately we've been busy bees in Mountain View, as you can see from the recent release of Android 1.6 to the open-source tree, not to mention some devices we're working on with partners that we think you'll really like. Of course, the community isn't sitting around either, and we've been seeing some really cool and impressive things, such as the custom Android builds that are popular with many enthusiasts. Recently there's been some discussion about an exchange we had with the developer of one of those builds, and I've noticed some confusion around what is and isn't part of Android's open source code. I want to take a few moments to clear up some of those misconceptions, and explain how Google's apps for Android fit in.

Everyone knows that mobile is a big deal, but for a long time it was hard to be a mobile app developer. Competing interests and the slow pace of platform innovation made it hard to create innovative apps. For our part, Google offers a lot of services — such as Google Search, Google Maps, and so on — and we found delivering those services to users' phones to be a very frustrating experience. But we also found that we weren't alone, so we formed the Open Handset Alliance, a group of like-minded partners, and created Android to be the platform that we all wished we had. To encourage broad adoption, we arranged for Android to be open-source. Google also created and operates Android Market as a service for developers to distribute their apps to Android users. In other words, we created Android because the industry needed an injection of openness. Today, we're thrilled to see all the enthusiasm that developers, users, and others in the mobile industry have shown toward Android.

With a high-quality open platform in hand, we then returned to our goal of making our services available on users' phones. That's why we developed Android apps for many of our services like YouTube, Gmail, Google Voice, and so on. These apps are Google's way of benefiting from Android in the same way that any other developer can, but the apps are not part of the Android platform itself. 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. Either way, these apps aren't open source, and that's why they aren't included in the Android source code repository. Unauthorized distribution of this software harms us just like it would any other business, even if it's done with the best of intentions.

I hope that clears up some of the confusion around Google's apps for Android. We always love seeing novel uses of Android, including custom Android builds from developers who see a need. I look forward to seeing what comes next!

Source:
http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2009/09/note-on-google-apps-for-android.html
:(
 

coolbho3000

Retired Senior Recognized Developer
Dec 26, 2008
897
785
We're still asking for community access to these applications that are almost essential to the current Android experience. I really doubt it's hurting their bottom line substantially enough to justify the killing of their distribution.

In other words, Mr. Morrill's post was pretty much a sugarcoated attempt to gain some of the PR they lost.

We always love seeing novel uses of Android, including custom Android builds from developers who see a need.
A "novel" use from a developer who "sees a need" is quite a way to describe a substantially improved version of your OS.
 
Last edited:

Jonno12345

Senior Member
Jul 5, 2009
242
59
So what is the conclusion? A lot of the things could be replaced, but as mentioned before, the sync tools and so forth are tricky to get around. What is the next step from here?
 

daveid

Senior Member
Jan 5, 2009
1,891
356
Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra
How so? What would be wrong with releasing the ROM without the google apps, but have a script or something that runs on first boot that installs the missing apps?

Without the basic function to sign into the device using your Google credentials, the ROM is useless. You can't just grab them from another build (as far as I know) because of the way they are tied in at compiling to the framework. So you would have to pull the ROM, grab the proprietary pieces from somewhere else, and compile the source yourself.

Right?

To touch on this in another way, what would it take for Cyanogen to become a licensed distributor of Google's Apps for Android? If there are really 30,000 users, couldn't legal fees be gathered from them? And, couldn't the business license be set up as a Not-For-Profit? Like the Association of Cyanogen Followers? If it were, wouldn't the required fees to license the distribution rights of the software be tax-free and operating expenses for the association? Meaning, any costs for running the business could be taken out of membership dues and donations? With the rest being tax write-offs?

Just a thought, as I would love to see this made legit, 4.0.4 is great, but I don't want this to stop here.... selfish I know, but it's the truth.
 
Last edited:

Hexxer

Senior Member
May 19, 2009
265
57
How so? What would be wrong with releasing the ROM without the google apps, but have a script or something that runs on first boot that installs the missing apps?

I guees thats no way. What if you have a wipe? No APNs or anything else? You cant dowmload "Market" als a single-app directly from google (as i know).
 

AquaVita

New member
Aug 21, 2009
2
0
Without the basic function to sign into the device using your Google credentials, the ROM is useless. You can't just grab them from another build (as far as I know) because of the way they are tied in at compiling to the framework. So you would have to pull the ROM, grab the proprietary pieces from somewhere else, and compile the source yourself.

Right?

Then what the hell is google talking about "encouraging other ROM releases"? If that isn't possible without some pieces of Google software, then is it literally impossible to develop a custom ROM for android?

Thoughts, Cyanogen?
 

dwang

Senior Member
Nov 23, 2008
2,453
318
Without the basic function to sign into the device using your Google credentials, the ROM is useless. You can't just grab them from another build (as far as I know) because of the way they are tied in at compiling to the framework. So you would have to pull the ROM, grab the proprietary pieces from somewhere else, and compile the source yourself.

Right?

Is this true? If its proprietary how did CY compile them in the first place? In order to compile don't you need access to the source?
 

zapote21

Senior Member
Aug 18, 2009
312
74
Westfield, IN
So just come up with replacements for those apps that are closed source and not available on the market...

Devs WILL find a way... I guarantee you

But yeah, Google SUCKS on this...They could have just given him limited licensing...
 

commandar

Member
Jun 17, 2009
24
30
Without a doubt the most foolish decision I've seen Google make in terms of Android so far. This puts a major damper on a community that was helping make Android better in very real ways.

The only explanation I can come up with is that the closed apps use 3rd party licensed code that Google can't redistribute. Otherwise this is just completely boneheaded.
 

camalot

Retired Recognized Developer
Jul 25, 2007
643
138
46
Hickory Hills IL
de.codeplex.com
With a high-quality open platform in hand, we then returned to our goal of making our services available on users' phones. That's why we developed Android apps for many of our services like YouTube, Gmail, Google Voice, and so on. These apps are Google's way of benefiting from Android in the same way that any other developer can, but the apps are not part of the Android platform itself. 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. Either way, these apps aren't open source, and that's why they aren't included in the Android source code repository. Unauthorized distribution of this software harms us just like it would any other business, even if it's done with the best of intentions.

They claim these apps (YouTube, Gmail, etc) are Googles way to benefiting from Android, but they are not distributed with all android phones? I understand that companies license these applications from Google, but how does it hurt them if they are installed on a device that would already have them?

Then they say "We make some of these apps available to users of any Android-powered device via Android Market", yet this entire thing came about because the Android Market is being distributed? How can any device get these if the market is one thing that can not be distributed?

I paid for the ADP1, which came with Gmail, YouTube and the other applications. The ADP1 feature was that I could flash any ROM I wanted to on the device, but now they are telling me that I can't put one on there if it contains their applications that my device had in the first place.

Hello Google, welcome to the the Dark side, so much for "Don't be evil"

I will help with anything I can on a project to replace the Google Products.