How Open Is the Open-Source Android Truly?

There are four major operating systems ready in today's smartphones: the Android Os, the iOs of Apple, the Blackberry of Rim and the newest of all, the Windows Phone 7. One of the key benefits of the Os supported also by Google is that it is open-source. Many think that the Os being "open" is meant literally, without reasoning what's behind the term. Unfortunately, even though the source code is open to anyone, this does not mean, that we can freely modify any information of any function on any device.

The Android Os is oddly dual in this matter: on one hand it is totally open for the software developers, but on the other hand it is beyond doubt complete for the hardware manufacturers. This makes Android uniquely skewed.

Android Tablet 7

Re-interpreting one of the noted sayings of Henry Ford we might say: "Any buyer can have Android in any color he wants so long as it is black"

Even though the Android Os itself is open-source, codes of many elemental pars of it are closed, such as the:

• Android Market

• Google Talk

• E-mail client

• Maps application

• YouTube client

• Calendar application

• Framework responsible for the synchronization

Remember the first tablet models that were shipped without the store app? This was because Google decides who can access the complete applications, and so far it is only the Samsung Galaxy Tab, that was granted such access. While outsider developers can not conduce directly to the Android project, the code is only made group with the final release of an Android version. This makes the life of the outsider developers (such as ourselves) harder, as they (we) don't have the opening to get ready the applications for the newer versions.

Note, that Google roughly exclusively influences the direction of the development of Android. For the everyday user it is roughly irrelevant if the stock is open source or not, but let's take a look what this means of us?

The openness manifests itself mostly in the regulation of the Android Market. Due to the lack of definite control, developers can more effectively exploit the services built into the Os, or can even alter these (i.e. Swype). This would be impossible in the Apple App Store, as in this case the big bro' is all the time watching, and as long as they find something in the app they don't like, there is no way you will be embark on your app. The loose control of the Android apps might be dangerous, but as the community filters the apps (by rating them) the risk is minimal. Finally developers can also directly distribute their apps, even without registering it in the Market.

The Android Os made it also inherent for the mobile Operators to customize the Os of the devices they sell, and to release unique applications. Verizon in the Us used this possibility any times, by signing exclusive contracts with Skype and Microsoft (among others), not letting other operators use these services. Hardware operators can also modify the Os, see the Ui of Htc called Sense, or the TouchWiz of Samsung. Unfortunately, Google would like to stop these initiatives in the next versions, as these might lead to the fragmentation of the platform. Someone else concern is, that Htc users might have problems using a TouchWiz device, and that the new Os versions hold back the updates for these kind of modified versions.

Taking a closer look at a gadget running the Android Os, we can see that there are similar limitations as in case of the Apple devices. With an customary Os one can not touch the basic parts, as this is not allowed by Google for protection reasons. The user in this case has only "user rights", whereas if one wants to access all functions of the device, the gadget has to be "rooted". Note, that this is done at one's own risk only, as in this case the bootloader has to be hacked, that is an irreversible process, and might lead to the loss of warranty and bricking the device.

As you can see, an Android gadget is not as open as it seems, especially after all the buzz around the Os. It is safer to say, that the Android Os is in many cases much more open than the iOs.

All in all we cannot state that one Os is good than the other, as they were designed for distinct purposes. While Apple and Rim offer a complete - but complete - solution (united hardware and software), Windows Phone 7 and Android are Os that can be used by the mobile manufacturers, and thus these have to be more open, so that the developers can personalize them according to the distinct hardware used.

As we can see there is a necessity for a determined level of closeness, as we tend to store more and more sensitive facts on our mobile devices, and as only a minority of the users wants to customize their devices. For all of the functions to be accessible, the Apple devices have to be jailbroken, the Android devices have to be rooted. Also, the closeness in case of the Android Os is Google's tool to keep control over the platform. Before making hasty decisions on any of the platforms, it is recommended to study the distinct platforms thoroughly, and to make the option only after the photograph is clear.

How Open Is the Open-Source Android Truly?

Tags : Graphic Tablet Store