google phone support

[Guest Richard_Arkless]

We know that google provides driver support for a select few handsets like the nexus one and the g1 but what I dont understand is why dont they provide driver support for far more phones wouldn't this decrease the vast amount of phones that are still on 1.5, 1.6 and 2.0.

Plus there wont be as much as much of a waiting game as we do with companies like huawei

Edited June 29, 2010 by Richard_Arkless

[Guest Azurren]

We know that google provides driver support for a select few handsets like the nexus one and the g1 but what I dont understand is why dont they provide driver support for far more phones wouldn't this decrease the vast amount of phones that are still on 1.5, 1.6 and 2.0.

Plus there wont be as much as much of a waiting game as we do with companies like huawei

With-google devices have to remain as stock android as possible.

Phone manufacturers want to mod the hell out of it and add their own "unique selling point". Let's face it "Android" to most people is NOT a selling point as they have no idea what it means.

So to them Android with motoblur (Dubbed to increase usability / add new features) > Stock android.

[Guest Richard_Arkless]

With-google devices have to remain as stock android as possible.

Phone manufacturers want to mod the hell out of it and add their own "unique selling point". Let's face it "Android" to most people is NOT a selling point as they have no idea what it means.

So to them Android with motoblur (Dubbed to increase usability / add new features) > Stock android.

I agree but do it like how we see it with computers, when we buy a pc it comes with bloat that the oem thinks you will need

And the people that want a clean and stock experience can buy windows 7 off the shelves and install it

So maybe google can do something similar

Edited June 29, 2010 by Richard_Arkless

[Guest racingclub]

how can the handset manufacturers sell their latest and greatest models if they continue to support their legacy hardware?

OS version is a very visible key differentiator isnt it?

[Guest Richard_Arkless]

how can the handset manufacturers sell their latest and greatest models if they continue to support their legacy hardware?

OS version is a very visible key differentiator isnt it?

Well same question can be asked when people buy windows 7 over buying a new computer, does it hurt sales yes but not by much cause sometimes its not possible to install it on existing hardware whether it is

a hardware limitation

difficult for novices

All the other things

Edited June 29, 2010 by Richard_Arkless

[Guest Azurren]

The Motorola droid x is near stock android.

Manufactures are learning. :lol:

[Guest Richard_Arkless]

The Motorola droid x is near stock android.

Manufactures are learning. :lol:

We aint having this debate on whether a rom should be stock or not, were having this debate on whether google should support more android phones out of the box

[Guest Azurren]

We aint having this debate on whether a rom should be stock or not, were having this debate on whether google should support more android phones out of the box

My point is if the manufacturers are willing to develop stock devices then they will be able to meet googles criteria. Then the ball would be in Googles court

[Guest Richard_Arkless]

My point is if the manufacturers are willing to develop stock devices then they will be able to meet googles criteria. Then the ball would be in Googles court

Well I think its both of their faults but if google did support more devices then I would say fragmentation would decrease and wont be as much of a problem

I just hate the fact that the pulse is not that old, I thought and im sure many others did as well that it wouldnt take that long for an os update but we had to wait months for an update which is disgraceful and the same can be said about 2.2 if huawei and tmobile releases it that is

If I wanted to voice it to google what would be the perfect way, through their forum?

Edited June 29, 2010 by Richard_Arkless

[Guest Azurren]

Well I think its both of their faults but if google did support more devices then I would say fragmentation would decrease and wont be as much of a problem

I just hate the fact that the pulse is not that old, I thought and im sure many others did as well that it wouldnt take that long for an os update but we had to wait months for an update which is disgraceful and the same can be said about 2.2 if huawei and tmobile releases it that is

If I wanted to voice it to google what would be the perfect way, through their forum?

Actually I think a good old fashioned letter is still the best way to complain. It gets forwarded to a higher up rather than being read and discarded by an employee (With some cheesy copy + paste response)

But it will do very little good.

It's like complaining to Microsoft that Windows 7 lags on your HP computer and that they should support the HP hardware better.

