Don't Stop CyanogenMod!

215 views
Skip to first unread message

PhoenixAG

unread,
Sep 25, 2009, 10:57:12 AM9/25/09
to Android Discuss
Google,

We love you as a company and love the Android platform. It is only
made better when it is enhanced by people like Cyanogen who use the
open nature of the platform to further it and attracts many more
people to it, as a result.

I am one of the people who was attracted towards Android not for the
official rom, but because of the open nature of Android and that I
could use a custom rom on it.

Someone who has put in so much hard work on the platform should not be
told to cease and desist, but commended and encouraged to continue to
work better.

Don't become Apple!

The 30,000 users of CyanogenMod and many more Android users will thank
you for it.

Remember, "Don't be Evil!"

L!TH!UM

unread,
Sep 25, 2009, 2:37:05 PM9/25/09
to Android Discuss
I was initially disappointed to hear this news, but after thinking
about it a bit, it was a necessary one. The big issue is that
Cyanogen is including the google APKs like Google Mail, Google Maps,
etc. These are closed applications and not part of the Android OS,
and if Google lets this slide, they may not be able to defend against
other ROMs including these APKs without permission. Also, consider
what would happen if any of those APKs were modified to do something
devious, like send contact info to some server out there on the
interwebs. Who do you think users would initially blame? I'm
guessing they'd blame Google regardless of the fact that they modded
their phone.

This C&D does not prevent Cyanogen from making custom ROMs, he/she/
they just cannot include those google applications anymore. I can
understand this move and hope the modding community takes note and
keeps up the modding, minus these apps (unfortunately).


~L!TH

Zanshin

unread,
Sep 25, 2009, 7:16:00 PM9/25/09
to Android Discuss
It does, in fact, mean they can't make custom ROMs. The Google apps
are part of the core authentication and sign-in framework. Without
those, the Android platform doesn't work.

The protection from modification of the google apps' source is the
same it is for Google's repository: it's public. You simply don't
download from a source you don't trust. That's a bad argument.

Eric F

unread,
Sep 25, 2009, 7:16:25 PM9/25/09
to Android Discuss
Now that the Lawyers are involved, I doubt Cyanogen will be able to
release any additional ROMs at all. Even without those apps, I'm sure
the ROMs include little bits of proprietary files required to get the
OS to boot on existing hardware. I don't think there is a single piece
of released hardware that the AOSP runs on (not even the ADP1). So I
don't think the Lawyers will let up because the next custom ROM only
uses a couple of proprietary HTC files. I'm guessing it's done for
good.

On Sep 25, 11:37 am, "L!TH!UM" <clarkd...@gmail.com> wrote:

Lance Nanek

unread,
Sep 25, 2009, 8:15:42 PM9/25/09
to Android Discuss
I wonder how tough it would be to alter the installation process to
copy the non-distributable material off the end user's previous ROM.
Maybe some sort of utility for the user to run before updating that
makes a backup of the apps to SD card first or something. It's not
like they don't have these apps before installation anyway.

Streets Of Boston

unread,
Sep 25, 2009, 8:16:47 PM9/25/09
to Android Discuss
Some more info here, from Google:
http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2009/09/note-on-google-apps-for-android.html

"...we've been seeing some really cool and impressive things, such as
the custom Android builds that are popular with many enthusiasts..."

"...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..."

"...We always love seeing novel uses of Android, including custom
Android builds from developers who see a need..."

Cyanogen was giving away non-opensource applications that generate
some revenue for (benifits) Google. That they want to nip this in the
bud (as soon as possible) is understandable.

But Google doesn't want to shut down Cyanogen, and others like them,
all together. Google actually like to see these kinds of activities.

At least, that's what i understand from this blog-post.

schwiz

unread,
Sep 25, 2009, 8:42:31 PM9/25/09
to Android Discuss
Thats an interesting blog post by the devs, but I frankly think its a
load of crap. I've seen devs post here on the forums on more than one
occation to customer requests of apps2sd as being 'do it yourself its
not a priority' -paraphrased However they failed to mention that
doing it yourself was violating the TOS for the software that your
phone needs to function like it should. Am I missing something here?

On Sep 25, 7:16 pm, Streets Of Boston <flyingdutc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Some more info here, from Google:http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2009/09/note-on-google-apps-fo...
Message has been deleted

Streets Of Boston

unread,
Sep 25, 2009, 10:39:55 PM9/25/09
to Android Discuss
don't think it's a load of crap.

You can't modify the Market app to allow for download to the sdcard.
But you can create your own market, ala SlideMe, to do what you want,
i.e. download apks to the sdcard.

But what has this to do with distributing software that is not yours
or that is not opensource? Cyanogen did that (not with bad intention,
i'm sure of that) and was noticed a C&D by Google.

I do hope, though, that the 'offending' binaries are not an integral
part of Android and that leaving it out would not entirely cripple it.
If that's the case, I have all confidence that Cyanogen will be up and
running soon again, with their mods but without the proprietary
(google) apps.


