●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!
Forgot your password?
Close
wnewsdaystalestupid
sightfulinterestingmaybe
cflamebaittrollredundantoverrated
vefunnyunderrated
podupeerror
×
71938519
story
Posted
by
Soulskill
April 16, 2015 @02:01PM
from the unexpected-alliances dept.
Unknown Lamer writes: Microsoft and Cyanogen Inc have announced a partnership to bring Microsoft applications to Cyanogen OS. "Under the partnership, Cyanogen will integrate and distribute Microsoft's consumer apps and services across core categories, including productivity, messaging, utilities, and cloud-based services. As part of this collaboration, Microsoft will create native integrations on Cyanogen OS, enabling a powerful new class of experiences." Ars Technica comments, "If Cyanogen really wants to ship a Googleless Android, it will need to provide alternatives to Google's services, and this Microsoft deal is a small start. Microsoft can provide alternatives for Search (Bing), Google Drive (OneDrive and Office), and Gmail (Outlook). The real missing pieces are alternatives to Google Play, Google Maps, and Google Play Services."
Rather than distribute more proprietary services, how about ownCloud for Drive, K-9 Mail for Gmail, OsmAnd for Maps, and F-Droid for an app store? Mozilla and DuckDuckGo provide Free Software search providers for Android, too. With Google neglecting the Android Open Source Project and Cyanogen partnering with Microsoft, the future for Free Software Android as anything but a shell for proprietary software looks bleak.
You may like to read:
New Chemical Tools Lead To Targeted Cancer Drugs
A 2-Year-Old Has Become the Youngest Person Ever To Be Cryonically Frozen
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
bypushing-robot ( 1037830 ) writes:
...at least we're out of the frying pan!
twitter
facebook
by__keronin ( 3601667 ) writes:
seems Microsoft decide to have a real serious fight with Google ! who will win ? Apple
bybeefoot ( 2250164 ) writes:
Judging by the market share of android vs ios, (yes, I have the flame suit on), I'm sorry to say that apple .... hmmmm.... does not matter. So is windows phone.
byMightyYar ( 622222 ) writes:
Market share is not as important as "profit share". This is true for both device makers and App developers. Apple matters very much, with only 20% market share by unit but 89% by profit. [techcrunch.com] On the app front, Apple paid out $10 billion to developers last year while Google paid out $7 billion. [recode.net]
So yes, they still are relevant.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byslaker ( 53818 ) writes:
I respectfully submit that Android is substantially more functional with its core set of applications than iOS. Android device owners need fewer apps because the stuff that their devices come with do the things they need a mobile device to do. Android can share data freely among applications and is much less picky about data formats, so there's no need to resort to some of the weird fuckery or workarounds iOS users have to deal with to bend, fold or mutilate their needs into something that iOS can actually do.
Android as a platform has an ad-supported revenue channel more available to developers and the tools for developing and deploying on Android are free, so it's easier to be modestly sustaining without having to charge $1 for every fart keyboard or flappy bird application you want to put in the app store. There are drawbacks to that approach, but I really do not care if some software dev is getting rich because I needed an RDP client or somesuch.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byiluvcapra ( 782887 ) writes:
I respectfully submit that Android is substantially more functional with its core set of applications than iOS.
A good case can be made that an OHA Android phone is a better value proposition for a vanilla end user than an iOS iPhone. If you're alright with your phone being a dumb terminal for Google services and $SOCIAL_NETWORK_X, you're better off.
If you're a third party developer like Microsoft though, it's a much worse value proposition to target the platform, because Google aggressively crowds them out
byslaker ( 53818 ) writes:
I think you may be working with old information.
Can I store an arbitrary file on an iOS device yet? What if I want to download an MP3 using Safari or Chrome and play it with the native iOS music player? Can arbitrary apps share data without specific developer support yet? Can I do those things without rooting the device?
As far as I can tell the workflow for every single non-intended use of an iOS starts with "Step 1. Get a Dropbox account" and that by itself represents both a clear inadequacy of the platform and a worthwhile acquisition for a company that already has more money than it knows how to spend.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byslaker ( 53818 ) writes:
How would you share data between two apps if both developers didn't support that?
On Android, data sharing is fully handled by the OS, not unlike the copy/paste buffer in most desktop OSes. This means the list of applications with which one can share data is consistent both in terms of content and capability.
Something I've observed to be true is that iOS applications seem to be specifically coded to share data with other iOS applications. A lot of things can share data to Dropbox, but fewer seem to be able to share the same data to Google Drive or Onedrive. Data sharing seems to be a one-way street where the application developer has to support whatever hooks were provided for the target app. At the very least, the list of supported applications for sharing does not appear consistent from app to app, even within the context of a particular data type. I suspect this is in large part due to the iOS security model, but I take issue with that for other reasons anyway.
Everything you mention is fine but I'm not sure there's some killer user story or use case that justifies it in light of the security issues. I don't think any 3rd party app developer should be able to see any of your file system ever, not on your phone. It's just too dangerous, the thing is always on the network, it knows where you live and you can't unplug it.
"I can't think of a reason someone would want to to it, so it must be a bad idea."