[Guest geekmystique]

Well I think its both of their faults but if google did support more devices then I would say fragmentation would decrease and wont be as much of a problem

I just hate the fact that the pulse is not that old, I thought and im sure many others did as well that it wouldnt take that long for an os update but we had to wait months for an update which is disgraceful and the same can be said about 2.2 if huawei and tmobile releases it that is

If I wanted to voice it to google what would be the perfect way, through their forum?

You could try but I don't thing the chances are good.

As far as I know, Huawei didn't pay a dime to use Android on their phone, for the Google branded devices (like the Motorola Droid/Milestone, N1) the manufacturers (Motorola, HTC) have deals with Google and work together while developing the device and writing the additional code. For the Pulse Google doesn't know the hardware, as Huawei is in charge (building of a Google design), hence they would not be able to properly support it.

Maybe if the Pulse user base was big it would make sense for Google as they get some ad income, but we're pretty much stuck with an open source based device with customizations from a company that doesn't have to give us anything more than they already have. The biggest hope for making the platform better is Huawei updates and this community.

[Guest Stevos]

I think the problem is deeper than that.

My understanding is that the drivers are usually written by the hardware manufacturers (eg. foxconn will provide a linux driver for a 3g modem chip they make, company XYZ will provide a driver for a wifi unit etc etc.

I think these drivers in some cases contain proprietary non-free (possibly patent encumbered) code, and potentially trade secret related code which is considered part of the intellectual property of the chip manufacturers.

I think then that a company like Huawei, HTC, motorola or whoever will *license* this (probably with minimal fee along with an order for X million chips, and possibly an NDA) - They may then modify them somewhat to their requirements.

The problem doesn't appear to be that drivers are unavailable for the chips that are used (they obviously are), but that the code is not free to be distributed (and re-engineering something to work against someone else's proprietary hardware without their blessing is not really feasible)

If it does work like this, then the industry will need to change to allow this sort of thing to happen, or community development projects will always be limited by the availability of drivers. It's similar to the issues around BIOS on PCs http://www.openfirmware.info/Welcome_to_OpenBIOS

[Guest Epic-Emodude]

I agree but do it like how we see it with computers, when we buy a pc it comes with bloat that the oem thinks you will need

And the people that want a clean and stock experience can buy windows 7 off the shelves and install it

So maybe google can do something similar

So your saying that once I buy an Andrioid phone I should then be able to buy Android on a CD that I could then install on my phone that would find the right drivers and give me the stock android experience?

[Guest Azurren]

So your saying that once I buy an Andrioid phone I should then be able to buy Android on a CD that I could then install on my phone that would find the right drivers and give me the stock android experience?

In an ideal world that would be.. Well.. Ideal

[Guest Richard_Arkless]

I think the problem is deeper than that.

My understanding is that the drivers are usually written by the hardware manufacturers (eg. foxconn will provide a linux driver for a 3g modem chip they make, company XYZ will provide a driver for a wifi unit etc etc.

I think these drivers in some cases contain proprietary non-free (possibly patent encumbered) code, and potentially trade secret related code which is considered part of the intellectual property of the chip manufacturers.

I think then that a company like Huawei, HTC, motorola or whoever will *license* this (probably with minimal fee along with an order for X million chips, and possibly an NDA) - They may then modify them somewhat to their requirements.

The problem doesn't appear to be that drivers are unavailable for the chips that are used (they obviously are), but that the code is not free to be distributed (and re-engineering something to work against someone else's proprietary hardware without their blessing is not really feasible)

If it does work like this, then the industry will need to change to allow this sort of thing to happen, or community development projects will always be limited by the availability of drivers. It's similar to the issues around BIOS on PCs http://www.openfirmware.info/Welcome_to_OpenBIOS

Is that allowed because google android is open source so shouldn't the drivers have source code provided as well, isnt that what is being said in the GNU public licence and if that is true then isnt it violating it

So your saying that once I buy an Andrioid phone I should then be able to buy Android on a CD that I could then install on my phone that would find the right drivers and give me the stock android experience?

no of course you wont need to buy a cd I was using windows 7 products as an example but if you bought a phone the manufacturer can fill it up with bloat and if you the user doesnt like all that bloat then you can freely download the stock version

If google had full control and provided drivers themselves then yes you could install it on your phone, same with nexus one, they provide FULL driver control and now those users are receiving an ota update and it hasnt been that long since the source code has been released

which is why google should adopt more phones so all this fragmentation is decreased dramatically

Edited June 30, 2010 by Richard_Arkless

[Guest Azurren]

no of course you wont need to buy a cd I was using windows 7 products as an example but if you bought a phone the manufacturer can fill it up with bloat and if you the user doesnt like all that bloat then you can freely download the stock version

If google had full control and provided drivers themselves then yes you could install it on your phone, same with nexus one, they provide FULL driver control and now those users are receiving an ota update and it hasnt been that long since the source code has been released

Okay time to put a huge downer on this.

The Nexus one was a Google Phone. Google achieved most (if not all) of the profit / loss of the device.

Do you honestly believe that Google would employee 1000's of programmers to develop and maintain all android devices, optimizing drivers, creating custom kernels etc. For Nothing?

Google's android OS is free. They already make a loss on it. What CEO in there right mind would take on even more that may have the financial effect of scaring the shareholders into ultimate bankruptcy. (Would you back a company that was giving more and more away for free?)

Yes, it is probably an evil method of monopoly to take over the world

Plus who would benefit from this? Existing customers? Can we even call them customers? They aren't paying Google Diddly-Squat.

This will never happen. :lol:

[Guest Tom G]

I think the problem is deeper than that.

My understanding is that the drivers are usually written by the hardware manufacturers (eg. foxconn will provide a linux driver for a 3g modem chip they make, company XYZ will provide a driver for a wifi unit etc etc.

I think these drivers in some cases contain proprietary non-free (possibly patent encumbered) code, and potentially trade secret related code which is considered part of the intellectual property of the chip manufacturers.

I think then that a company like Huawei, HTC, motorola or whoever will *license* this (probably with minimal fee along with an order for X million chips, and possibly an NDA) - They may then modify them somewhat to their requirements.

The problem doesn't appear to be that drivers are unavailable for the chips that are used (they obviously are), but that the code is not free to be distributed (and re-engineering something to work against someone else's proprietary hardware without their blessing is not really feasible)

If it does work like this, then the industry will need to change to allow this sort of thing to happen, or community development projects will always be limited by the availability of drivers. It's similar to the issues around BIOS on PCs http://www.openfirmware.info/Welcome_to_OpenBIOS

That is exactly the problem. To make it worse Huawei don't want to release the bits that they have written (they could release the vendor config minus the code they don't own), but the core things that we need (like the qualcomm ril driver) are closed source and Huawei cannot release them even if they wanted to. HTC release some of their code, but there are still closed source bit. HTC devices are the most well supported and AFAIK you cannot build a fully working HTC rom from the publicly available source, you need to include precompiled proprietary libraries for a lot of features to work.

[Guest Richard_Arkless]

Okay time to put a huge downer on this.

The Nexus one was a Google Phone. Google achieved most (if not all) of the profit / loss of the device.

Do you honestly believe that Google would employee 1000's of programmers to develop and maintain all android devices, optimizing drivers, creating custom kernels etc. For Nothing?

Google's android OS is free. They already make a loss on it. What CEO in there right mind would take on even more that may have the financial effect of scaring the shareholders into ultimate bankruptcy. (Would you back a company that was giving more and more away for free?)

Yes, it is probably an evil method of monopoly to take over the world

Plus who would benefit from this? Existing customers? Can we even call them customers? They aren't paying Google Diddly-Squat.

This will never happen. :lol:

I understand but doesnt other open source products get their profits through other things e.g. documentation, support, advertising etc

Lets look at the linux kernel for an example which android is based off, thousands of thousands of changes get implemented into the kernel, more and more drivers are being put into the kernel and then get considered on whether it should be in the official kernel source or not, why cant google do the same thing open up the kernel to developers where they can submit their changes and drivers and at the end of it google analyses it and considers to keep it in there or not

Edited June 30, 2010 by Richard_Arkless

[Guest Tom G]

Is that allowed because google android is open source so shouldn't the drivers have source code provided as well, isnt that what is being said in the GNU public licence and if that is true then isnt it violating it

Android isn't licensed under GPL, it is under the Apache license, so no. Only the kernel is GPL.

If manufacturers were forced to release all of their code most of them would not make android phones. They don't want to all sell the same product, and they don't want people to copy their product. Their interest in using android will be the well developed core with other supporting services (such as the market) that they can customise, reducing development time and cost, but still allowing them to have a unique device.

Okay time to put a huge downer on this.

The Nexus one was a Google Phone. Google achieved most (if not all) of the profit / loss of the device.

Do you honestly believe that Google would employee 1000's of programmers to develop and maintain all android devices, optimizing drivers, creating custom kernels etc. For Nothing?

Google's android OS is free. They already make a loss on it. What CEO in there right mind would take on even more that may have the financial effect of scaring the shareholders into ultimate bankruptcy. (Would you back a company that was giving more and more away for free?)

Yes, it is probably an evil method of monopoly to take over the world

Plus who would benefit from this? Existing customers? Can we even call them customers? They aren't paying Google Diddly-Squat.

This will never happen. :lol:

Google makes a lot of money give stuff away for free. If they can control the platform they can sell more advertising. Look at how many products google actually sell to users. I know they have their search appliances and a few other products, but really they make almost all of their money from advertising.

[Guest Stevos]

Is that allowed because google android is open source so shouldn't the drivers have source code provided as well, isnt that what is being said in the GNU public licence and if that is true then isnt it violating it

As Tom G points out, the system is mainly licensed under the Apache license which is different - but as it's based on a linux core, some parts will be GPL.

The GPL doesn't work quite like that anyway - people aren't required to license related software under the GPL just because it is commonly shipped together - it's not a commonly well understood license (one of the biggest problems with it IMO.)

which is why google should adopt more phones so all this fragmentation is decreased dramatically

Google will act in their best business interests (and broadly in the interests of the platform) rather than what we would like to see.

The best interests of Google are to have a widely available open source mobile platform which allows free access to their search and related technologies and ads (so they can't be cut out of the market at the whim of Apple, RIM, MS etc), and for it to be as hands-off as possible whilst maintaining broad control over the compatibility aspects. This means they limit legal liability and allow other companies to innovate and develop the platform in ways that Google hadn't thought of.

The fragmentation issue is a complex one with opinions on many sides, but as long as

1) The app software versioning works well (via the market only showing usable software, and it being backward compatible)

2) The OS is able to cater to high and low-end devices

3) The market as a whole keeps growing due to a perception of the phones and ecosystem offering something better than the alternatives (part of which is that phones are seen to be maintained by the manufacturers, but another part of which is making sure that they aren't considered subject to behemoth Google monitoring and controlling every aspect)

4) Manufacturers keep releasing new and cutting edge phones to maintain the competiveness of the platform vs iOS / RIM / Palm etc.

then Google probably won't want to worry too much about "fragmentation" (unless it becomes a more serious political point).

Their recent blogs and letters on the subject suggest that they don't feel that it is anywhere near as big an issue as is made out, and the recent rumours about android 3 coexisting with 2.2 support this idea. 2.2 looks to be a long term stable platform ongoing for low-end phones for the future.

Arguably different version numbers for differently capable phones isn't a bad thing, and also arguably phone manufacturers indefinitely updating existing handsets will eat into the growth of the platform and lead to less innovation and development.

Google adopting more phones isn't what's needed IMO, it's a case of them showing how they think it should be done, then seeing if the market agrees. If people stop buying bloatware phones with no updates then the problem will solve itself.

What's in the interests of the market in a broad sense may not turn out to be in our narrow interests (we'd all love to have our device updated indefinitely)

Buy a nexus one (or other non-branded/bloatwared phone) and send a message to the market. Anything else is just talk.

Google strategy on this appears to be a sort of cunning simplicity, we'll see how it pans out.

That said, I think the world would be a better place if the low-level hardware manufacturers open sourced their driver softwares and just competed on price and performance rather than arcane licensing agreements.

Also, G should stop mucking around with their linux kernel branched stuff and get it all submitted back into the kernel source tree which would probably help a lot with compatibility issues. Better long term planning *might* mean they wouldn't need a new kernel version for every point release of android, which would no doubt help us.