On Sep 25, 8:42 pm, schwiz <sch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Remember, "Don't be Evil!"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

schwiz

unread,
Sep 25, 2009, 10:56:49 PM9/25/09
to Android Discuss
Lets hope that is the case, although its still unclear at this point.
But on a side note, with developers already having a horrible time
making a living off of the googl.., i mean- android market How well is
it going to blow over when they kick 30,000 enthusiasts out of the
marketplace? The users who actually have space on their phone to
install more than 20 apps?

Streets Of Boston

unread,
Sep 25, 2009, 11:05:51 PM9/25/09
to Android Discuss
You're right.

I hope Google won't just send this C&D and then go 'you figure it out
and if you can't, screw you'.
I hope that Google is cooperative in getting around this issue.

If not, the backlash will be big (it is already getting a little out-
of-hand).
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

Al Sutton

unread,
Sep 26, 2009, 2:14:22 AM9/26/09
to android...@googlegroups.com
Is everyone forgetting there are OEMs who are already shipping devices
without the Google software (e.g. vobis.ru, Archos)?

If their Googles work then Google has the right to say who can
redistribute them, that's the basics of the laws of copyright as has
been established for a century or two.

You may not agree with it, you may not like how it stands, but that is
a rule thats' part of the society we live in.

Al.

--

* Looking for Android Apps? - Try http://andappstore.com/ *

======
Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the
company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House,
152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK.

The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not
necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's
subsidiaries.

Disconnect

unread,
Sep 26, 2009, 10:34:29 AM9/26/09
to android...@googlegroups.com
Everyone who is insisting that its just "oh no, don't distribute
gmail".. I challenge you to try AOSP. It'll take some time, but grab
the source and build it. Without proprietary bins. (No, seriously.
Don't copy a bunch of crap off the old image, don't include any of the
proprietary bins that -you are not allowed to redistribute-.)

It won't boot. If you manage to get past that, it won't make noise.
LED doesn't work. No way to talk to the cell modem (so no cell
services, at all.) Good news, the wifi will probably work. But even if
you include the (proprietary!) RIL, it won't make or break calls
(oops, setting the initial setup/provisioning flag is "proprietary".)

Seriously, this isn't a case of "oh, just stop distributing gmail".
This is - as ryebrye said in JBQ's thread - a case of "AOSP doesn't
work AT ALL without tons of proprietary crap".

If we are going to have to recreate all that, I -really- suggest doing
it with someone else's services. Why give them the added business?
(Alternately, release the OSS replacements under a more restrictive
license - GPL is perfectly android-compatible, except they can't take
it inside the wall and profit from it at the expense of the
community.)

schwiz

unread,
Sep 26, 2009, 5:24:05 PM9/26/09
to Android Discuss
What I really don't get, is all of these apps (gmail, gmap, etc)
google provides for free for blackberry and iphone users. WTF is up
with that?

Jim Ancona

unread,
Sep 26, 2009, 7:49:58 PM9/26/09
to Android Discuss


On Sep 25, 7:16 pm, Zanshin <zanshin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It does, in fact, mean they can't make custom ROMs.  The Google apps
> are part of the core authentication and sign-in framework.   Without
> those, the Android platform doesn't work.

Not true. I'm running Android, built from the open source tree, on my
Openmoko Freerunner without any of the proprietary Google apps. See
http://code.google.com/p/android-on-freerunner/ for more info.

> The protection from modification of the google apps' source is the
> same it is for Google's repository: it's public.   You simply don't
> download from a source you don't trust.  That's a bad argument.

I don't understand what your saying here. The Google apps in question
are closed source. Cyanogen presumably had to extract the apks from a
phone in order to include them in his distribution.

Cédric Berger

unread,
Sep 26, 2009, 8:14:35 PM9/26/09
to android...@googlegroups.com

On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 01:49, Jim Ancona <j...@anconafamily.com> wrote:

On Sep 25, 7:16 pm, Zanshin <zanshin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It does, in fact, mean they can't make custom ROMs.  The Google apps
> are part of the core authentication and sign-in framework.   Without
> those, the Android platform doesn't work.

Not true. I'm running Android, built from the open source tree, on my
Openmoko Freerunner without any of the proprietary Google apps. See
http://code.google.com/p/android-on-freerunner/ for more info.

Yes, Google apps are not completly necessary for Android.
But it is also true that Android without Google apps looses a lot of interest. Also because a lot of third party applications rely on these apps (ie Maps API).
Though of course I fully understand this is Google right to choose not to freely distribute these apps which are their added value...


And what Disconnect wrote
" Seriously, this isn't a case of "oh, just stop distributing gmail".
This is - as ryebrye said in JBQ's thread - a case of "AOSP doesn't
work AT ALL without tons of proprietary crap".
"
is, as I understand, more true for a phone like the HTC ones.

Freerunner was  meant from the start to be as open as possible, so all drivers for example were available, with sources, for adaptation to android.

Disconnect

unread,
Sep 27, 2009, 9:56:25 AM9/27/09
to android...@googlegroups.com
Ohter problems - you can't make or break calls (oops, "setup" is
proprietary). Calendar has such dependencies on sync that it just flat
doesn't work. (I heard rumours that contacts may be the same way.)