There's a 128GB iPad sitting in my office. I have no particular use for a 128GB iPad, but it's still 128GB of flash storage that I could potentially use for something-or-other (yes, I am aware that I can get 128GB flash drives for under $50 but that's what a 128GB iPad is worth to me). Putting that aside, it's storage. On the iOS device, I have to associate everything with a particular application. I can't even use the stupid thing to transfer inert data (that I already had to add through iTunes since the device can't meaningfully interact with SMB, FTP or NFS) that for one reason or other doesn't match up with file size limits on my cloud storage provider's service.
Likewise, I don't have any control over arrangement of data under iOS. I have to accept whatever the device does and like it. That sometimes means making multiple copies of the same file (on a device that's specifically sold on the basis of its storage limitations) for different apps in cases where those two apps can't share data. It also means potentially jumbling a lot of data together that I don't really want to have view that way. Should I really be forced to reorganize my data to conform to the limitations of the device?
Whether or not applications are granted the ability to access a filesystem, the system owner should be able to do that even if it's just an infrequently used option.
Honestly I just spent about 30 minutes trying to find a website where I could even try to download an MP3
Ahem. [youtube-mp3.org] This is a thing that people do. This is a thing people do all the goddamned time. Yes, you can get an app on iOS that can sandbox those particular downloaded MP3s on internal storage, but look at how ridiculous the workflow is to move those files out of that sandbox and in to the default music app so you can add them to your normal playlists.
Even speaking of podcasts, haven't you ever been browsing on your iThing and wanted to snag a one-off episode of something? "Oh, I want to download the rest of that episode of Fresh Aire that I heard 10 minutes of in the car. Should I open a podcasting app and then the Fresh Aire feed so I can find that one episode that was a rerun originally recorded in 2007 and therefore buried in the feed or should I just search for it from the web?"
One app to play all your music is 1990s thinking; modern apps are meant to brand content and service experiences, instead of them all launchi
Read the rest of this comment...
Parent
twitter
facebook
byl3v1 ( 787564 ) writes:
"Visible global filesystem on a phone always seemed like a gee-whiz feature that wasn't really justified. Frankly I think the visible global filesystem on personal computers isn't really justified, considering how many people just dump everything into ~/Documents and most productivity apps have their own bespoke document browser/organizer."
First: average users being ignorant doesn't mean what they do is OK, or acceptable for everyone.
Secondly: for crying out loud, how many times do we need to repeat that
byiluvcapra ( 782887 ) writes:
I may decide that I have (iTunes,Amazon,BeatPort) music but you have no business deciding, or worse forcing, those ditinguishing attributes for me.
Where have you been the last five years? The war was fought and consumers of your ilk have lost utterly. I mean you may want your phone or your computer to work this way but you're a vanishing minority. Only dorks prioritize app choice over content.
byKlomDark ( 6370 ) writes:
What are you talking about? Or was that supposed to be a funny statement?
byVTBlue ( 600055 ) writes:
If you believe the only goal of the company is to make money I hope you never start a business. Shareholder Value Maximisation theory pushed forward by Milton Friedman has been one of the most destructive and empirically flawed ideas in the 20th century.
bycavreader ( 1903280 ) writes:
You can always start a non-profit company to sooth your conscience while satisfying your goals in life but there is nothing wrong about starting a company to make profits. MS, Apple, Google, and a whole bunch of other companies started out with nothing more than a few good ideas that eventually led to profitability. They didn't start off life as "evil" globe spanning billion dollar enterprises capable of throwing their weight and money around to increase their profitability.If you start a business from scra
byalexgieg ( 948359 ) writes:
at what point do look around and say I have earned enough profits so I need to slow down or even shutdown my operations or someone is going to call me "evil"?
At no point you should stop what you're doing just because you're earning enough. You should stop what you're doing when this that you're doing can only be properly described by the words "sociopathy" and/or "psychopathy". Given that, you can however certainly continue doing all the other non-sociopathic, non-psychopatic stuff you've doing that earns you huge and ever increasing profits. Those are fine.
bycavreader ( 1903280 ) writes:
"sociopathy" and/or "psychopathy" I don't see how these descriptors apply to a large company without resorting to making wide generalizations and assumptions based more on hearsay than actual facts. They seem to be attributes of individuals. People who criticize corporations as the root of all evil don't seem to realize that those very same corporations provide a lot of jobs for a lot of people. It would be nice to have those running the corporations to put more effort into adopting policies that support th
byradl33t ( 900691 ) writes:
I don't see how these descriptors apply to a large company without resorting to making wide generalizations and assumptions based more on hearsay than actual facts.
Read about it then. There is no dearth of material based on observation and fact. Peer reviewed research articles. Films. Investigative journalism.
byVTBlue ( 600055 ) writes:
It's a great sentiment that you express and I agree with all of it. It doesn't really speak to the idea that the only purpose of business is to make money. When you study 20th century business history and compare the age of managerialism to age to value maximisation (mid-80s onward) the data shows that the first had better outcomes, both for the business and for society.
byJack Griffin ( 3459907 ) writes:
What if his business is to compete with the Mint?
bytehcyder ( 746570 ) writes:
If you believe the only goal of the company is to make money I hope you never start a business. Shareholder Value Maximisation theory pushed forward by Milton Friedman has been one of the most destructive and empirically flawed ideas in the 20th century.
