Nexus One for platform development?
Gergely Kis
Is Nexus One a consumer device (e.g. it will only accept official
software updates), or can it be used for platform development
(provided, that the source code and the necessary proprietary binaries
will be available in the future)?
Best Regards,
Gergely Kis
schwiz
Romain Guy
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "android-platform" group.
> To post to this group, send email to android-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-platfo...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-platform?hl=en.
>
>
>
>
--
Romain Guy
Android framework engineer
roma...@android.com
Note: please don't send private questions to me, as I don't have time
to provide private support. All such questions should be posted on
public forums, where I and others can see and answer them
Armando Ceniceros
I wonder, though. Having a device ship with an unlocked bootloader opens the door for the end-user to mess with the phone. Is google ready for the onslaught of people calling google support because they bricked their phones because the bootloader allowed them to do something that's usually out of the layman's technical expertise?
On Jan 5, 2010 2:23 PM, "Romain Guy" <roma...@android.com> wrote:
The bootloader is unlockable out of the box, no need to crack it.
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:14 PM, schwiz <sch...@gmail.com> wrote: > not officially but the bootloade...
Romain Guy
command to unlock it, it just won't happen without you knowing what
you are doing.
Armando Ceniceros
Oh, then that makes perfect sense. Now if it only had a hw keyboard...
On Jan 5, 2010 2:46 PM, "Romain Guy" <roma...@android.com> wrote:
No you misunderstand, it's *unlockable*. Not unlocked. You can run a
command to unlock it, it just won't happen without you knowing what
you are doing.
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Armando Ceniceros <cenic...@gmail.com> wrote: > I wonder, though...
lbcoder
from their past dealings with HTC.
In other words, did they insist on SOURCE CODE UP FRONT?
I really don't want to face a repeat of the HTC DREAM issue of
requiring proprietary closed source binaries for platform development
on what is supposed to be an OPEN PLATFORM!!
On Jan 5, 5:00 pm, Armando Ceniceros <cenicero...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh, then that makes perfect sense. Now if it only had a hw keyboard...
>
> On Jan 5, 2010 2:46 PM, "Romain Guy" <romain...@android.com> wrote:
>
> No you misunderstand, it's *unlockable*. Not unlocked. You can run a
> command to unlock it, it just won't happen without you knowing what
> you are doing.
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Armando Ceniceros <cenicero...@gmail.com>
> wrote: > I wonder, though...
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "android-platform" group.
> To post to this group, send email to android-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> android-platfo...@googlegroups.com<android-platform%2Bunsubscrib e...@googlegroups.com>
Armando Ceniceros
I think that was less an issue with htc and more with the actual chip manufacturers. As I understood from the dream, htc was licensed to redistribute gapps by google and private drivers by qualcomm, etc
On Jan 6, 2010 6:08 AM, "lbcoder" <lbc...@gmail.com> wrote:
I think the main concern *I* have is whether or not Google learned
from their past dealings with HTC.
In other words, did they insist on SOURCE CODE UP FRONT?
I really don't want to face a repeat of the HTC DREAM issue of
requiring proprietary closed source binaries for platform development
on what is supposed to be an OPEN PLATFORM!!
On Jan 5, 5:00 pm, Armando Ceniceros <cenicero...@gmail.com> wrote: > Oh, then that makes perfect...
> On Jan 5, 2010 2:46 PM, "Romain Guy" <romain...@android.com> wrote: > > No you misunderstand, it's...
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Armando Ceniceros <cenicero...@gmail.com>
> wrote: > I wonder, though... > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the ...
> android-platfo...@googlegroups.com<android-platform%2Bunsubscrib e...@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/android-platform?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "android-platform" group.
To post to this group, send email to android-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-platfo...@googlegroups.com.
lbcoder
platform.
The non gapps platform binaries are the issue -- libraries, kmods,
etc.