The really sick thing is, HTC has already made non-google versions of
these apps. But - thanks to the android licensing - they're closed
source too..

2009/9/26 Cédric Berger <cedric....@gmail.com>:

L!TH!UM

unread,
Sep 27, 2009, 1:48:29 PM9/27/09
to Android Discuss
Riddle me this, does anyone know if other ROM cooks have received C&D
letters? i realize cyanogen's ROM is the most popular right now, but
I have not heard of any other modders receiving a C&D letter. If not,
then don't throw in the towel just yet. Then again, maybe it is
because Cyanogen was the first to use the donut in his ROM and
included the new Market app. Either way, i seriously doubt this will
stop the modding community.

On Sep 27, 6:56 am, Disconnect <dc.disconn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ohter problems - you can't make or break calls (oops, "setup" is
> proprietary). Calendar has such dependencies on sync that it just flat
> doesn't work. (I heard rumours that contacts may be the same way.)
>
> The really sick thing is, HTC has already made non-google versions of
> these apps. But - thanks to the android licensing - they're closed
> source too..
>
> 2009/9/26 Cédric Berger <cedric.berge...@gmail.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 01:49, Jim Ancona <j...@anconafamily.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Sep 25, 7:16 pm, Zanshin <zanshin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > It does, in fact, mean they can't make custom ROMs.  The Google apps
> >> > are part of the core authentication and sign-in framework.   Without
> >> > those, the Android platform doesn't work.
>
> >> Not true. I'm running Android, built from the open source tree, on my
> >> Openmoko Freerunner without any of the proprietary Google apps. See
> >>http://code.google.com/p/android-on-freerunner/for more info.

Disconnect

unread,
Sep 27, 2009, 1:54:32 PM9/27/09
to android...@googlegroups.com
I got a quiet "heads up, you can't do that and we might have to
notice" from a googler back when I was making AOSP adp1 images - I
only integrated gmail and such on one or two, but the HTC binaries
were evidently an issue. It isn't why I stopped, but it certainly
contributed.

Casper Bang

unread,
Sep 27, 2009, 3:17:56 PM9/27/09
to Android Discuss
Here's the silly thing: It would be ok if Cyanogen made Nandroid first
copied the propriatary .apk files from the original ROM, weaved it
into the custom ROM and flashed it back.

I hope Google won't do too much of this, because then I might as well
had bought an iPhone.

/Casper

On 27 Sep., 19:54, Disconnect <dc.disconn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I got a quiet "heads up, you can't do that and we might have to
> notice" from a googler back when I was making AOSP adp1 images - I
> only integrated gmail and such on one or two, but the HTC binaries
> were evidently an issue. It isn't why I stopped, but it certainly
> contributed.
>
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 1:48 PM, L!TH!UM <clarkd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Riddle me this, does anyone know if other ROM cooks have received C&D
> > letters?  i realize cyanogen's ROM is the most popular right now, but
> > I have not heard of any other modders receiving a C&D letter.  If not,
> > then don't throw in the towel just yet.  Then again, maybe it is
> > because Cyanogen was the first to use the donut in his ROM and
> > included the new Market app.  Either way, i seriously doubt this will
> > stop the modding community.
>
> > On Sep 27, 6:56 am, Disconnect <dc.disconn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Ohter problems - you can't make or break calls (oops, "setup" is
> >> proprietary). Calendar has such dependencies on sync that it just flat
> >> doesn't work. (I heard rumours that contacts may be the same way.)
>
> >> The really sick thing is, HTC has already made non-google versions of
> >> these apps. But - thanks to the android licensing - they're closed
> >> source too..
>
> >> 2009/9/26 Cédric Berger <cedric.berge...@gmail.com>:
>
> >> > On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 01:49, Jim Ancona <j...@anconafamily.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> On Sep 25, 7:16 pm, Zanshin <zanshin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > It does, in fact, mean they can't make custom ROMs.  The Google apps
> >> >> > are part of the core authentication and sign-in framework.   Without
> >> >> > those, the Android platform doesn't work.
>
> >> >> Not true. I'm running Android, built from the open source tree, on my
> >> >> Openmoko Freerunner without any of the proprietary Google apps. See
> >> >>http://code.google.com/p/android-on-freerunner/formore info.

PhoenixAG

unread,
Sep 28, 2009, 8:47:37 AM9/28/09
to Android Discuss
I think a lot of Android users are thinking along the same lines
(should have gone with phone X or Y).

Microsoft earlier had a problem with the XDA community as well, till
they realised what a boon the modders were and how the custom roms of
the totally closed source Windows Mobile OS were benefitting them more
than they could ever hurt them.

Now, MS just looks away. The users are happy and MS's market share
didn't take a hit.

The reason I decided to try an Android device and not go in for the
tried and tested WM platform, was its promise of openness, far beyond
WM could offer. The promise of customizability, of numerous custom
roms which could be run on it, etc.

If Google are serious about shutting down the custom roms area, then
Android will be still-born as an OS. I am still on the fence right
now. If custom rom development stops, I'll be the first to sell my
Magic and get a WM device.

And to the people who say make custom roms without google's apps. I
like the apps. And they have tried to do that, but you know what? It
breaks the contacts sync, the email sync, the calendar sync, the whole
marketplace, the maps API and numerous other things. Basically makes
it useless.

Cyanogen is finding a way to offer a clean rom with the ability to add
those closed source google apps back in to the user, but I am
sceptical that this will be a viable solution.

Anyhow, its not like Google can release a stable OS anyway. Maybe they
should just hire Cyanogen and make him work on the OS upgrades? :)

lbcoder

unread,
Sep 28, 2009, 9:30:14 AM9/28/09
to Android Discuss
Authentication and sign in are only needed to support gmail, market,
etc.

On Sep 25, 7:16 pm, Zanshin <zanshin...@gmail.com> wrote:

paul zazzarino

unread,
Sep 28, 2009, 12:05:30 PM9/28/09
to android...@googlegroups.com
Folks this is just way too humorous. I goggled "C & D" and came up with this
link on Cyanogen and Android

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VZHT389eR4

Streets Of Boston

unread,
Sep 28, 2009, 2:02:09 PM9/28/09
to Android Discuss
I won't be surprised if this video has to be taken down, when YouTube
finds out that using parts of this movie may violate copyrights. :-)

On Sep 28, 12:05 pm, "paul zazzarino" <paulzazzar...@3zwireless.com>
wrote:

Calvin

unread,
Sep 25, 2009, 8:27:07 PM9/25/09
to Android Discuss
Google,


If you are going to play this card, then you need to supply a way for
the user to sync our information. THAT PART needs to be open source or
licensable. I understand that you may need to have protections on
those apps, but WE are taking the risk that Cyanogen is not malicious.

I paid for an OPEN SOURCE Android phone with Google. That means I paid
for the rights to use these closed source apps and services ALONG with
the open source OS. Explain to me how the ROM is "supposedly" open
source. Does that mean that I need to compile all of my own ROMs in
order to have a modified ROM? Your "closed source" google apps are WAY
too ingrained and integrated into the OS to allow a separation. This
makes all that "open source" talk no more than Symbian claiming to be
open source.

Because honestly, without Cyanogen's mods, the G1 is LAME. I am
constantly defending its abilities (or lack thereof) with the fact
that my phone is part of an open source alliance. Now, the Apple
fanboys are going to win. And unfortunately, I may have to join them.
Either hire Cyanogen or license him to distribute google apps. Its not
like he's changing them. He's optimizing the Linux Kernel that you
chose to use in the name of "open-source".

You need to stop these silly Apple-like games before Android becomes
an afterthought.

Sincerely,

The Truly Disappointed.

itmatters

unread,
Sep 26, 2009, 6:49:33 AM9/26/09
to Android Discuss

I want to start by saying that I very recently purchased a T-Mobile G1
specifically because I was impressed with Cyanogen's mod work. I could
have easily gone with any phone I wanted, but I loved the ability to
experiment with and customize my phone. I can appreciate the fact that
Google has rights, of course. I hope that Google can appreciate why I
chose a phone running an open source OS. It was a deciding factor for
me.

It seems like there are options here, short of shutting Cyanogen down
completely. That will likely alienate him, those like him, and those
who appreciate their work. Google could choose to provide guidance to
him, or even actively help him with licensing compliance. There seem
to be potential workarounds for most of the grievances. The nature of
the resolution of this matter will color how I view owning an Android
device, as well as future buying decisions. Were work like Cyanogen's
not available at the time I purchased the G1, I can definitively say I
would have looked elsewhere. The limitations of the stock ROM powered
device were deal breakers.

As easy as it will likely be to discourage Cyanogen from doing things
Google doesn't like, I think it may be even easier to discourage many
potential customers from considering Android powered devices. If this
is the beginning of the end of zealous efforts to make my phone do
amazing things, I will have a different phone on the next go 'round.

Calvin

unread,
Sep 25, 2009, 8:34:57 PM9/25/09
to Android Discuss
You are becoming the evil entity which you claim you strive not to be.

Cyanogen is a better OS developer than all of Google apparently.
Because your OS is crappy without his modifications.

Maybe cyanogen should release the source to his modifications and NOT
release a ROM.

that way, we can compile all of our own ROMs so Google can kiss T-mo's
butt.

Oh, and my last message was much nicer, but Google somehow "lost it"

On Sep 25, 5:16 pm, Streets Of Boston <flyingdutc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Some more info here, from Google:http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2009/09/note-on-google-apps-fo...

raitchison

unread,
Sep 25, 2009, 8:41:24 PM9/25/09
to Android Discuss
Cyanogen has already said he will be releasing a "bare bones" custom
ROM without the Google bits, of course pretty much nobody will use it
because it will essentially be a basic Linux distro.

On Sep 25, 4:16 pm, Eric F <ericfrie...@gmail.com> wrote:

raitchison

unread,
Sep 25, 2009, 8:20:43 PM9/25/09
to Android Discuss
The net effect is the same, as a custom Android ROM is not viable
without the Google bits, no contacts sync and no market means there is
no legit way to get the other apps.

zambezy

unread,
Sep 25, 2009, 8:52:51 PM9/25/09
to Android Discuss
Google is killing the Android...