If you aren't interested in maximising shareholder value, you should not have (external) shareholders. There is nothing that forces a company to become a publicly traded one.
byperpenso ( 1613749 ) writes:
seems Microsoft decide to have a real serious fight with Google ! who will win ? Apple
Not necessarily. Like Google, IBM once created an open platform and Microsoft got into a serious fight with them. Microsoft won. And IBM was a 500lb gorilla in those days like Google is today, a very different IBM than today.
The PC vs Mac platform fight was separate from the fight within the PC platform over the operating system. Similarly the Android vs iOS platform fight may be separate for an operating system fight within Android.
If Microsoft can do something to better integrate Cyanogen based devices into the corporate workflow they might have some leverage. Plus an operating system that gets bug fixes and security updates might warrant some attention.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bymuirhead ( 698086 ) writes:
Tots agree that this could work for corporations. Especially if a certain Canadian firm gets a licence.
byMightyMartian ( 840721 ) writes:
BlackBerry is dead. Chen turned down the best deal he was likely ever going to get, and now it will fade away completely. Nobody cares about BB, heck they barely care about mobile Windows now. Microsoft's best hope is to hitch its wagon to an "open" Android variant with the hopes that it is a short hop to when the EU forces Google to open the branded version of Android on all those mid-range and high end mobile devices.
Mark my words. In two to three years, BB will have folded up, probably after Chen and his
byMightyYar ( 622222 ) writes:
IBM once created an open platform
They didn't create an open platform - the platform was "opened" for them by Compaq, and IBM saw a threat. Microsoft, on the other hand, saw an opportunity and happily licensed their code to all comers.
byperpenso ( 1613749 ) writes:
IBM once created an open platform
They didn't create an open platform - the platform was "opened" for them by Compaq, and IBM saw a threat. Microsoft, on the other hand, saw an opportunity and happily licensed their code to all comers.
Compaq et al were able to create clones because the IBM PC was an open platform.
"Lowe presented a detailed business plan that proposed that the new computer have an open architecture, use non-proprietary components and software, and be sold through retail stores, all contrary to IBM tradition"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I... [wikipedia.org]
Parent
twitter
facebook
byMobileTatsu-NJG ( 946591 ) writes:
From the same link:
The success of the IBM computer led other companies to develop IBM Compatibles, which in turn led to branding like diskettes being advertised as "IBM format". An IBM PC clone could be built with off-the-shelf parts, but the BIOS required some reverse-engineering. Companies like Compaq, Phoenix Software Associates, American Megatrends, Award, and others achieved fully functional versions of the BIOS, allowing companies like DELL, Gateway and HP to manufacture PCs that worked like IBM's product. The IBM PC became the industry standard.
Using off-the-shelf parts is not the same as being open.
byMobileTatsu-NJG ( 946591 ) writes:
IBM published the source code to their BIOS. That is pretty open and greatly facilitated the creation of a compatible BIOS.
Heh. No. Compaq reverse-engineered their BIOS. Here's some more reading material [wikipedia.org].
byperpenso ( 1613749 ) writes:
IBM published the source code to their BIOS. That is pretty open and greatly facilitated the creation of a compatible BIOS.
Heh. No. Compaq reverse-engineered their BIOS. Here's some more reading material [wikipedia.org].
"Open" does not mean without copyright. The fact is those working on a compatible BIOS had the IBM source code with comments to work from in order to define what a compatible system needed to do. That is a huge advantage compared to disassembling binaries. The fact remains that IBM published the source code to the embedded firmware, that is by definition open. The fact that it is copyrighted and may not be distributed without permission does not change this.
byMobileTatsu-NJG ( 946591 ) writes:
...the fact is those working on a compatible BIOS had the IBM source code with comments to work from
... they clean-room reverse engineered it.
That is pretty open and greatly facilitated the creation of a compatible BIOS.
The fact remains that IBM published the source code to the embedded firmware, that is by definition open.
You can nitpick individual details all you like, but at the end of the day Compaq created the clone of the BIOS despite IBM, not with support from them.
Clean room design (also known as the Chinese wall technique) is the method of copying a design by reverse engineering and then recreating it without infringing any of the copyrights and trade secrets associated with the original design. Clean room design is useful as a defense against copyright and trade secret infringement because it relies on independent invention.
byperpenso ( 1613749 ) writes:
...the fact is those working on a compatible BIOS had the IBM source code with comments to work from
... they clean-room reverse engineered it.
A clean room design involves *two* teams. A dirty team that reverse engineers and writes a specification for a compatible device, and a clean team that does the actual implementation using only the provided specification. The "wall" is between these two teams, the implementation team has no contact other than the specification.
The dirty part of the team had a much easier time creating the specification given that they had commented source code. This source code, widely distributed by IBM to PC programmer
byMobileTatsu-NJG ( 946591 ) writes:
This is a night and day difference with respect to reverse engineering...
No, it isn't. They had to go further out of their way to dance around that issue in order to make a legal clone.
...and the fact that IBM didn't want a compatible BIOS to be produced does not change this.