Now the way it works is like this;
Google contracted HTC for the ADP1 (not qualcomm). They completely
forgot about that part of the contract that says "all driver source
will be provided by HTC". What dealings go on between HTC and qualcomm
are irrelevant to the obligation that HTC has to google. In other
words, someone at GOOGLE dropped the ball, and WE had to pay. The
question is did google add in this requirement for this new device?
Are we going to have the full source? Or are we going to have to pray
for drivers for this new device like we are for DREAM?
On Jan 6, 8:20 am, Armando Ceniceros <cenicero...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that was less an issue with htc and more with the actual chip
> manufacturers. As I understood from the dream, htc was licensed to
> redistribute gapps by google and private drivers by qualcomm, etc
>
> On Jan 6, 2010 6:08 AM, "lbcoder" <lbco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think the main concern *I* have is whether or not Google learned
> from their past dealings with HTC.
>
> In other words, did they insist on SOURCE CODE UP FRONT?
>
> I really don't want to face a repeat of the HTC DREAM issue of
> requiring proprietary closed source binaries for platform development
> on what is supposed to be an OPEN PLATFORM!!
>
> On Jan 5, 5:00 pm, Armando Ceniceros <cenicero...@gmail.com> wrote: > Oh,
> then that makes perfect...
>
> > On Jan 5, 2010 2:46 PM, "Romain Guy" <romain...@android.com> wrote: > > No
>
> you misunderstand, it's...
>
> > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Armando Ceniceros <cenicero...@gmail.com>
> > wrote: > I wonder, though... > > -- > You received this message because
>
> you are subscribed to the ...> android-platfo...@googlegroups.com<android-platform%2Bunsubscrib e...@googlegroups.com><android-platform%2Bunsubscrib
Dianne Hackborn
Google contracted HTC for the ADP1 (not qualcomm). They completely
forgot about that part of the contract that says "all driver source
will be provided by HTC". What dealings go on between HTC and qualcomm
are irrelevant to the obligation that HTC has to google. In other
words, someone at GOOGLE dropped the ball, and WE had to pay. The
question is did google add in this requirement for this new device?
Are we going to have the full source? Or are we going to have to pray
for drivers for this new device like we are for DREAM?
Dianne Hackborn
Android framework engineer
hac...@android.com
Note: please don't send private questions to me, as I don't have time to provide private support, and so won't reply to such e-mails. All such questions should be posted on public forums, where I and others can see and answer them.
Mike Lockwood
I probably should not taunt you, but how do you know the details of the Google HTC contract? And how is the lack of full source making you "pay"?
Mike
On Jan 6, 2010 3:19 PM, "lbcoder" <lbc...@gmail.com> wrote:
gapps are irrelevant since they aren't strictly needed for the
platform.
The non gapps platform binaries are the issue -- libraries, kmods,
etc.
Now the way it works is like this;
Google contracted HTC for the ADP1 (not qualcomm). They completely
forgot about that part of the contract that says "all driver source
will be provided by HTC". What dealings go on between HTC and qualcomm
are irrelevant to the obligation that HTC has to google. In other
words, someone at GOOGLE dropped the ball, and WE had to pay. The
question is did google add in this requirement for this new device?
Are we going to have the full source? Or are we going to have to pray
for drivers for this new device like we are for DREAM?
On Jan 6, 8:20 am, Armando Ceniceros <cenicero...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think that was less an iss...
> On Jan 6, 2010 6:08 AM, "lbcoder" <lbco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think the main concern *I* have...
> you are subscribed to the ...> android-platfo...@googlegroups.com<android-platform%2Bunsubscrib e...@googlegroups.com><android-platform%2Bunsubscrib
> e...@googlegroups.com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group athttp:// > > groups.google.com/g...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "android-platform" group.
To post to this group, send email to android-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-platfo...@googlegroups.com.
Shawn Brown
> Google HTC contract? And how is the lack of full source making you "pay"?
Well for me, Magic owners, MyTouch owner, ADP* owners who were told
that ourt handsets would have bluetooth including RFCOMM support, not
being able to use bluetooth as expected means I need to get a
different phone.
Google and HTC took my money and did not provide what they said they would.
I understand Google wanted to develop new features for their handset
and that doing so meant that bluetooth is intermingled with new code
that may not be easily supportable on our handsets. Still google made
a choice to develop bluetooth as they did, took my money to pay Diane
and others to advance their platform, but never delivered on what they
said I was getting for my money.
Yes, HTC promised RFCOMM support on their site. No, they didn't
deliver. No, they won't say if they ever will deliver.
>We didn't "forget" about this, it is just an extremely difficult issue to get the software for every single part of a phone to be >open-sourced.
Well don't make promises you can't keep, or don't mislead HTC into
making promises that they can't keep.
Shawn
P.S. Please don't be angry with me Dianne. I just want to play with my
son and our lego robots via my handset and give other android users
the same opportunity. I know there are 3rd party apis but you always
say not to use them ;^)
Mike Lockwood
I'm sorry to hear you were promised something that does not exist.
Did you try to return the phone for a refund? It seems like a
reasonable request if you were promised RFCOMM when you bought the
phone.
Mike
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "android-platform" group.
> To post to this group, send email to android-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-platfo...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-platform?hl=en.
>
>
>
>
--
Mike Lockwood
Google android team
Shawn Brown
> reasonable request if you were promised RFCOMM when you bought the
> phone.
Well I guess that is an option but what about other users (of our lego
project) that are in the same boat. We should all take our phones
back? We've gotten them from different carriers (some in the U.S.,
some Europe, some Japan) and whatnot so I don't expect a uniform
resolution that way.
I think I'd feel better as a group trying to compel HTC and Google to
provide what they said they would. Maybe they will, and maybe they
intend to, but the fact that they won't say is bothersome. HaHa - you
bought it and we won't tell you if or when it will work!
Sorry to be noise but I just hope someone at Google knows we care
about this. HTC is like send email here, call here (cycle, rinse and
repeat).
Shawn
lbcoder
remaining binaries "accessible", in terms of pulling them off of an
existing device, simply isn't good enough -- we can pull those
binaries off DREAM very easily, or download them directly from HTC's
website. In fact, we can (and some even have already) pirate them off
a current GN1 without any real trouble. The simple availability of
existing binaries doesn't help in platform development since those
binaries aren't all/entirely compatible with the current state of
Android... in particular, because of the differences between 1.6 and
2.x, we have NO WAY to make the camera operate unless/until htc
provides new versions of the binaries that are compatible with the
current state of AOSP -- and at this point, it is looking really bad.
We have TWO known devices running 2.x -- one motorola and one htc, and
yet of the TWO developer phones, NEITHER of them is able to (a) be
used for developing/testing software for OS level compatibility with a
2.x device, (b) be used for platform development since they are both
incompatible with the current state of AOSP. And to top it all off,
there is not a single hint regarding whether HTC will or will not EVER
provide the necessary binaries. It is also clear that even if they
*do* provide the necessary binaries for the devices *for 2.0 or 2.1,
etc.*, what guarantee do any of US have that they will again do so
for... say... 3.0? The answer is that at some point, they ARE
(possibly already have) going to STOP providing these necessary
binaries, which leaves us all up sh**'s creek.
One of the greatest fundamental benefits of having an open source
operating system is that it stretches the usefulness of your hardware.
You can literally install the LATEST (or very close to) version of,
say, Fedora or Ubuntu on a Pentium133 made in 1995 -- and it will chug
along with a fair degree of usefulness. That is hardware that is
FIFTEEN YEARS OLD, and in terms of resources, not very much different
than HTC DREAM -- and yet at just over one year out, HTC DREAM is more
or less useless as a result of missing source code.