People are right, without having Market the phone is useless.

Without modding, the Phone is useless.

Horrible way to turn potential users and contributors away. Now that
android is on the brink of going big.
Many new phones coming out. I hope that those future users are not
turned away by this.

Look Cyan was probably crossing the line little. This could have been
handled a lot better.

Like Please dont distribute the following apps: List....
I still have no idea of what is allowed and what is not...

anyone can you make a list!!!

Second If I got a Phone that came with those apps I payed for them...
Actually my carrier payed for them...
If I had it installed and I have not duplicated it on multiple devices
then its nothing to biatch about.
If you dont want the app distributed. Make the DAMN app PAYED if you
dont want it included!!!!
FREE MEANS FREE!!! Not you cant distribute.
That is like saying freeware although closed source can not be
distributed!!! RETARDED!!!

ITS FREE BUT YOU CANT USE IT!!! who came up with that idea.

If you dont want your precius apps distributed make a list of what is
ok and what is not ok to play with.
Then bitch all you want if someone is not following the rules.

Paul Johnson

unread,
Sep 27, 2009, 9:32:08 AM9/27/09
to Android Discuss
I believe modders should be admitted to use the apks if they do not
change anything within the app. As long as the apps are used as
google intends(on an Android device and only winting android) then
there shouldn't be a problem. Google needs to set guidlines to help
these modders. I only bought my phone because of the "openess" and I
knew rooting and custom roms would be easier to create than the
iphone. I have been a long term google supporter and this does not
settle well with me.
On Sep 25, 1:37 pm, "L!TH!UM" <clarkd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was initially disappointed to hear this news, but after thinking
> about it a bit, it was a necessary one.  The big issue is that
> Cyanogen is including the google APKs like Google Mail, Google Maps,
> etc.  These are closed applications and not part of the Android OS,
> and if Google lets this slide, they may not be able to defend against
> other ROMs including these APKs without permission.  Also, consider
> what would happen if any of those APKs were modified to do something
> devious, like send contact info to some server out there on the
> interwebs.  Who do you think users would initially blame?  I'm
> guessing they'd blame Google regardless of the fact that they modded
> their phone.
>
> This C&D does not prevent Cyanogen from making custom ROMs, he/she/
> they just cannot include those google applications anymore.  I can
> understand this move and hope the modding community takes note and
> keeps up the modding, minus these apps (unfortunately).
>

FrozenCow

unread,
Sep 28, 2009, 1:41:15 PM9/28/09
to Android Discuss
What I find really weird about Google making this move is that it
wasn't clear at all that the Google-apps are not a part of Android
(and it still isn't very clear for me). They do mention this in their
recent blog post (http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2009/09/note-
on-google-apps-for-android.html) stating: "... but the apps are not
part of the Android platform itself.". This statement sounds really
weird to me. They advertise with 'Android', not 'Android with Google
apps'. Also all communications about these apps happen through groups
and issue trackers that are named 'Android' and not 'Google apps for
Android'. They should really make this separation to just make it
clear what we are talking about.

Before all the fuss about the Google apps, I didn't even knew they
were not actually part of Android :S. The first time I heard about
this was from Cyanogen saying he received a cease and desist. That
really gives Google a bad name from my perspective. If they were clear
before that the Google apps weren't a part of Android, the cease and
desist message would have sounded a lot more logical for most people.

I hope Cyanogen can find a way to be fully legal and open, but to have
the ability to add the proprietary apps to the os.

Juerujin

unread,
Sep 25, 2009, 8:36:52 PM9/25/09
to Android Discuss
The problem is that minus the "Google Experience" android is nearly
useless. Think about it, you can't get your Gmail pushed to your
device as conveniently, your calendar will have to jump through hoops
before it can have two way sync (if possible at all), as for your
contacts .... heh. It will practically send us back to the age where
we had to physically hook up to a computer to sync our mobile devices.
Cyanogen - Google = A crippled device. Yeah we would find replacements
and probably get over it in time. But the whole reason i used Google
services, transfered all my contacts from outlook to Google Contacts,
started using Google Calender, and even stopped using my iPod as my
primary mobile device was because all of my data from everywhere could
be pulled together wireless-ly. And the reason i used Cyanogen's Mod
was because it gave me App2SD, Linux Swap, and quite a few other
features that a stock G1 wouldn't have .... and not to forget THEMES.
If Google gave me the ability to even change the color of the
interface i would be happy. Alas, the main thing that saddens me is
that nothing i say here will make a difference as Google does have the
right to do this and we can't even fault them for doing so. And if one
really thinks about it, for every 100 "modifiers" (a bit different
from devs ... we are the consumers that never keep a stock device as
is) like myself that leave the android platform behind, another 200
even 400 "consumers" will probably step in to fill the space making
our opinions very hard to actually take seriously. I wish that there
was some way that Google could license Cyanogen to distribute the
items but i am pretty sure that companies such as T-mobile pay quite a
penny for the privileged and for a one man dev operation such as what
Cyanogen is running this may not be an option. But still i had to say
what i had to say and while it will probably disappear into the depths
of the forum archives as has many other comments on many other various
sites that have gone before mine, i still feel better for having said
it.

The day that Cyanogen Mod was crippled was the day Android died for
me .... a sad day indeed. RIP Android 2007 - 2009.

(and while it may seem like i may be overreacting, I really did enjoy
the convenience of both the Cyanogen Experience AND the Google
Experience. And now i'm afraid i'll have to choose( or give up on
both ...... but alas ..... once again, a spec of sand on a beach))

Sheridan Hutchinson

unread,
Sep 28, 2009, 12:23:24 PM9/28/09
to Android Discuss
I just feel really let down about the whole platform now. I was drawn
to Android initially because of it's open-source ethos. In practice
however, I may have just as well got an iPhone for all the
restrictions and missing functionality that it has.

On the other hand though, even if you go to the Gmail website with
your desktop, it downloads the Javascript Gmail client which is
completely Copyrighted as well, but because it's in your browser it's
more difficult to comprehend that so much.

Surely we could produce open-source versions of some of the apps and
functionality, somehow?

Sean Hodges

unread,
Sep 28, 2009, 3:15:55 PM9/28/09
to android...@googlegroups.com
Sheridan, you're a little late to the party. Cyanogen has blogged
about the situation and has come to an agreement with Google. His blog
appears to be down right now (server load?) but the cached version is
available here:

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:1kjjDx_7P60J:www.cyanogenmod.com/home/the-current-state+cyanogenmod&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk

Regarding the general "open-sourceness" of the Android platform, it
has been no secret that the shipped O/S was never entirely
open-source, only the platform - minus a few device drivers. There are
threads going on in the android-platform list about producing
open-source replacements for the proprietory components on the ADP1
(development reference phone), but if you are looking for a COMPLETELY
open-source platform right now, this one isn't quite there yet. You
can either: wait, help out, or buy an OpenMoko phone (which has always
used a completely open-source software stack).

Felipemnoa

unread,
Sep 28, 2009, 4:15:22 PM9/28/09
to android...@googlegroups.com
Go ahead and join apple. Nothing wrong with being able to program in more than one phone. If you look at things objectively google has done nothing wrong.
On Sep 25, 4:16 pm, Eric F <ericfrie...@gmail.com> wrote:
Now that the Lawyers are involved, I doubt Cyanogen will be able to
release any additional ROMs at all. Even without those apps, I'm sure
the ROMs include little bits of proprietary files required to get the
OS to boot on existing hardware. I don't think there is a single piece
of released hardware that the AOSP runs on (not even the ADP1). So I
don't think the Lawyers will let up because the next custom ROM only
uses a couple of proprietary HTC files. I'm guessing it's done for
good.

Andrew Hays

unread,
Sep 28, 2009, 4:20:43 PM9/28/09
to android...@googlegroups.com
The fact of the matter is, Google did what they needed to and what was right.  Whether or not you like the idea of what they've done is a completely different story.  The OS is open source, yes, but the applications are not, and they have a right to distribute those as they like.  Therefore, they've left the platform open, without giving access to all of the apps.  It's a reasonable approach and still leaves the platform open.  Even if it's not as open as everyone would like.
------------------
http://andrewhays.net
http://ashays.livejournal.com

PhoenixAG

unread,
Sep 28, 2009, 5:04:43 PM9/28/09
to Android Discuss
To all those who think that Google may be even a little "correct" in
what they have done:

This post is for you. Please read it carefully and feel free to
forward it to Google.

Ok, so let me point out the absolute RETARDEDNESS of the situation.

Google objects to Gmail, Maps, Contacts Sync, GTalk, being included
with the CyanogenMod rom.
These same apps are available for almost EVERY OTHER phone out there.
I have used Gmail, GMaps, Sync on my blackberry, symbian and WM
device. I have used Gtalk on my blackberry.

WHY are these apps not available in the market place? Ok, let Cyanogen
come up with a clean rom. Let him get rid of these apps. But why not
make it easy for us to just download these apps and install them? Why
RESTRICT your own apps from your OWN OS??? When you are making
available the SAME APPS for all the other phones out there?

The retardedness of it boggles the mind. They must be smoking
something up there, right?

On Sep 29, 1:20 am, Andrew Hays <m...@andrewhays.net> wrote:
> The fact of the matter is, Google did what they needed to and what was
> right.  Whether or not you like the idea of what they've done is a
> completely different story.  The OS is open source, yes, but the
> applications are not, and they have a right to distribute those as they
> like.  Therefore, they've left the platform open, without giving access to
> all of the apps.  It's a reasonable approach and still leaves the platform
> open.  Even if it's not as open as everyone would like.
> ------------------http://andrewhays.nethttp://ashays.livejournal.com
>
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Felipemnoa <felipem...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Go ahead and join apple. Nothing wrong with being able to program in more
> > than one phone. If you look at things objectively google has done nothing
> > wrong.
>

Disconnect

unread,
Sep 28, 2009, 5:11:44 PM9/28/09
to android...@googlegroups.com
Lets join pretend-land (actually, I take that back. Lets not. I forgot
that maps is available in the market already.)

