Don't buy the "Android is open source" whitewashing. They just do code drops of some parts as open source where it suits them, but keep large parts as closed source when profitable/convenient. And the open source parts aren't useful on their own, because the proprietary parts are essential parts of the system's value. And then of course come the services and the platform's tight coupling to them. The services are even more closed - unnecessarily.

Real open source systems have outside contributors and stakeholders, and developer communities. Android mostly just has app developers and a "hacking" scene (xda etc).

Yes there's a small band of Quixotic guys trying to make an open source fork limp along but it's comparable in size (and odds of success) to Amiga users/developers. It's an unusable tech experiment that only runs on a couple of antiquated phones and has no services, not the Android that people know.

The only openness-related reason to prefer Android over iOS is that they still let you install what apps you like on it (sideloading) and the app store policies are slightly less draconian than Apple's.

What about CyanogenMod?

Nothing. Fully open CyanogenMod is called Replicant, and just take a look at its support list. That's how open and free Android platforms really are.

http://redmine.replicant.us/projects/replicant/wiki/Replican...

Those look like it's just missing drivers? Android itself doesn't have much to do with that.

Notice that it's still based on 4.2, there are not so many of devices it can run on and even with fully documented and open platforms like GTA04 it's still a lot of work to make it run.

Plus there's absolutely no way to upstream their work, so it's a massive maintenance burden (one of the reasons they're still on 4.2)

AOSP is just what zurn said above - a code drop. If Android was really an open platform, Replicant either wouldn't be needed or Replicant devs would have much less work to do. Openness of Android is great for Chinese vendors making cheap tablets, so they have a ready system to put on them for almost free - but it's not so good as an open platform.

Android is for Google, by Google. The source is put someplace public each release, but development is completely behind closed doors. There is little transparency at all, on roadmaps, status of what is being worked on, status of existing bugs, etc.

If you aren't going to be part of the virtuous cycle of the Android ecosystem / OHA in general and license GMS, it makes less sense to use it as a base for something as grand as whats described in the article.

I think this is the way Google designed it.

Even if development is not public, the source code is licensed as open-source and it can be forked, which is the whole freaking point. Amazon could fork it. Nokia could fork it. One can argue that CyanogenMod is a fork as well.

What makes little sense is to start again, mostly from scratch (or from MeeGo or its successor, which is basically from scratch). This project is a failure before they started working on it.

And good luck finding a hardware manufacturer willing to produce devices with your forked version thanks to Google's draconian agreements with manufacturers.

Given that there are in fact phones on the market that do not include Google's Play or apps, such assertions need references. So what "draconian agreements" are you talking about?

That would be these agreements: http://bgr.com/2014/02/13/google-play-terms-of-service/

“the agreement places a company-wide ban on Android forks, saying OEMs are forbidden from taking ‘any actions that may cause or result in the fragmentation of Android’ and specifically disallows distributing or encouraging a third-party to distribute ‘a software development kit derived from Android.'”

Not so very open after all?

The people who have forked android have great difficulty finding OEMs to manufacture thrir devices as the list of those who don't have agreements with Google is rather short.

No one ever said that Google's services were open. The operating system itself is open. instead of starting from 0, Yandex could just modify Android and have their own market, maps... People been bitching about fragmentation in Android for years, when google changed their agreement to counter it, people are now bitching about the agreement.

The problem is that even if they create their own marketplace etc. any manufacturers who have an agreement with Google will be unable to manufacture any devices running the forked version. The restriction is company wide for the OEM.

The political motivation is transparent, there is nothing insane about protecting your ill-gotten wealth - in classical Eastern European style, the technical feasibility of this project is of little importance to the politicians whose whims are promoting it.

Ill-gotten wealth ? AFAIK Russia gets its wealth mostly from oil.

And that wealth goes straight into the pockets of corrupt officials instead of the common people, or at least infrastructure.

But then, if they make their own phone OS it does go to infrastructure, or doesn't it?

var solution = all.Max(s=>s.KickBackAmount);

ah, i spy with my little eye an enterprise developer in a government institution.