Take as an example of what can be done, the actions of our good
friends at AMD: They are making GREAT strides at prolonging the
usefulness of their hardware by providing programming documentation
for all of their GPUs up to and including the latest R800 series. It
means that DESPITE the fact that they have stopped supporting hardware
below R600 in their proprietary drivers, that ALL of their hardware up
to and including R500 is STILL USEFUL to the maximum designed
potential (and sometimes even beyond with the help of software
emulation for functions not implemented in hardware)! It means that
the components of the drivers required for all of their hardware from
ANCIENT through to CURRENT are contained within the LINUX KERNEL,
X.org, and Mesa, and are actively updated by the maintainers of those
projects as the projects evolve. Now to make special note, these
devices too have their own custom and closed source firmwares (like
the radio image for our phones), but that doesn't stop us since those
firmwares have stable interfaces (again, like the radio image).
*** THIS IS WHAT WE NEED ***
For our hardware to be future-proof.
But right now, it isn't. And by the sounds of it, GN1 is no different.
This is extremely disappointing.
On Jan 6, 3:40 pm, Dianne Hackborn <hack...@android.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 12:19 PM, lbcoder <lbco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Google contracted HTC for the ADP1 (not qualcomm). They completely
> > forgot about that part of the contract that says "all driver source
> > will be provided by HTC". What dealings go on between HTC and qualcomm
> > are irrelevant to the obligation that HTC has to google. In other
> > words, someone at GOOGLE dropped the ball, and WE had to pay. The
> > question is did google add in this requirement for this new device?
> > Are we going to have the full source? Or are we going to have to pray
> > for drivers for this new device like we are for DREAM?
>
> We didn't "forget" about this, it is just an extremely difficult issue to
> get the software for every single part of a phone to be open-sourced. We
> continue to work on improving this, but don't expect all of this to suddenly
> be open sourced... and certainly, things like the radio image, I wouldn't
> expect to have open sourced any time soon.
>
> The main issue is having the remaining required binaries easily accessible
> to make it easy to build your own system images for the phone. This, again,
> is a challenge, but something we are also working on and easier to fix in
> the short term.
>
> If you want "every last piece open-sourced," then you can take a look at
> OpenMoko... and note the significant product compromises that you may need
> to make to accomplish that.
>
> --
> Dianne Hackborn
> Android framework engineer
lbcoder
the
** Google HTC contract?
You don't need to read the contract to be able to pick up bits of it.
If it was in the contract for HTC to provide full source, then there
would be a MAJOR issue between google and HTC due to failure to
provide. Since this major issue doesn't exist AND we don't have the
source code, it logically follows that it was not part of the
contract. Simple logic, and irrefutable.
** And how is the lack of full source making you "pay"?
$400 US for a piece of hardware that isn't capable of being used for
the purpose intended. In other words, I use the word "pay" in a
perfectly LITERAL way.
lbcoder
Just not in the android/gui components. It uses bluez, so use if from
the terminal.
And of course, you are free to implement the profile in the android/
gui any time you want.
Mike Lockwood
One sources we can open source, so I would recommend holding off on
ordering one until you can see whether we release enough for it to be
useful for you. We do understand the value of what you are asking
for. It is one of our goals, but frankly it is not at the top of the
list and we would not have held off on shipping Nexus One if we could
not release every bit of the source code. And there is no way a phone
is going to be as future proof as the x86 PC platform. Consumer
electronics just does not work that way.
We are making progress on this, but obviously not at the speed we
would like. For example, Qualcomm has a new GPS interface that is
open, and this is interface is supported by the radio firmware on the
Nexus One (although due to lack of time we are not using it yet). I
am planning on getting this working and pushing it out to AOSP as soon
as I can. We should also be able to release the source for all the
sensors as well. Shipping consumer phones with unlocked radios and
bootloaders is also a significant step in the right direction. But I
don't expect that we will be able to get everything perfect yet - I'm
just saying we are trying to move in the right direction.
Mike
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "android-platform" group.
> To post to this group, send email to android-...@googlegroups.com.
Disconnect
Shawn Brown
> for. It is one of our goals, but frankly it is not at the top of the
> list and we would not have held off on shipping Nexus One if we could
> not release every bit of the source code.