Lets look at maps. It is in the market, it runs as a standalone app,
etc. (It is even arguably -way- more core to the 'platform' than gmail
syncing, since it powers a core service - mapview.)

Now, lets take a magic future AOSP device, where you can actually do
stuff without the proprietary bins. (It is under construction, so it
is not unreasonable to assume it will appear someday, prolly sooner
than later. Well.. at least as far as google proprietary bins. HTC is
a whole nother issue, and google is basically just saying
"lalalalalala" about it.)

How do you get maps onto your new device? Market is closed source. (In
fact, Dianne posted a while ago that market was the BIGGEST piece of
the google experience, and the one they would be most willing to
defend. It is the big carrot they use to force vendors to sign up for
google experience stuff.) And if you think they're going to offer
maps from their website, for free, well thats just crazy talk. Thats
like.. well... ok, now that is like every other phone platform out
there and some I'd never heard of. But they can't do that, cuz this is
ANDROID. This is their flagship product, and having google maps on it
would be..like...

OK well this is where I give up. But putting it in market is not a
solution, because they are defending market vigorously. (And by
extension, they won't use the alt markets either.)

Andrew Hays

unread,
Sep 28, 2009, 5:11:35 PM9/28/09
to android...@googlegroups.com
Your argument makes no sense.

They don't include the apps because they don't have to.  It's their application.  My father's company has an android application that they didn't release to the public because they want it to stay "in-house."  More power to them (iPhone can't do that when it's locked).  The reason they don't release their own applications as open source on their own OS is simply because they don't have to.  It's not our right to receive the apps as open source just because we bought their phone.  Not everything needs to be open source.  The apps are restricted because they don't want them getting out, plain and simple.
------------------
http://andrewhays.net
http://ashays.livejournal.com

PhoenixAG

unread,
Sep 28, 2009, 5:40:28 PM9/28/09
to Android Discuss
Your argument makes no sense.

I am not asking Google to release the source code of their apps. I
assume you understand that this is what open source means?
I am just asking Google to make the binaries (apks) of their apps
available on the Android Market for everyone to freely download. These
can be closed sourced. All the pay for apps on the market are closed
sourced and most of the freeware too.

Coming to why your argument makes no sense. The reason is:

Your dad's company makes an application, but they don't release it in
the public. That is fine. This is their own decision. However, your
dad's company doesn't make the same application for every other mobile
phone OS out there. They also don't make it freely available for every
other mobile phone OS out there. They don't only restrict that
application for their OWN mobile OS.

Can you see the logic in that? Neither can I.

Again, Cyanogen was in no way changing the source code of these apps
(the code isn't available in the first place). Neither was he reverse
engineering the apps. All he was doing was distributing the apps with
the rom. These apps are already freely distributed by Google for every
other phone OS. If Google has a problem with a 3rd party (Cyanogen)
distributing their apps, why don't they distribute the apps
themselves? Why neglect your own OS? Why are they not available on the
market place?

That brings me to the argument that Android is just a linux OS. The
modifications that Google makes with their closed source apps is not
Android, but a "Google Experience" device. Fine. Let's believe that
for a second and just take it at face value.

So, Android, a mobile phone OS, is not supposed to come with the
Google apps. Google does us a favour by including them, but they are
not in Android's licensing agreements. This is fine.
Then why not make the Google apps available for the Android OS?
They are already available for WM, Symbian, Blackberry, iPhone, etc.
Even normal java based phones! Why not make the apps separately
available for the Android OS?
Why neglect your child? Why deprive your child of the tools that all
the other kids are using? The same tools your OWN company makes?

As I said, it boggles the mind.

On Sep 29, 2:11 am, Andrew Hays <m...@andrewhays.net> wrote:
> Your argument makes no sense.
>
> They don't include the apps because they don't have to.  It's their
> application.  My father's company has an android application that they
> didn't release to the public because they want it to stay "in-house."  More
> power to them (iPhone can't do that when it's locked).  The reason they
> don't release their own applications as open source on their own OS is
> simply because they don't have to.  It's not our right to receive the apps
> as open source just because we bought their phone.  Not *everything needs to
> be open source.  The apps are restricted because they don't want them
> getting out, plain and simple.*

Hong

unread,
Sep 28, 2009, 5:43:46 PM9/28/09
to android...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Andrew Hays <m...@andrewhays.net> wrote:
My father's company has an android application that they didn't release to the public because they want it to stay "in-house."  More power to them (iPhone can't do that when it's locked).
You can get an Enterprise iPhone dev license that you can distribute apps within your own network, e.g. your own company.
You can also distribute iPhone apps ad-hoc way if it's less than 100 users.

iPhone OS is not as bad as you might think.

Andrew Hays

unread,
Sep 28, 2009, 5:50:07 PM9/28/09
to android...@googlegroups.com
I'm not saying that the iPhone is bad, just saying that in general this is something you can't do.  I know plenty of people that use the iPhone and they're happy with it, I just went with the G1.  I have no problem with either, just saying that we should be happy for something nice that we do have.

