Google is shifting internal Android development to a private model, similar to how it develops other products. While Android will remain open source, the day-to-day development process will no longer be publicly visible. Google claims this change will improve efficiency and security. The company insists this won't affect the open-source nature of Android, promising continued AOSP releases and collaboration with external partners. They anticipate no changes to the public bug tracker, release schedules, or the overall openness of the platform itself.
In a move that has stirred discussion, Google has restructured its approach to Android development, shifting a significant portion of the process behind closed doors while simultaneously reaffirming its commitment to the open-source nature of the Android Open Source Project (AOSP). This represents a nuanced alteration in strategy, not a complete abandonment of open development. Essentially, Google will now conduct the majority of its Android development work internally, privately iterating and refining new features and functionalities. This internal development cycle will involve the creation of private branches of the Android codebase, allowing Google engineers to work independently and at a potentially faster pace, free from the immediate scrutiny and constraints of public collaboration.
Following this internal development phase, Google will then merge these privately developed features and changes into the public AOSP repository. This "gated" model of development ensures that while the core development process is held privately, the resulting code remains accessible to the open-source community, manufacturers, and developers. This strategy aims to strike a balance between Google's desire for greater control over the development roadmap and timeline, and the benefits of maintaining an open-source ecosystem.
The article highlights that this change will not affect the open-source licensing of Android or the ability of manufacturers and developers to customize and distribute the operating system. AOSP will continue to serve as the foundation upon which Android is built, with Google contributing its internally developed changes back to the public project. The shift towards a more internal, private development model is primarily intended to streamline Google's internal processes, potentially allowing for faster iteration and more cohesive implementation of new features. It also potentially affords Google greater control over the direction of Android's development, mitigating fragmentation and ensuring a more unified user experience across devices. However, this change also raises questions regarding the degree of influence the broader community will have on the future of Android, and whether this shift signals a broader trend towards a more centralized development model within the open-source ecosystem. The article emphasizes that Google remains committed to open source, but the long-term implications of this change in development strategy remain to be seen.
Summary of Comments ( 14 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43485950
Hacker News users largely expressed skepticism and concern over Google's shift towards internal Android development. Many questioned whether "open source releases" would truly remain open if Google's internal development diverged significantly, leading to a de facto closed-source model similar to iOS. Some worried about potential stagnation of the platform, with fewer external contributions and slower innovation. Others saw it as a natural progression for a maturing platform, focusing on stability and polish over rapid feature additions. A few commenters pointed out the potential benefits, such as improved security and consistency through tighter control. The prevailing sentiment, however, was cautious pessimism about the long-term implications for Android's openness and community involvement.
The Hacker News post discussing Ars Technica's article "Google makes Android development private, will continue open source releases" has generated a substantial discussion with diverse viewpoints.
Several commenters express skepticism about Google's claim that this move will improve efficiency and security. They argue that hiding the development process reduces transparency and makes it harder for the community to identify and report potential issues. Some suggest this is a move towards greater control over Android's direction, potentially limiting customization options and favoring Google's own services. The comparison to Apple's closed-source iOS development is made multiple times, with concerns raised about the potential for a similar ecosystem developing around Android.
A recurring theme is the perceived disconnect between Google's open-source rhetoric and its actions. Commenters point to past instances where Google has seemingly abandoned or de-emphasized open-source projects, leading to distrust of their long-term commitment to Android's openness. Some speculate that this shift might be driven by competitive pressures or a desire to streamline development, even at the cost of community involvement.
Some commenters offer a more nuanced perspective, acknowledging the potential benefits of a more centralized development model while still expressing reservations. They suggest that faster iteration and improved security are indeed possible, but emphasize the importance of continued community engagement and transparency in the open-source releases. The idea that Google might be shifting towards a "hybrid" approach, where core development is private but contributions and feedback are still welcomed, is discussed.
A few commenters focus on the practical implications for developers, particularly those working on custom ROMs or contributing to AOSP. Concerns are raised about the potential difficulties in understanding and adapting to changes made behind closed doors. The impact on the broader Android ecosystem, including device manufacturers and app developers, is also discussed.
Finally, some comments offer more cynical interpretations, suggesting that this move is primarily motivated by a desire to limit fragmentation and exert greater control over the Android platform. The potential for increased monetization through tighter integration with Google's services is also mentioned.
Overall, the comments reflect a mixture of skepticism, concern, and cautious optimism about the future of Android development. While some see potential benefits in a more centralized approach, the majority express reservations about the implications for transparency, community involvement, and the long-term health of the open-source ecosystem.