Thank you for confirming that Google tells HTC Android will have
bluetooth and that is what HTC tells consumers and we buy the phones
but you are too worried about your handset getting out to market so
you and HTC can't be bothered providing the bluetooth that HTC says on
it's sites in many different countries for many different handsets is
available.
Actually, I don't think you have to release all the source code to do that.
I think you promised one thing and delivered another because it make
your pocketbook fatter. I call that fraud.
I see stealing my money is a higher priority than being a legitimate
business. Have fun spending your bonus! Just remember you are
spending mine (that I legitimately earned).
All the best,
Shawn
Armando Ceniceros
As dianne said, if you're looking for a complete open platform, then look at openmoko. I've yet to see the place where google promised a fully open platform, down to the hardware and hardware drivers. As far as I know, and as of the last time I checked, the aosp is still open source. If you want the ability to build the for a specific platform, nobody's stoping you. There's no way to guarantee continued support for any device because (and this is no secret) any industry is driven by profit, even if it means allowing products to become obsolete. Still, the aosp is open source, and nobody is stoping you from figuring out a compatibility layer for the 1.6 camera in the dream for 2.0. What you guys really want is google/htc to dedicate resources to a project of which they've been among the biggest contributors. Supporting a platform isn't just about running 'make' and complaining when it doesn't work.
The effort trying to coherce companies to further support obsolete products would be better spent working on and submitting code to get the platform to build for a device (there have been no contributions to aosp-open or dream-open from the community).
The fact that linux works on so many devices didn't happen overnight. Instead of harrassing companies to support their newest hobby os, most people instead wrote code to get linux to work on all sorts of hardware, and that's the serious amount of community support the aosp is lacking.
TLDNR: if you want it, do it yourself, nobody's stoping you.
On Jan 7, 2010 6:10 PM, "Shawn Brown" <big.coff...@gmail.com> wrote:> We do understand the value of what you are asking > for. It is one of our goals, but frankly it ...
Thank you for confirming that Google tells HTC Android will have
bluetooth and that is what HTC tells consumers and we buy the phones
but you are too worried about your handset getting out to market so
you and HTC can't be bothered providing the bluetooth that HTC says on
it's sites in many different countries for many different handsets is
available.
Actually, I don't think you have to release all the source code to do that.
I think you promised one thing and delivered another because it make
your pocketbook fatter. I call that fraud.
I see stealing my money is a higher priority than being a legitimate
business. Have fun spending your bonus! Just remember you are
spending mine (that I legitimately earned).
All the best,
Shawn
Marc Petit-Huguenin
> No you misunderstand, it's *unlockable*. Not unlocked. You can run a
> command to unlock it, it just won't happen without you knowing what
> you are doing.
May I ask what this command is?
Thanks.
Romain Guy
Shawn Brown
I call BS -- pure BS.
You know, as other engineers have stated, there is no real development
that can be done on the radio by the community because we don't have
access to proprietary hardware stuff.
I already offered and was rejected both for developing and testing.
It's closed and don't say I should do something that Goolge and HTC
said they would do.
OSX - "we offer bluetooth"
OSX - "sorry write it yourself, you bought our hardware now kiss off"
I know you can get a big bonus by expanding your company line at my
expense but please no BS
All the best and if you were stuck in the snow I'd be the first the
help push your car out-- as a way to get close enough to jaw in your
ear ;~)
Shawn Brown
> complaining when it doesn't work.
Please be quiet if you don't know what you are talking about.
This is what Google Engineers told me.
> If you do it in a more recent branch, you'll struggle to get the system
> to do anything useful as you won't have access to any of the
> proprietary binaries necessary to run those branches on actual
> hardware. The sad reality is that it's currently impractical for the
> open community to contribute in any area that requires to test on
> hardware.
Bluetooth requires testing on hardware and I can't reliably do anything.