Cédric Berger

unread,
Sep 29, 2009, 3:39:46 AM9/29/09
to android...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 23:11, Disconnect <dc.dis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lets look at maps. It is in the market, it runs as a standalone app,
> etc. (It is even arguably -way- more core to the 'platform' than gmail
> syncing, since it powers a core service - mapview.)
>

There is Maps in the market, but I doubt it would work without the
Maps API library which is not on the Market. (?)
And this library is even more valuable for android since (well, as far
as I know) this is what a lot of third party apps use when integrating
maps. So they won't work either without it.

Disconnect

unread,
Sep 29, 2009, 7:59:12 AM9/29/09
to android...@googlegroups.com
According to hackbod, maps is the first example of a google-experience
app that is available from the market. So I doubt it requires anything
in the backend - it is easy enough to find out, just install it on a
market-but-not-experience device. (JBQ listed some for me yesterday
but I don't have it in front of me. They are out there though.)

2009/9/29 Cédric Berger <cedric....@gmail.com>:

Cédric Berger

unread,
Sep 29, 2009, 9:30:29 AM9/29/09
to android...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 13:59, Disconnect <dc.dis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> According to hackbod, maps is the first example of a google-experience
> app that is available from the market. So I doubt it requires anything
> in the backend - it is easy enough to find out, just install it on a
> market-but-not-experience device. (JBQ listed some for me yesterday
> but I don't have it in front of me. They are out there though.)

Yes, I am curious to know.
Though phones that are not "Google Experience" (the ones labeled "with
Google tm" ?) generally have signed a distribution agreement to
include Google applications on the phone. So google proprietary libs
can be in (and indeed that is the case if Market app is in). This is
not the same as AOSP.

lbcoder

unread,
Sep 29, 2009, 9:56:05 AM9/29/09
to Android Discuss
I suspect that it is going to become a matter of need that at least
*some* of the google closed apps be distributed directly by google
from their website. Mainly and especially maps. Being on the market is
nice, but isn't enough for all those devices (both existing and more
importantly FUTURE) that don't get market. The lack of a legal
distribution of maps WILL be a major stumbling block for a lot of
developers whose software *requires* maps, and I suspect that a
growing proportion of the android devices in the wild will themselves
be without market... i.e. when the chinese android-but-not-google
flood *really* starts... and it will. You know, what a way to get a
truly functional and cheap device out and be legal to distribute in
places like Europe and North America... i.e. the knock-off makers can
go legit and stick with their current pricing strategy.

I'm sure that this will happen eventually, when the knock-off-ers
start. After all, they have maps available for free for competing
phones, i.e. RIM. Even crabapple (though debranded).

On Sep 29, 7:59 am, Disconnect <dc.disconn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> According to hackbod, maps is the first example of a google-experience
> app that is available from the market. So I doubt it requires anything
> in the backend - it is easy enough to find out, just install it on a
> market-but-not-experience device. (JBQ listed some for me yesterday
> but I don't have it in front of me. They are out there though.)
>
> 2009/9/29 Cédric Berger <cedric.berge...@gmail.com>:

niko20

unread,
Sep 29, 2009, 10:31:19 AM9/29/09
to Android Discuss

Hey dumbasses that are mad at Google about this:

First of all, all of this stuff *belongs* to google, they can do what
they want with it. It's not YOURS. GET OVER IT.

Second of all, the reason they can't make the apps available *for
FREE* is because this is how they make money off of them, buy
packaging them for vendors to use. DUH! Just like you would make money
off an app you write.

Third of all, I've gotten several bug reports about my app not working
properly on Cyanogen modded phones. Obviously it's not as great as you
think! Having a custom ROM like this causes problems for developers in
the long run, because now I have to answer bug reports that are not
caused by my app, but by the ROM (because it's not fully tested for
all cases).

As said before, if you need a market, write your own. OR if you need
Google's market, etc, but you want a Custom ROM, then you need to do
what a vendor would do, and make a proper deal with them to do so!
DUH!


-niko20

niko20

unread,
Sep 29, 2009, 10:35:01 AM9/29/09
to Android Discuss

Oh, and I almost forgot:

Fourth, this now also shows who the main userbase of android is - a
bunch of open source geeks who never want to pay for *anything*, a
bunch of cheap asses (believe me, I am one of them too, I hate buying
tech stuff if I dont have to). But this is how companies stay in
business, no way around that.


-niko

niko20

unread,
Sep 29, 2009, 10:38:00 AM9/29/09
to Android Discuss

Dang drama queens BTW. You know you can still develop apps, and look,
they don't have to be approved after two weeks, that is still better
than apple.


-niko

Al Sutton

unread,
Sep 29, 2009, 11:02:34 AM9/29/09
to android...@googlegroups.com
Hopefully this will be the last person to go over the same ground
thats been covered several times in the last few days.

If anyone is thinking of posting follow-ups please don't, I'm sure
many people, like me, are now just hitting delete after the first few
words of a rant that some person or other thinks we all must know about.

Now, lets move on to something more constructive...

Al.
--

* Looking for Android Apps? - Try http://andappstore.com/ *

======
Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the
company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House,
152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK.

The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not
necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's
subsidiaries.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
Message has been deleted
0 new messages