As part of the Nexus device support, Google releases factory images. These images contain all the blobs and whatnot necessary to restore your device's OS even in the event of a soft-brick. In the case of the new Nexus 7, it appears Google won't be releasing factory images and the cause is almost certainly the fact that Qualcomm doesn't want to release it's proprietary blobs for the Adreno GPU.
JBQ is pissed about this, this isn't the first time a vendor hasn't allowed release of certain blobs or the first time a vendor has refused to release the code necessary to even boot the device.
http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/08/07/legal-issues-with-qu...
But what Google needs is a license to redistribute this software in a form where it can be used by an AOSP build, not just as part of a finished device. Apparently the couldn't get it.
Capitalism would get along just fine without patents and copyrights. No one likes to admit that though.
We in the west are overfed pigs standing on the backs of billions.
This means that the Nexus 7 is, practically, no more open than the iPad/MS Surface/etc.. That would definitely be upsetting to me if the gig had been sold as a way to strongly impact an open source piece of software, and Jean-Baptiste's decision seems very reasonable.
Can android users/developers weigh in? I'm sure I'm getting some part of it wrong.
Certainly the new N7 isn't a "free" device in any meaningful sense. But Android as a whole remains vastly more open than iOS or Windows.
As with many questions of openness, it's a question of pragmatism. It might be fair if some Kickstarted device did this or something, but this is Google's flagship tablet. Google uses the "Open" moniker as a marketing tool to both sell the devices to like-minded supporters as well as to bash others (Apple, MS, etc) pretty much whenever they can, as do many of their affiliates/partners. As such, it's completely fair to hold them accountable when that ends up not being the case.
This is not about the apache or gnu license. This is not about binary blobs. This is about a huge company that is playing games with "open source" for strategic reasons, full stop.
Google could put in licensing conditions that would resolve this driver situation for any company that implements GED services, but they choose not to. It always comes back to the fact that their primary product is you the user, and they only are interested in selling advertising services. Google executives are behaving unethically with this platform.
But I can tell you that multiple, multiple times people have cried wolf on this. There's always a gap between when Google releases a device and when they release the accompanying source.
Source code licensing is a different topic.
the definition of open: "mkdir android ; cd android ;
repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform
/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make"
Well, I suppose if you define "open" as being able to build the software, but don't promise you can actually use the result, that makes it acceptable.
The other important thing to note here is that Jean-Baptiste Quéru is not just some random Android developer. He is the the point person for what everyone previously believed was "open" development on Android.
No, because you can get other laptops without this problem. Likewise, you can get other Android devices such as the Nexus 10 or Galaxy Nexus which are capable of using the result.
This sucks as it means you now need to choose between a device that's sufficiently open or a device that's up to date, and it's certainly worth criticising Google for, but it's not enough to claim that Android is as closed as iOS or Windows (yet - if they do the same to the next Nexus 10 and continue releasing Nexus devices that can't boot AOSP, then it's concerning, or if they drop support for the devices that are currently able to use the open source code)
no video device support (which means you can't even boot to the Android home screen) for the new Nexus 7
Google was aware of all of these issues and still made the hardware choices they did. They could have chosen differently.
These are flagship Google devices; my expectations are (I think rightfully) different for those than some random device.
You can still use the result, but not with all devices (same thing as any linux distro, despite being open source, you need driver supports for your particular hardware). There are still many devices who can boot aosp (from the nexus line, from sony, etc.).
...can't boot to the home screen on its flagship device for lack of GPU support...
"; make install"Seriously, "make install" is:
adb -s $DEVICE reboot-bootloader
#wait for a while
fastboot -s $DEVICE flash system $IMAGE_FILENAMEThere will be a dozen other Nexus devices within the next year and hopefully Google will learn from their mistakes, and will partner with suppliers who won't prevent source code from being published.
Does Google benefit monetarily from not releasing source code? Nope, it likely decreases their profit and tarnishes their reputation, so I would like to believe that they are doing everything in their power to keep Android and the Nexus brand as open as possible.
http://androidandme.com/2013/08/devices/new-nexus-7-may-not-...
Clearly they did not.
Well, sort of. Keeping GPU drivers closed is a charade. There is no secret sauce of any great value in these drivers. There might be embarrassing coding horrors. But there is no good reason to keep these drivers closed.
In this case, not even the binary blobs are available. That's gratuitous pig-headedness from the GPU licensor and SoC maker. Google could have extracted at least that concession. When someone with as much integrity as JBQ quits, it's not just the run of the mill SoC vendor crap that caused it.
Someone who "tries to make their devices as open as possible" chooses components that can be made open. Someone who intentionally chooses a component and does not ask/licence it's driver to be open - hasn't even tried.
Indirectly, yes — choice of Qualcomm as a supplier (under condition of not releasing source code) must have been beneficial for Google.
http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/32057-why-google-went-qual...
It's their goal to do whatever it takes to compete aggressively and if openness can win them PR, they'll do it, but it isn't a goal in itself.