It changes this part:
Compaq et al were able to create clones because the IBM PC was an open platform.
byperpenso ( 1613749 ) writes:
This is a night and day difference with respect to reverse engineering...
No, it isn't. They had to go further out of their way to dance around that issue in order to make a legal clone.
The half of the clean room effort that does the implementation are the one's making the clone, they don't see source code, disassemblies, etc. The other half doing the reverse engineering in order to develop the specification have to discover the *intent* of the original developers with respect to functionality. That discover is easier when you have their commented source code rather than a disassembly of a binary.
The dancing you refer to is for non-clean room scenarios where the developer implementing t
byEnry ( 630 ) writes:
Releasing the source code would actually made it worse for the compatibles - in order to prevent infringement, the clones had to reverse engineer the BIOS in a clean room fashion, so no looking at the source code at all.
byperpenso ( 1613749 ) writes:
Releasing the source code would actually made it worse for the compatibles - in order to prevent infringement, the clones had to reverse engineer the BIOS in a clean room fashion, so no looking at the source code at all.
There are two parts to the clean room approach. One is the specification phase where one team defines the necessary behavior for a compatible system. This team may look at the copyrighted material. In the IBM PC case the fact that this team was looking at commented source code rather than disassembled binaries was a big advantage, it made their job far easier.
The second phase, which is performed by an entirely different team with no connection to the specification team (other than their output, the speci
bySolandri ( 704621 ) writes:
When someone says "open platform" they're usually referring to the software. The hardware specs for the IBM PC were open - anyone could make PC hardware without getting a license from IBM. Whoop dee doo. The software was locked down with the IBM BIOS, so nobody could sell a PC-compatible because they needed the IBM BIOS to run any software developed for that open hardware platform. And the BIOS had a great big "Copyright IBM" at the beginning without which DOS (and thus any PC software) wouldn't work.
byperpenso ( 1613749 ) writes:
I don't think "clean room" was as you described. I believe one team had access to copyrighted materials including the commented source code. They created a specification that describes the required compatible behavior without any mention of any copyrighted. The "clean" part of the process is the next step. A separate team implements a compatible BIOS working *only* from this specification. The implementation team has no contact with the specification team other than this specification. I think the implement
byBitZtream ( 692029 ) writes:
Compaq et al were able to create clones because the IBM PC was an open platform.
Wow, you know nothing about what happened, do you? Are we really already to the point where people don't have any idea how 'locked down' the PC was when it first came out? We've already forgot? Oh, you misread a Wikipedia article ...
IBM fought tooth and nail to prevent Compaq from being able to sell generic 'PC's and they had to go to great lengths to emulate the IBM BIOS without actually using any code to avoid lawsuits.
IBM saying its 'open' does not mean what you think it means. It doesn't mean you ca
byperpenso ( 1613749 ) writes:
Compaq et al were able to create clones because the IBM PC was an open platform.
Wow, you know nothing about what happened, do you? Are we really already to the point where people don't have any idea how 'locked down' the PC was when it first came out? We've already forgot? Oh, you misread a Wikipedia article ...
Wrong. Are you under the mistaken impression that "open" means the source code is also free to re-use and distribute? It does not, contrary to how the FSF would like to redefine "open". The fact remains that the IBM PC BIOS was open, PC developers had access to the source code. This source code was part of the documentation provided by IBM to PC programmers so that they could call the BIOS API. The comments in the source code were the API spec. We weren't using pirated copies, we were using official copies
byIAN (30) writes:
Are you under the mistaken impression that "open" means the source code is also free to re-use and distribute? It does not, contrary to how the FSF would like to redefine "open".
That's a misrepresentation of FSF's stance. They are the ones who grumble about using the term "open source" [gnu.org], because they feel it's too loose, for exactly the reasons you have described.
byperpenso ( 1613749 ) writes:
As an example of IBM being open with their BIOS source code see their PC Hardware reference manual:
http://www.retroarchive.org/do... [retroarchive.org]
Open listings like this were *the* documentation on how to use the BIOS API calls.
byMightyYar ( 622222 ) writes:
Openly documented does not mean you were allowed to clone it. Compaq had to reverse engineer the PC BIOS using engineers who had never looked at the BIOS. These engineers wrote a spec that a separate set of engineers then had to implement. It was very costly and laborious and resulted in a landmark court victory for Compaq.
byperpenso ( 1613749 ) writes:
Compaq had to reverse engineer the PC BIOS using engineers who had never looked at the BIOS. These engineers wrote a spec that a separate set of engineers then had to implement.
That's not how it worked. The first team absolutely looked at the BIOS to create that spec. Its the second team that implemented the spec that had never seen the BIOS.
byMightyYar ( 622222 ) writes:
Sorry, yes, you are correct.
bywestlake ( 615356 ) writes:
Microsoft, on the other hand, saw an opportunity and happily licensed their code to all comers.
The MS-DOS PC was a commercially viable platform before the cloning of the IBM PC BIOS.
