-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[META] Shaping the corporate Identity #13
Comments
I felt like this was mostly about artwork and consistent styling / communication.
I disagree for multiple reasons:
So your target audience with Android 5 are users with a niche phone model, a niche OS, a niche set of political or moral opinion, reluctant to update to community-made tooling (potentially including your own!), and willing to risk their security. I'm aware you heard the BT LE argument, but you are contradicting yourself in your linked post:
So you expect a hardware standard from 2009 to be in 2009 phones, but you assume that a software change is not distributable within a year? The lack of BT LE hardware support is probably an actual issue. Even if the standard is older, then phones might not have it, or it might be broken / untested. They might never had official drivers, so adding support would be tricky and would require changes to the operating system.
Didn't cwa-android maintainers already say that even the number of LineageOS / custom-ROM people is very very small? So 20% sounds way too high. According to https://gs.statcounter.com/android-version-market-share/mobile/germany the marketshare of Android 5 and below is only about 4% - and a bunch of those devices likely don't support BT LE. So we are talking about less than 2.8% of all people - most of them also already have a working solution with LineageOS (or similar) and OpenGApps. These are still millions of people - but still, in the bigger scheme of things it's probably not relevant. With Android 11 coming in Q3 2020 we can assume that the marketshare of older releases will get even less important.
It's not talking down. It's factual discussions.
I don't think that's the case here. Given the marketshare, reports about status of BT LE hardware and software support, and responsibility of shipping out updates for such drivers.
The logic shown in the post you talk about only considers salary - not infrastructure cost, time spent on design, communication with other companies, art creation, opportunity cost, responsibility, profits, marketing, .. - it's hard to put a price-tag on these things (or whatever was part of that 9.5 million EUR pool). It also doesn't consider limitations of partnerships with Google and Apple and what an app can do (vs. a driver / custom ROM / rooted phone).
I thought that SAP and Telekom were surprisingly open to the idea. Also "spinning public opinion" does not produce code - and there are many requests and wishes here (not just your post, but in general), so I can see why frustation would set in (as seen in one of the issues recently). |
Please provide sources when bringing in scientific claims here. It is not clear to me, to which papers or scientists you refer. In particular, the 56% from the Oxford paper are not a hard minimum for effectiveness of such apps: |
Other sources say 15% marked share for Android 5. It's hard to measure the true distribution.
Most phones have, I have provided list in my other post.
No, most phones don't have this alternative any more. LineageOS is another failing open source project. Steve Kondik was very good spokesman, he attracted lots of supporters with his great and bold vision for a free Android alternative. But then some developers came along, thought he was not "pure" enough regarding FLOSS, then they forked and made LineageOS. Now they are indeed the most "pure" you can be, but they are constantly reducing the number of supporting devices because less and less people are using and developing it. I think there are now only a fraction of the phones once supported by CynaogenMod.
You have to make some compromises, not everything can be "pure" and ideal.
How much? Download Android 5 SDK, compile with this SDK, done?
People who believe in your vision do.
|
If you believe that's the only thing to do, feel free, do it. If the CoraLibre SDK is almost complete and working, then make a pull request. |
(See my previous post, I'm only going to reiterate here - Click to unfold)Yes, and that's worldwide. So that probably includes many phones which were sold to poor countries from the richer nations (like Germany), or secondary phones.
That doesn't sound like you have developed software before. By that logic we can also support MS DOS 5 by just downloading the MS DOS 5 SDK and recompiling the code for it. So I concur with @poschi3.
You should never compromise on safety or security.
They keep removing devices, but also adding new devices.
If the device is removed, that code still exists and the binaries still work. So removal is mostly about removing bottlenecks for new code + avoiding code fragmentation + avoiding maintenance overhead. You also can't really test new code on a device which only very few people still own (as the device itself becomes rare, and then you also need an overlap with one of the few people who are willing to still maintain, develop and test on their device). If there would be enough developers who are willing to upstream their changes, then I'm sure that LineageOS would keep the support going. It feels like you are advocating the use of old and unsupported software (Android 5), yet, you are not willing to accept any existing old community-made project (which is also unsupported by now.. as expected). This is very contradictory.
Okay, let's go through them (only for LineageOS - which is just one of many ROMs):
These are sub-optimal choices as you still have to trust a third-party vendor (LineageOS contributors - mainline or otherwise). But this is even true for CoraLibre until an extensive code-audit is done. So you can't be certain that code is safe to use. Also it's important to remember, we are talking about apps here:
You can complain about the lack of these efforts, but this is not the place for it (also I disagree about supporting 10 year old hardware when it keeps changing so much; it's just not economical, and maybe not even ecological).