Vendors suck (some more than others) and it's not Google's fault that they can't convince the vendor to open source their device drivers. This sort of thing is extremely common in the embedded world and when you're making a device to a price point often times you have to put up with this sort of nonsense because only one vendor makes a chip with your feature set at a given price point.
Someone with more knowledge about this please correct me if I'm wrong.
Yeah thats the problem.
There exists a patent troll who owns patents for using pink unicorns to render pixels. Vendor ships a chip that uses red horses to render pixels... close enough for a legal patent battle? Who knows. But if they try to keep it a secret, maybe it'll all work out.
You'd think that Google would have the foresight to listen to the maintainer of the project; perhaps they did and this is just the way it is now?
I'll give you a hint, it starts with Q and rhymes with "Wallcomm".
Actually, this is not true. The CDMA/LTE Galaxy Nexus, Droid Charge, and Stratosphere (all made by Samsung) actually used VIA Telecom's CBP 7.1 baseband for EVDO/1XRTT (and a Samsung LTE radio for that). I'm not sure how/why VIA Telecom was able to license QCOM's patents covering CDMA2000, but they did.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4465/samsung-droid-charge-revi...
To my knowledge, these are the first non-QCOM CDMA2000 phones shipped (at least in the US) since Nokia's ill-fated CDMA S30 phones made for Verizon/Sprint from ~2003-2005, the 3589i, 6235i, and maybe others. I believe TI/ST/Nokia teamed up to make that baseband, but it all ended in lawsuits from Qualcomm a few years later.
It's too bad, the 3589i was a great phone.
There's no point being the maintainer of an Operating System that can't boot to the home screen on its flagship device for lack of GPU support, especially when I'm getting the blame for something that I don't have authority to fix myself and that I had anticipated and escalated more than 6 months ahead.
So much for all that noise from Google about 'openness'. The detractors were right.
However, the Nexus 4 and new Nexus 7 are the flagships for AOSP, and the maintainer was upset at the fact that the open bit is useless on newer devices without parts that can't be distributed.
[1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/android-building/OvPkV...
The controversy is that there is no factory image available for the new Nexus 7, and therefore, the only way to boot a new Nexus 7 from AOSP source is to pull the blobs from the device, incurring in a legal gray area.
All of us that buy, or let relatives buy Android devices that use restrictive and closed blobs.
Customers and only customers have the power to make the change.
Every time we encourage someone else to buy a non-Android device make sure to publicise the fact on open social media like Farcebook or Twatter on the corporate tags and pages to raise awareness in the less technology literate and make some voices heard.
It is one thing for companies to see bottom-lines get affected, but they also need to understand why. Don't just boycott, let the world know why too!
[0] http://developer.sonymobile.com/2013/07/25/android-open-sour...
As it is, a few places sell the old Nexus 7, and that's it. The only Nexus phone ever to get sold here was the Nexus One, and there's no Nexus 10 either, no new Nexus 7.
Given Google's close relationship with the NSA, the reason seems fairly obvious...
Today, AOSP (contrary to what its name suggests) is mostly just a code-dump project. They've forked Linux and have stripped out the GNU (GPL) userland. Broadly speaking, there are two ways to stay in power. 1. release minimal source code, and don't let other parties get in (aka. the Apple/Microsoft strategy). 2. simply assign all copyright to a neckbeard foundation with no money and nothing to lose (aka. FSF/GNU). Provided there's a big enough market (unlike nVidia being virtually the only manufacturer of decent GPUs back in the day), people will simply stop buying your hardware because their software doesn't run on it.
Google is pretty much on its own here, because there is no "open source project": various vendors fork the code and make their own modifications on top and distribute it happily. I run a CM nightly myself, because I get updates in the form of commit SHA-1s every night: _that_ is how you involve users and build a community. Can anyone threaten CM? Now, Qualcomm is attacking Google: Google can't give them the finger because they're powerless.
Fragmentation (aka. forks) are part and parcel of any uncontrolled development. GNOME is one very famous example: not everyone is happy with the same thing (GNOME Shell, Cinnamon, Unity etc.). For another example, look at mplayer: mplayer, mplayer2, and (now) mpv. The forks compete against each other, and the competent communities eventually achieve dominance. Contrast that with how many times Torvalds' tree has been forked: the forks don't survive because the community and leadership is strong and won't bend to anyone's demands (you're probably seen the media reporting how Linus gives nVidia the finger, or bashes patches that further Microsoft's UEFI agenda). Emacs has also had various forks in the past (remember XEmacs?), but all of them died off because of weak leadership.
AOSP should think about these issues seriously, and figure out how to keep the project running. I don't know what they should specifically change, because nobody has any idea about what problems they are facing.
Should they have put out a worse device in order to stand up to this stuff though? Difficult choice.
This is a pain - It's nice being able to download the factory images direct from Google for quickly restoring the device to stock or applying an update before the OTA is out, having to try to find them on XDA is annoying for a Nexus device. Kudos to JBQ for standing up to this, hopefully the fallout will cause something to change.