Microsoft entered the 16 bit market with a full suite of programming languages that made the transition from the eight bit world of CP/M remarkably fast and painless. It's a part of a part of the story the geek tends to forget.
byMightyYar ( 622222 ) writes:
It was "commercially viable", but so were it's plethora of competitors. The clones took over the world (except for maybe education and the Mac's eventual niche markets).
byStrudelkugel ( 594414 ) writes:
Now that Gates is advising Nadella, I can imagine the conversations revolve around that fact that Microsoft never made the actual platform that ran Windows. Phones are a bit different, but logically is Android really so different from IBM, Phoenix, AMI, Award, etc., BIOS? Gates and Nadella probably think of Azure as Windows, sitting on top of Android or iOS instead of whatever BIOS, with Office 365 and every other cloud app being the equivalent of desktop apps in the PC era. I doubt they really care if Micr
byoccasional_dabbler ( 1735162 ) writes:
I am somewhat surprised to say how much better I find the Windows Phone UI to be over Android and iOS. I am guessing individually downloaded apps will matter less and less and integrated services more and more in the future, so Microsoft may very well achieve the same thing in the mobile world as they did in the PC world.
Yes, my thoughts too. I think the shift to W10 running on all devices with the UI kinda intelligently morphing to be appropriate for the size will help Microsoft long term as people get used to it, forget how bad W8 was and get on with their lives. (Try the previews). Despite being something of a Microsoft enthusiast I still find I use my favourite apps, Skype and OneNote, on my Nexus 7 far more than on the phone and hardly ever on the desktop. I think Microsoft are making a pragmatic and sensible move.
byEponymous Coward ( 6097 ) writes:
If Microsoft can do something to better integrate Cyanogen based devices into the corporate workflow they might have some leverage. Plus an operating system that gets bug fixes and security updates might warrant some attention.
What leverage? For what purpose?
The enterprise market doesn't really matter. Back in the IBM vs Microsoft days, the consumer market was tiny compared to the corporate market. Today, the enterprise market is a fraction of the consumer market. As long as the C-level executives want to u
byperpenso ( 1613749 ) writes:
The corporate market influences the consumer. Many consumers want personal gear compatible with work.
byMightyMartian ( 840721 ) writes:
Microsoft has decided to have a serious fight with Google... on Google's platform. When the shoe was so often on the other foot in the 80s, 90s and 00s, and it was competitors trying to beat Microsoft whilst using Microsoft's platform, it usually didn't go so well.
Cyanogen is great and all, but really, the overwhelming majority of Android devices are using some variant of Google's branded version, which means they will come with Google's apps installed. I think Google has absolutely nothing to fear from Microsoft, whose fortunes are quickly being reversed as far as platform dominance and the synergy of developing the dominant software on that platform.
Google's real worries right now are the EU, which is not only going after the search business, but appears to be "analyzing" Android, which is going to mean what it did Microsoft; an unbundling of certain default applications, and a forced choice of which replacements to use. That is ultimately what I expect Microsoft is looking forward to, that the EU will do to Google what it did to Microsoft a decade ago, and that the guy who has just bought his Samsung Galaxy or Nexus-branded device is going to get a screen that asks "Do you want to use Google Docs or Microsoft Office?"
Parent
twitter
facebook
byWheely ( 2500 ) writes:
However, that all started out as "can windows run without explorer". It turned out that it probably couldn't and Microsoft was found guilty of using one Microsoft product to unfairly increase the use of another Microsoft product. This is different and rather interesting though because now, Microsoft and Cyanogen are going to prove that Android can run perfectly happily without Google apps. This should suit Google just fine when the EU comes knocking.
byMightyMartian ( 840721 ) writes:
But everyone already knew that Android could run without the base apps. Most of the people I know that run Cyanogen do so to free themselves from data sieves that are the Google Android app suite. You don't get very good apps to view common office-format files, to be sure, and Microsoft will certainly fill that void. But in the grand scheme of things, Cyanogen simply does not matter that much.
What will matter in the medium term is that Microsoft works on a Google Apps replacement suite that it ready to go when (not if, when) the EU forces some degree of unbundling on Google.
But the lesson of Microsoft's experience, of course, is that the EU's unbundling requirement ultimately meant very little, and it was Microsoft's own decade of stagnation with Internet Explorer 6 that gave competitors the edge. The unbundling did nothing to help the actual victim of Microsoft's predatory bundling; Netscape.
Frankly if the OpenOffice/LibreOffice groups wanted to do something important right now, they'd put development of an Android version of the suite at the top of the priority list, because I think in the next couple of years a major opportunity will appear.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byspasm ( 79260 ) writes:
Development of libreoffice on android *is* on the top of the priority list. Betas are available now: https://wiki.documentfoundatio... [documentfoundation.org] and the open document foundation awarded a contract to two firms to speed up development in January (http://www.zdnet.com/article/libreoffice-for-android-coming-soon/). The android stable is supposed to be released at the same time as the next major libreoffice release.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bygl4ss ( 559668 ) writes:
this is just ridiculous.
BTW Microsoft already has android integrated maps, bing etc etc. In Asia you can still go to a shop and big a Nokia X - with microsoft services.
they did shut down their own sw marketplace and replaced it with operas now though iirc.
bottom line here is this: cyanogen mod guys can go fuck themselves and MS doesn't have a friggin clue what it wants to do(first shutting down their, bought from nokia, android development and then paying some other guys to do the exact same fucking thing).
byAnonymous Coward writes:
I'm guessing this is just a matter of the cyanogen guys going from "open android" philosophy to "how can we make ourselves money?"
twitter
facebook
byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Parent
twitter
facebook
byAnonymous Coward writes:
...implying that it is remotely possible for them. This is like when Oracle tried to do stuff to OpenOffice. What happens when a free software product whose only reason for existing is as a free software product tries to stop being a free software product? Forking, or death.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byAnonymous Coward writes:
I'm guessing this is just a matter of the cyanogen guys going from "open android" philosophy to "how can we make ourselves money?"
Eventually one graduates from college and has to pay bills.
"Open" projects generally need to be subsidized. Either by gov't (including much of academia) or corps. Linux is a prime example, long gone are the days of it being a hobbyist/enthusiast project. It is now primarily a corporate subsidize, corporate sponsored and corporate directed effort. Frankly such corporate involvement is largely responsible for its success.
Perhaps corporations can get cyanogen out of the dorm and mom's basement and get it some serious usage.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byMobileTatsu-NJG ( 946591 ) writes:
Perhaps corporations can get cyanogen out of the dorm and mom's basement and get it some serious usage.
Or Google could release an OS that doesn't require vendors' permission to install... like Microsoft does. Hah.
byAndy Dodd ( 701 ) writes:
WAT?
https://cyngn.com/blog/its-tim... [cyngn.com] - They constantly talk about how they're all about an "open OS" and "open Android".
The problem is that their actions are always inconsistent with their talk. While they talk an Open OS, their reaction to Google moving more and more components of AOSP into GMS and abandoning the open-source AOSP variants is:
Take that list of applications and create their own proprietary versions or license them from someone else:
First Focal, and when attempting to use their CLA to obtai
bywile_e8 ( 958263 ) writes:
Rather than distribute more proprietary services, how about ownCloud for Drive, K-9 Mail for Gmail, OsmAnd for Maps, and F-Droid for an app store? Mozilla and DuckDuckGo provide Free Software search providers for Android, too. With Google neglecting the Android Open Source Project and Cyanogen partnering with Microsoft, the future for Free Software Android as anything but a shell for proprietary software looks bleak.
How much money are those services going to offer Cyanogen to be included? I'm pretty sure at least 90% of the reason for this deal is that Cyanogen Inc needs revenue and Microsoft was willing to provide it in order to increase their toe hold in Android devices. Open is nice, but the Cyanogen people need to pay the bills.
twitter
facebook
byNotInHere ( 3654617 ) writes:
They have a simple choice: either they develop the apps Microsoft provides themselves, or they let Microsoft do it, and focus on developing an OS. From their website [cyngn.com], you can see, that they do want to remain open. They don't drive an 100% OSS approach. Cyanogenmod never was about 100% open source, installing google apps always has been an extra step in the cyanogenmod installation guide. Also, they didn't replace the proprietary drivers with open ones.
This is about Cyanogen OS, not CyanogenMod. Cyanogen OS is included into phones out of the box.
What they do, is giving people a choice. I have installed cyanogenmod onto my phone because I wanted to get rid of bloatware and google services. If this is the way how Cyanogen can finance CyanogenMod development, and that is still open source modulo drivers, I'm ok with it.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byJunta ( 36770 ) writes:
Owncloud is not a cloud *service*, but a platform for creating your own (I actually prefer Seafile incidentally).
Ditto for K-9 mail, not a service, but an app.
twitter
facebook
byfluffernutter ( 1411889 ) writes:
I use Owncloud and it works very well. The one thing I don't like about it is that it takes a good 1/2 hour for a file to get from one end to the other. Sometimes I wish you could just go to the target machine and immediately pull down a certified newest copy of a file. Seafile doesn't happen to do that does it?
bykwalker ( 1383 ) writes:
Schwa? I run my ownCloud on a 1.5Mbit DSL line and it takes virtually no time for anything to sync around my three desktop clients when I upload something (They're all remote to the server). Files even start coming down before the upload finishes if there are more than one. And I'm talking about everything from single-page PDFs (400K) to digital camera pictures (2-8MB) and music files (3-10MB). And downloads happen quickly when I am using the Android client (Limited by line speed). What are you syncing, ful
byiris-n ( 1276146 ) writes:
Sounds strange, I use owncloud to collaborate on my papers between 4 authors and nobody reported this problem. I guess it depends on the server you're using (mine is the University itself), rather than the software owncloud.
byfuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) writes:
Hasn't the future of 'open' android always looked bleak, more or less by design? At the bottom of the stack, we have SoC vendors who don't give a damn, handset OEMs who don't give a damn and/or actively prefer that older handsets remain as outdated as possible so you'll buy something new, and carriers who have largely the same incentives as handset vendors; but with their own crapware. This ensures that hardware support is spotty and typically weak for anything except whatever the device shipped with(and it's a moot point on the cryptographically locked devices). Markedly worse than the PC world in terms of vendor helpfullness or ability to do much of anything without a BSP or cobbling blobs together from vendors with slightly longer update support windows.