The fact is Google choose to intermingle bluetooth code with 2.0 stuff
so they get their handset out the door. Us paying customers stuck at
1.6 don't get the functionality we were promised. I am not asking for
2.0 on my handset. I want working bluetooth and not some 3rd party
api that breaks when the wind blows and fails on half the handset.
I don't have the "proprietary binaries" so please write things that
are actually true.
Dianne Hackborn
> We do understand the value of what you are askingbluetooth and that is what HTC tells consumers and we buy the phones
> for. It is one of our goals, but frankly it is not at the top of the
> list and we would not have held off on shipping Nexus One if we could
> not release every bit of the source code.
Thank you for confirming that Google tells HTC Android will have
but you are too worried about your handset getting out to market so
you and HTC can't be bothered providing the bluetooth that HTC says on
it's sites in many different countries for many different handsets is
available.
Dianne Hackborn
Android framework engineer
Shawn Brown
> back-porting features like Bluetooth from newer platforms to older ones.
> Given a choice between doing that and improving the current platform, well
> it just isn't any choice.)
My "rant" as you so inelegantly put it got me the information that I
needed. Now if you at Google were a little more forthcoming with
information then perhaps I wouldn't have to ask the way I did. I so
do apologize.
Thank you for your time.
Shawn
DonFrench
I also bought a Nexus One with the understanding, based on a spec that
I read, that it had support for RFCOMM. I have been trying to find
the site where I read this but haven't located it yet. Can you
help?
Don
Matthias Granberry
DonFrench
Nexus One support of RFCOMM or the SPP profile. Shawn says that he
saw specs or was given the information that Nexus One would support
RFCOMM or the SPP profile and I also read a spec that had this claim.
Did HTC or Google ever make that claim publicly? If so, I would be
interested in seeing it because I also bought a Nexus One under the
same mistaken impression based on something that I read that claimed
that there was such support. The page I read MIGHT have been this one
http://www.mobiledia.com/phones/google/nexus-one.html but I am not
sure. I realize that this page is neither from Google or HTC and if
it is the source of my costly mistake, I am the one at fault for not
making sure it was correct. But one wonders where these people (and
Shawn) got this bit of misinformation. Like Shawn, I am distressed at
having purchased a phone under a false impression.
Don
On Jan 12, 1:52 pm, Matthias Granberry <matthias.granbe...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> http://developer.android.com/reference/android/bluetooth/package-summ...
Shawn Brown
> saw specs or was given the information that Nexus One would support
> RFCOMM or the SPP profile and I also read a spec that had this claim.
Public HTC claims:
1)
Specifically, the mytouch claims rfcomm support.
http://www.htc.com/us/support/t-mobile-mytouch-3g/help/bluetooth
What version of Bluetooth does my device come with? close
Your device comes with Bluetooth v2.0 with EDR. Supported profiles
GAP, RFCOMM, HFP, HSP, and A2DP.
2)
and so does the magic
http://www.htc.com/ca/support/magic-rogers/help/bluetooth
What version of Bluetooth does my device come with? close
Your device comes with Bluetooth v2.0 with EDR. Supported profiles
GAP, RFCOMM, HFP, HSP, and A2DP.
3)
and so does the G1
http://www.htc.com/us/support/t-mobile-g1/help/bluetooth
What Bluetooth profiles are supported now? close
Version 2.0 with EDR.
Profiles: GAP, RFCOMM, HFP, HSP
It's in their user manuals - for instance:
I can find nothing specifically from HTC that the Nexus One supports
rfcomm, but I bet they are the source of the article you saw.
Well generally, it is beyond dispute that HTC advertises Bluetooth 2.0
in all it's devices. Only in Japan could I find information stating
accurate information on what it really provided.
Looking at the specification of Bluetooth 2.0, I would think any
decent lawyer could make the case that HTC products don't really
follow the specification.
http://www.bluetooth.com/Bluetooth/Technology/Building/Specifications/
Shawn
P.S. I really don't mean to be a pain in some Google's rear-end. I
just think the marketing side should keep their word.