From what I can tell, your approach brings a lot of theories and speculation into what should be factual discussions. Most importantly, you are derailing the discussions and distract from actual work being done. You seem to be new to open-source (or GitHub at least), so I'd recommend to just follow ongoing discussions instead of getting too involved (yet). |
Ok, ultimately you need to decide. I just thought (and still think) this is a low hanging fruit for gain a lot of support. This topic gained a lot of traction in the media. Even Christian Drosten was asked in his podcast what about the old phones, isn't it a problem that support is missing. He avoided to answer directly but just said the corona app and a widespread use is crucial for containing the virus. One could easily interpret this as a hidden "yes". You don't need to actually implement legacy support (right now), but you should use talking points like this: You also don't need to promise that every phone will work with this. Some will, though. Just say "our project could expand the availability of the Corona app". Focus on the things you can do, not on those you can't. It doesn't matter how many new users you actually can achieve. You just need to create the vision that you are fighting to support every phone as much as possible. That you are fighting for those left behind by the government. This is what attracts supporters. I mean, how successful was the current strategy if you already, after just a few weeks, mention a "full halt" of the project? I hope that this will not happen and that this project becomes very successful! I just don't think this cold-hearted wording will be so helpful for your mission... |
If it really is, it will happen. But most developers around here seem to agree that it isn't a low hanging fruit.
I think it's very very exceptionally clear that he did not avoid the question. I feel you are being manipulative if you extrapolate his statements this way. Just to provide context, here is the question, and what Drosten said (German):
The context for his reply is very clearly the underlying question: ~"is this a widespread issue with old phones and is this a problem". His reply, as one could predict, is just that he's not qualified to answer. This isn't a "yes" or a "no" - it's a very clear: "you'd have to ask a computer scientist". Those computer scientists tell you: It's not a widespread issue; it's not a fixable issue if people are unwilling to use existing solutions. Because it probably can't be fixed by an app (that is deployable to stock ROMs), it might not even be fixable by CoraLibre. It is fixable in custom ROMs - which do exist already.
This is not a fact. This is speculation. The lowest supportable version would probably be Android 4.3 (to my knowledge, that's when BT LE was added), but probably not on all phones, and wether you can even deploy to those phones is tricky. I'm not even sure I fully understand how CoraLibre will work (how will deployment work, how can it gain permissions that play store has, but aren't available to normal apps etc.). Because of this, I could imagine that CoraLibre will depend on a custom ROM or rooted phone anyway. So wether you continue to use hacked vendor ROM of Android 5.0 or go to LineageOS with OpenGApps, probably isn't relevant.
I don't think anybody said that we don't care for old phones (generally).
It is a bad idea, so it's fair to say that. Adding support in CoraLibre might not be possible. Again: you are barking up the wrong tree. Even if it's primarily a task that can be implemented in CoraLibre, then it's just too much work for little gain, so it's unlikely to happen. There are also enough alternatives for people on old phones. A better idea is to document how to turn old / incompatible phones into compatible phones.. with existing tooling. Let's also not forget that you can buy a new phone with CWA support for less than 20 EUR. From what I can tell, CoraLibre is primarily interesting for people without Google License / unwillingness to use Google products. Stock Android 5 is not in that target audience (because those people do have a Google License and are willing to run Google products; so they can upgrade to a custom ROM with Google products - and CWA will work if their hardware supports it). I'd certainly feel more comfortable if my phone didn't need a Google account, and if I didn't have to run some black-box that might upload my EN storage to some Google server (I'm not saying this is happening, but it's hard to verify that this isn't happening either - we'll just have to trust Google). Anyhow, I digress.
But this is not what this project does. I feel like this is a non-goal. Anyhow, the community recognizes these issues and made custom ROMs (like LineageOS) - those can run CWA just fine, even on old phones. That solves most of the issues, except reliance on Googles binary blobs.
It's not the governments fault. It's an issue with Google and Apple policies. However, their policies do make sense. It's also an issue with hardware vendors not pushing updates on phones which could theoretically support the app. So most of the issues you perceive, to me, seem mostly orthogonal to CoraLibre.