From the top of the stack, the 'free' parts of android are basically Google's hardware abstraction layer for google play services, and getting steadily more so.
twitter
facebook
bystaalmannen ( 1705340 ) writes:
I am definitely moving away from CM as soon as this bundling gets in place. What would be the best alternative Omnirom? Something else?
twitter
facebook
byJustNiz ( 692889 ) writes:
Yep I'm 100% with you. The moment Microsoft crapware starts appearing on my phone its goodbye CyanogenMod.
bystaalmannen ( 1705340 ) writes:
AICP seems interesting... will try :)
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
I am using Sonic Open Kang Project, which seems pretty good... if someone is doing a Kang for your device
bymrchaotica ( 681592 ) * writes:
Replicant [wikipedia.org] is the only one I know of that aims to be actual, you know, 100% Free Software.
I have no idea why hardly anybody knows about it.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bytepples ( 727027 ) writes:
Probably because makers of I/O components, such as GPUs and radios, aren't exactly warm to the concept of a completely free operating system.
byviperidaenz ( 2515578 ) writes:
You're implying they will not be any bundling?
Under the partnership, Cyanogen will integrate and distribute Microsoft’s consumer apps and services across core categories, including productivity, messaging, utilities, and cloud-based services. As part of this collaboration, Microsoft will create native integrations on Cyanogen OS, enabling a powerful new class of experiences.
bygstoddart ( 321705 ) writes:
But now you're stuck with Microsoft.
Is this supposed to be some kind of improvement?
"Oh noes, google is teh big evil corp'ration, let's go with teh Microsoft". I mean, what the hell are they thinking?
This just sounds like the point at which the free software folks sell out and say fuck it, let's just follow the money.
I have a hard time people are going to buy an Android device, so they can wipe it, kick out Google, and bring in Microsoft. If you want that, buy a Microsoft device and get on with it.
twitter
facebook
byVoyager529 ( 1363959 ) writes:
But now you're stuck with Microsoft.
Is this supposed to be some kind of improvement?
Google applications on virtually every stock (read:non-AOSP) ROM: not removable.
Microsoft applications on an AOSP ROM that, almost by definition, requires root and an unlocked bootloader: Good question; the fine summary says "integration", which could mean anything.
Still, I'd say the ultimate outcome is better with Microsoft than with Google. Not because of who Microsoft is, but because of who Cyanogen is.
"Oh noes, google is teh big evil corp'ration, let's go with teh Microsoft". I mean, what the hell are they thinking?
They're probably thinking, "Rent is due this month, and I need to put gas in my car, and I'd like to ea
byoccasional_dabbler ( 1735162 ) writes:
I use Swype, which doesn't exist on Windows Phone
I agree with everything in your post, including this, but the basic windows phone keyboard works at least as well as Swype, the autocomplete is almost telepathic.
bygstoddart ( 321705 ) writes:
I have a android device and user neither Google nor Microsoft. I have no use for either company.
That's kind of my point ... are people who are trying to kick Google off their android devices all keen to get Microsoft instead?
This is like a hard core Linux user wiping his Windows machine and then installing a version of Office.
I just can't figure out who the target market for this is.
bySuiteSisterMary ( 123932 ) writes:
Because choice is a bad thing.
byAnonymous Coward writes:
From the CM site: To highlight the one take away that matters to CyanogenMod users â" We are not bundling or pre-installing Microsoft (or any Cyanogen OS exclusive partner apps) into CyanogenMod.
twitter
facebook
byBitZtream ( 692029 ) writes:
Of course not. It'll just cease to exist in a few months, replaced by something that does.
byc( 8461 ) writes:
It maybe sucks for those who buy a phone with CM pre-installed, but they've already announced [cyanogenmod.org] that there's no plan to install any MS junk into CyanogenMod, and it's highly unlikely that the community would stand for it if they tried.
So, not something to worry about terribly much. Yet.
twitter
facebook
bysynapse7 ( 1075571 ) writes:
Are these phones targeted at China or foreign markets? I've never seen one in the US.
byc( 8461 ) writes:
So far that seems to be the major target market. As long as the carriers are heavily involved in choosing and customizing phone for consumers as they are in the US and Canada, I doubt you'll see a CM-based phone get much traction over here.
byluther349 ( 645380 ) writes:
it was a April fools joke that's still cycling around. there not putting ms garbage in cynogenmod.
bymcl630 ( 1839996 ) writes:
Umm, no. There was an April fools joke about Cyanogen being "powered by Microsoft", but this is new news, not an April fools joke. They are including MS apps in Cyanogen OS, but not CyanogenMod.
byNyall ( 646782 ) writes:
Could the Cyanogen Mod group please file a trademark and sue Cyanogen inc for the brand confusion?
I'd really appreciate it. Thanks
twitter
facebook
byrjr162 ( 69736 ) writes:
for any sort of Exchange email.
Nine works great but costs something like $10 and doesn't do pop or imap.
There was another app (IIRC it has a paper airplane icon) worked okay with exchange as well. The rest, if you setup folders, you don't get alerts if a new email lands in a folder outside of or a sub-folder of INBOX.
byhiguita ( 129722 ) writes:
Simple, don't use exchange!! don't try to fix the wrong problem!
If you choose a closed email server full of closed protocols, you will have problems finding tools that work with it! All the tools that can work with it will cost money and usually require yet another closed tool or service.
Use other things or pressure MS to support open protocols. if you don't do that, then you can't complain about application support.
If you really want to follow that path, set up a davmail server [sourceforge.net] and use it (directly with SS
byadiposity ( 684943 ) writes:
Touchdown was ok for Exchange.
I am using Mailwise, currently. It does threading and works with Exchange, my two requirements.
bySeaFox ( 739806 ) writes:
Rather than distribute more proprietary services, how about ownCloud for Drive, K-9 Mail for Gmail, OsmAnd for Maps, and F-Droid for an app store? Mozilla and DuckDuckGo provide Free Software search providers for Android, too.
It's like whoever wrote this doesn't understand how modern software/device manufacturers think.
Half their business plan involves data mining and vendor lock-in.
twitter
facebook
byerp_consultant ( 2614861 ) writes:
is my friend. It's kind of interesting to watch all of this shake out. Apple and Google hate one another. Microsoft has traditionally been anti-open source. Google hates Microsoft. Apple embraces open source...as long as you play by their rules. Microsoft and Apple have an alliance, albeit an uneasy one. IBM hates Microsoft and now had teamed up with Apple.
So Microsoft figures the best way to get Google is to team up with Apple and Cyanogen. We'll see how effective it is but it seems like a bit of a despera
bymcl630 ( 1839996 ) writes:
Cyanogen isn't "replacing" Google apps with Microsoft, they are including Microsoft apps in addition to the Google apps. At least for now anyways...
bytepples ( 727027 ) writes:
F-Droid excludes all non-free software. And by default, it hides apps with antifeatures [f-droid.org] such as advertisements and reliance on non-free add-ons or services. So how are the developers of an app on F-Droid supposed to keep a roof over their heads? And would your suggestion also work for games?
byuvajed_ekil ( 914487 ) writes:
But Cyanogen can't even seem to get bluetooth to work properly on my 3 year-old LG Optimus G. The BT MAC address is always an incorrect value, causing major connection and audio streaming issues. I have been a big fan of CM roms for 5-6 years now, but there are too many bugs they can't seem to rectify these days for me to take them completely seriously. This is especially true if they want to do Android without Google.
Good luck to them, but dancing with the devil (and undisputed king of unresolved bugs) d
bycloud.pt ( 3412475 ) writes:
"Rather than distribute more proprietary services,"... Do not confuse CyanogenMod (CM) with Cyanogen Inc.. The later is a 1B$ valuated company, not an NPO. CM is to Inc. much what AOSP stands for Android: an open-source project backed by a for-profit organization that takes the helm.
Android itself is nothing more than a Google certified AOSP+GApps package. Gapps (market, big data collection, and so on) and OEM support/certification is the way Google monetizes the free AOSP. If Cyanogen Inc. is to succeed a
byMightyMartian ( 840721 ) writes:
Companies like IBM and Red Hat has poured millions into Linux. Red Hat is hardly a passive repackager. You're not "A. Capitalist", you're just "A. Confused and Stupid"
byradl33t ( 900691 ) writes:
and at the end of the day you waste your time commenting on slashdot same as me. Glad you use that financial freedom so wisely.
byDracos ( 107777 ) writes:
What you describe is not too dissimilar to what MS makes PC OEMs agree to regarding preinstalled Windows. It wouldn't be impossible to get this to backfire all over Redmond.
byslaker ( 53818 ) writes:
Honestly, Microsoft applications for Android are credibly useful. If you're in favor of software choice or you want to segregate personal data between services, it's nice that the option exists. I don't really use any stock Android Apps at all anyway. I certainly don't see the harm in letting Microsoft in, so long as I still have access to the Play/Amazon App stores that otherwise give me the broadest selection of all available Android software.
If the Cyanogen people want to ditch Google licensing completel
byoccasional_dabbler ( 1735162 ) writes:
Nokia is selling off Here Maps. Bought for $6B, yours for a steal at $2B! Seriously, check out Here [here.com] it's a way better service than either Google's or Microsoft's but thanks to the tangled history it is the location service behind all of the WindowsPhone navigation apps.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
●
284 commentsTrump Organization Announces Mobile Plan, $499 Smartphone
●
211 commentsFree 'T-Mobile Starlink' for Six Months Announced During Super Bowl. Also Available to Verizon and AT&T Customers
●
163 commentsGavin Newsom Is Reportedly Sending Burner Phones To Tech CEOs
●
155 commentsNew Design Trend: People Downgrading 'Smart' Homes to Analog 'Dumb' Homes, Some with Landlines and Offline Appliances
●
153 commentsTaliban Leader Bans Wi-Fi In an Afghan Province To 'Prevent Immorality'
A 2-Year-Old Has Become the Youngest Person Ever To Be Cryonically Frozen
New Chemical Tools Lead To Targeted Cancer Drugs
Slashdot Top Deals
Slashdot
ion
●
●
of loaded
●
Submit Story
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
-- Roy Santoro
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
A 2-Year-Old Has Become the Youngest Person Ever To Be Cryonically Frozen
313 comments
New Chemical Tools Lead To Targeted Cancer Drugs
21comments
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...