It needs developers. You can't expect 1 person to work on this huge task. I feel like the maintainers on CoraLibre did a lot of work already. but for a FOSS project to be sustainable, it needs new contributors. And this project is still lacking them after a week (despite a lot of interest). This is also why this project needs KISS principles; it might have to be simplified to be easier to complete. I plan this to be my final post in this topic. I'd suggest maintainers to lock this discussion. It's going nowhere. As a closing statement to @HerrBert233: I'm using CWA on a Samsung S3 Mini (from 2012). So I'm running CWA on an ancient phone - without CoraLibre. It's not ideal, because I don't want the Google account that I had to create, and I have to trust Google (with their binary blobs). I feel like you refuse to consider these kind of alternatives and fail to explain why CoraLibre is a better target for adding support for CWA, over a custom ROM to upgrade an old Android 5 phone. Especially after you had said that you are willing to compromise security - which is a main hurdle with custom ROMs in my opinion. |
Oh god stop pontificating everyone. |
Well, if you argue this way, then indeed CoraLibre is not needed for the older phones. Then you just successfully argued why people with old phones do not need CoraLibre. You successfully decimated your potential circle of supporters. Computer scientists have never been good business mans ;-) Then you really need to focus on the FOSS aspect of your project. You implement something that is already solved but in a FOSS way. The benefit will not be visible for everyone. Probably only you and I understand the advantage, but in the general public, who does? This makes it much harder to secure support and funding. You should look out for allies who share your ideal for FOSS. There is a german company "ShiftPhone" advertising their phones with an alternative version of what they call "ShiftOS". They say it comes without google services: https://www.shiftphones.com/hilfe_faqs/wie-kann-ich-shiftos-light-auf-meinem-shiftphone-installieren/ |
This is a sickness which technically we try to slow down, it's just an app that (if used correctly) might be helpfull to not overload the hospitals. Older Phones? New Phones? who cares it is not possible to save the entire world - there might exist new phones which on intention do not install this app, it's not 100% effective though. You might have also heard, this virus is more dangerous for older people - what phone do they have? It is not possible to go back in Android 5 or earlier to rewrite the SDK and make it backward compatible by implementing Android 6 or later features.... Would you install Windows 95 and run Visual Studio there? |
Hi, I wanted to post this here to not blow up the main thread, as an answer to this post: corona-warn-app/cwa-app-android#75 (comment) where you also asked for support. Especially you asked for support for corporate identity and explained the difficulties with your limited resources.
I was quite surprised that you shut down the discussion about legacy devices here I don't see why it should bring in additional effort to compile your app with an Android 5 SDK so that also Android 5 users could install your app (which would be an unique selling point of your approach then). I want to emphasize: Doing so could be an important strategic decision.
I'm just trying to give you the arguments you need to create a corporate identity that will attract a lot of people for your project. To be realistic, I don't think the idea to just replicate an existing functionality in a FOSS way will attract a lot of people (unfortunately). You have to identify shortcomings of the existing solution and how your approach would solve them. If you go around and tell that currently ~20% of Android users are locked from the app and with your solution, you could bring the majority of them also on board, this could be identified as a game changer.
Here is how I would make the argument: The app is only effective if we have 70% (or 60%, this is under debate) coverage. This is what research tells us. This sounds more or less realistic. But subtracting 20% with incompatible phone means 87% from the remaining compatible phones have to install the app to reach 70% overall coverage. This is a much, much higher bar. I don't think we will come close to this. So whether we leave out 20% of all users or not can make the difference between success and failure. Just imagine what's on stake. "Failure" can mean a new, drastic lockdown which would be devastating for the economy. "Success" could mean we could avoid a second wave and start to rebuild our economy.
If you make this as the main talking point of your corporate identity, you will be successful and attract a lot of supporters also from outside the FOSS community.
Of course it is unclear whether the app will be of such high importance. But our world is chaotic. Small changes can have a big effect (butterfly effect). So you cannot disprove that maybe those additional 20% could just avoid that we get over the tipping point that would start a second wave. It is possible with small probability, so it is not a lie.
We are building a corporate identity here, not a scientific lecture, we do not have to take all evidence equally into account. It's ok to emphasize those evidence that supports our hypothesis. Our goal is to strengthen FOSS. This is a noble goal. It is never a bad thing to get people to support FOSS. Always remember this. So I would advise you to stop talking your project down. Be confident, be bold. You are doing great things here, you probably save free open source Android (as someone else pointed out).
Here: Our government is telling blank lies: "aber es gibt da technische Gründe, die durch ein politisches Wollen der Bundesregierung nicht wegzuwischen sind." They say it is technically not possible to support the older phones, but it is! As outlined here: corona-warn-app/cwa-app-android#75 (comment) the largest blocker is the Android version, not missing Bluetooth LE. Most phones have Bluetooth LE. You could emphasize this and maybe even make it to the news headline this way.
Maybe there are also other arguments to make. Like how relying on a Google API is a big privacy impact. How Google could secretly log all requests to that API to create an ultimate movement profile of every citizen. But here I wanted to focus on the strategic decision to explicitly advertise this project for older (Android 5 and below) operating systems could help to build a large coalition to secure the future development of this project. I was trying to spin public opinion in a way that many others and maybe SAP and Telekom would have officially supported your project, it already worked, here: corona-warn-app/cwa-app-android#75 (comment) This was a reaction directly to my post. Quote: "What I can't believe is, that the SAP earns 9.5 mio € for this App and is not able to support developers to build a Google API free version" This is the mindset I wanted to create.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: