# More detailed info on why CDMA GNex is no longer AOSP-supported



## Jaxidian (Jun 6, 2011)

https://groups.googl...b1c893e1e?pli=1



> You may have heard about a change in AOSP support for 3 CDMA devices:
> Nexus S 4G (Sprint), Motorola Xoom (Verizon Wireless), and Galaxy
> Nexus (Verizon Wireless). A high-level view is provided here: http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=https://groups.google.com/group/android-contrib/browse_thread/thread/a61cf74b965dbde5&usg=AFQjCNHMGYWYhKd7YFG79ITnflXJmOlvIg
> 
> ...


----------



## Jaxidian (Jun 6, 2011)

I'd specifically like to know what exactly he means by these points:



> Now, here's how things are likely to look in the future for those CDMA devices:
> (SNIP)
> - There won't be any testing done on AOSP builds for those CDMA devices, so they'll probably bit-rot.
> - CDMA devices won't be targeted by improvements in the way AOSP builds can be installed or distributed.


----------



## tp76 (Aug 22, 2011)

Bit-rot sounds nasty either way you slice it...


----------



## Jaxidian (Jun 6, 2011)

You know, I felt better BEFORE this explanation than I now feel. "There won't be any testing done on AOSP builds for those CDMA devices, so they'll probably bit-rot" simply DOES NOT make me feel any better at all.


----------



## TYPE M GTS-t (Aug 24, 2011)

what does this mean for custom roms from now on? Will we be able to get updated roms?


----------



## vladimirhtg (Jan 12, 2012)

but google has assured the public that lte devices will remain unlocked so no worries. right? i'm not worried one bit.


----------



## masri1987 (Jun 29, 2011)

I'm not happy with "bit rot"

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


----------



## Jaxidian (Jun 6, 2011)

TYPE M GTS-t said:


> but google has assured the public that lte devices will remain unlocked so no worries. right? i'm not worried one bit.


Don't let my complaining scare you guys or anything. This isn't a dooms day sort of thing for us one bit. It simply means (as best as I can interpret) that:
1) our custom ROM devs might have to work a bit harder
2) we might have a few more obscure bugs than our GSM counterparts (in both official and non-official builds)
3) Google is attempting to remove the expectation that they must support us as equals to our GSM counterparts with the code in AOSP. Or reading between the lines, the "official" code won't always work for us and they may put in hacks to fix things that will never make it into AOSP (and therefore to our custom devs).

Google certainly has their reasons for the licensing stuff, and I totally get that. Don't like it but hey, that's the way it is and that's what we get for being on a CDMA carrier. However, I do NOT get why JBQ is saying:



> - There won't be any testing done on AOSP builds for those CDMA devices, so they'll probably bit-rot.
> - CDMA devices won't be targeted by improvements in the way AOSP builds can be installed or distributed.


----------



## Mustang302LX (Jun 28, 2011)

Jaxidian said:


> You know, I felt better BEFORE this explanation than I now feel. "There won't be any testing done on AOSP builds for those CDMA devices, so they'll probably bit-rot" simply DOES NOT make me feel any better at all.


Yeah that seems like a stupid thing to say IMO.


----------



## alatedseraph (Jan 23, 2012)

This is absolutely outrageous we are the first official nexus in america, technically the only one right now as the gsm is international atm. I don't like those lazy people.


----------



## Jaxidian (Jun 6, 2011)

Mustang302LX said:


> Yeah that seems like a stupid thing to say IMO.


I really hope that was simply just this - a stupid thing to say and not actually true. I totally appreciate JBQ's attempt to be transparent and communicate with us. I simply don't follow the logic behind those two points. I DO follow the logic behind us not having the source for the closed binaries (hate it but understand). I do NOT understand why AOSP cannot continue to support the GNex and why it will degrade in quality over time. I just do not understand that when Google (who controls AOSP code) still has the source for these binaries. We don't need that source for Google to maintain the quality of AOSP in connection to these closed source (to us, not Google) libraries.


----------



## Mustang302LX (Jun 28, 2011)

Jaxidian said:


> I really hope that was simply just this - a stupid thing to say and not actually true. I totally appreciate JBQ's attempt to be transparent and communicate with us. I simply don't follow the logic behind those two points. I DO follow the logic behind us not having the source for the closed binaries (hate it but understand). I do NOT understand why AOSP cannot continue to support the GNex and why it will degrade in quality over time. I just do not understand that when Google (who controls AOSP code) still has the source for these binaries. We don't need that source for Google to maintain the quality of AOSP in connection to these closed source (to us, not Google) libraries.


That's what I'm curious of as well. Also they knew the "limitations" of CDMA binaries prior to choosing to use VzW for this device in the U.S. Kind of a b.s. move to pull now. I really am curious still to know if VzW has really just pissed them off enough to where they just said screw CDMA and sorry Sprint you were a casualty of war.

p.s. if you haven't fixed OP yet just click edit and select all and click the color chooser and select automatic. Will work perfectly in Tapatalk.


----------



## Jaxidian (Jun 6, 2011)

Mustang302LX said:


> That's what I'm curious of as well. Also they knew the "limitations" of CDMA binaries prior to choosing to use VzW for this device in the U.S. Kind of a b.s. move to pull now. I really am curious still to know if VzW has really just pissed them off enough to where they just said screw CDMA and sorry Sprint you were a casualty of war.


Unfortunately, that will never be anything but speculation. I can't imagine Google ever coming out and saying so. Hell, you saw how hard it was for them to come out and say the Chinese gov't attacked them!


----------



## Burncycle (Aug 6, 2011)

This shouldn't change the official releases should it (at least it doesn't sound like it)? Aren't the official builds fairly different than AOSP itself?


----------



## Jaxidian (Jun 6, 2011)

Burncycle said:


> This shouldn't change the official releases should it (at least it doesn't sound like it)? Aren't the official builds fairly different than AOSP itself?


For the most part, no, unless your a ROM dev or using a custom ROM. And even then, for the most part, no.

That said, what I think JBQ was saying was that, over time, AOSP will begin to have code that is in fact buggy for us and the fixes for those bugs may never make it into AOSP. So this means 2 things:
1. In the future, our custom ROM devs may not ever actually have the ability to get the source behind our official releases. So our devs may have to fix bugs that Google has already fixed.
2. We will have bugs that GSM will not, and fixing those bugs will be an after-thought instead of being baked into Android, which means our bug fixes won't be of the same quality as GSM bug fixes.

That said, everything anybody who isn't with Google (like me) is saying is pure speculation.


----------



## mattchenzo (Sep 11, 2011)

For those of us who are less educated, is "bit-rot" a technical term, or something the Google dude made up?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


----------



## landshark (Aug 6, 2011)

mattchenzo said:


> For those of us who are less educated, is "bit-rot" a technical term, or something the Google dude made up?
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


Bit rot - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_rot


----------



## mattchenzo (Sep 11, 2011)

Ha! I Googled it, here's a quote from Wikipedia:

" The term "bit rot" is often used to refer to dormant code rot, i.e. the fact that dormant (unused or little-used) code gradually decays in correctness as a result of interface changes in active code that is called from the dormant code.

A program may run correctly for years with no problem, then malfunction for no apparent reason. Programmers often jokingly attribute the failure to bit rot. Such an effect may be due to a memory leak or other non-obvious software bug. Often, although there is no obvious change in the program's operating environment, a subtle difference has occurred that is triggering a latent software error. The error in the software may also originate by human operation which allows the construction or derivation of false-positive behavior to occur

within the code. Some operating systems tend to lose stability when left running for long periods, which is why they must be restarted occasionally to remove resident errors that have built up due to software errors."

Yuck. Sounds a bit better than I was imagining though.. I assume this isn't as bad on a Linux-based system, since they tend to be more stable to begin with?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


----------



## blaineevans (Jul 11, 2011)

None of this is making me feel any better about my purchase. I've never even though about switching carriers until this nonsense.

Maybe a bit extreme, but jesus.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


----------



## Slvfox (Dec 16, 2011)

More info:

http://www.droid-lif.../#disqus_thread

Edit: Not so bad after all.


----------



## terryrook (Jun 10, 2011)

oh well, if it gets too bad I'll switch again. But I can't imagine this being the end, we seem to flip out over the smallest things.


----------



## Burncycle (Aug 6, 2011)

Slvfox said:


> More info:
> 
> http://www.droid-lif.../#disqus_thread
> 
> Edit: Not so bad after all.


"but to me sounds like they are using a play of words for legal reason, drop the word "supported" next to it on the list and still continue as normal. Loopholes. gotta love them"

One of the comments. Exactly how I received that response.


----------



## nailbomb3 (Aug 25, 2011)

Wait just a minute. So phone manufacturers like HTC, LG, Moto and Samsung can obviously get the required licenses for these CDMA binaries to make
their phones work, but Google can not? Does that make ANY sense at all?

Seriously....fml.....


----------



## SomeGuyDude (Jul 3, 2011)

Scumbag Google: release the first ICS phone on the biggest carrier in the United States, drop support for it.


----------



## rexdog1888 (Aug 2, 2011)

nailbomb3 said:


> Wait just a minute. So phone manufacturers like HTC, LG, Moto and Samsung can obviously get the required licenses for these CDMA binaries to make
> their phones work, but Google can not? Does that make ANY sense at all?
> 
> Seriously....fml.....


I think they can still get them(so official updates from them will happen), they just can't provide them to us(so we will have a hard time using AOSP to make our own updates)
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using RootzWiki


----------



## Burncycle (Aug 6, 2011)

nailbomb3 said:


> Wait just a minute. So phone manufacturers like HTC, LG, Moto and Samsung can obviously get the required licenses for these CDMA binaries to make
> their phones work, but Google can not? Does that make ANY sense at all?
> 
> Seriously....fml.....


Yeah they can get them, but they aren't open source and google can't release them as such I believe.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


----------



## bplewis24 (Jan 21, 2012)

SomeGuyDude said:


> Scumbag Google: release the first ICS phone on the biggest carrier in the United States, drop support for it.


Reading is fundamental.


----------



## nailbomb3 (Aug 25, 2011)

Burncycle said:


> Yeah they can get them, but they aren't open source and google can't release them as such I believe.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


I tweet'd (hate that fing word) some more to JBQ and he clarified the 'licensing' issue for me. The problem is getting a license to 'redistribute' the files in question, so my manufacturing analogy above isn't correct.

It also sounds like the buisiness side of Google dropped the ball when it came to securing the rights to these binaries (again for redistribution). If it had been ME, I would have not released the CDMA phone until I had signed ink on the licenses.

It sound like JBQ was led to believe he (and we) was going to get them and then that didn't come to fruition.

Bad buisiness decisions.


----------



## knyghtryda (Sep 15, 2011)

I kinda feel bad for JBQ in all of this. He would probably love nothing more than to release all the apks to the community , but the lawyers and managers above him weren't on the ball enough to foresee this issue before release. It just sucks that its JBQ who has to deliver the bad news to everyone.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


----------



## Zaphod-Beeblebrox (Jun 21, 2011)

Google is well known for jumping in feet first and worrying about the business/contracts later. 
Google Music comes to mind.
How about the ongoing battle over Java/Dalvik.


----------



## Character Zero (Jul 27, 2011)

This is what I don't understand, how did this all not happen when the Nexus S came out on Sprint? It has CDMA radios? Is it the LTE that is the issue here? Maybe thats why they only released a patch on the LTE radio with 4.0.4, it was all they were given any maybe contractually obligated to provide (as in, they had to provide just a patch, dev/users could dump the patched file which we could use to do a full update). So I am confused on why this CDMA issue is coming up now and not last year.


----------



## coldconfession13 (Jun 15, 2011)

I sure hope they can fix this issue if not I'm sure developers could use the old source for the files needed and use updated sources for new os.


----------



## Jaxidian (Jun 6, 2011)

Character Zero said:


> This is what I don't understand, how did this all not happen when the Nexus S came out on Sprint? It has CDMA radios? Is it the LTE that is the issue here? Maybe thats why they only released a patch on the LTE radio with 4.0.4, it was all they were given any maybe contractually obligated to provide (as in, they had to provide just a patch, dev/users could dump the patched file which we could use to do a full update). So I am confused on why this CDMA issue is coming up now and not last year.


The Nexus S was also pulled, same as the Galaxy Nexus.


----------



## Jaxidian (Jun 6, 2011)

coldconfession13 said:


> I sure hope they can fix this issue if not I'm sure developers could use the old source for the files needed and use updated sources for new os.


Source has never been available for these files. Our devs simply use the APKs that are distributed with the official ROMs for these several apps that we don't have the source for.


----------



## coldconfession13 (Jun 15, 2011)

So if a source for the gsm couldn't they just piece them together?


----------



## Character Zero (Jul 27, 2011)

> The Nexus S was also pulled, same as the Galaxy Nexus.


Right but its been out since May 2011 and they have pushed at least one gingerbread and tried to push a ICS update. So why now? I mean, shouldn't they have run into this same very issue with the Neuxs S 10 months ago?


----------



## Jaxidian (Jun 6, 2011)

coldconfession13 said:


> So if a source for the gsm couldn't they just piece them together?


Think of it like this. We have source for 99% of everything. The 1% are these random radio-specific files (Qualcomm essentially has a monopoly on CDMA radios) and this is what JBQ was talking about not being licensed to release the source to. However, they are licensed to release these files already compiled.

So our devs can still make custom software, they just can't tweak the code in these radio files because 1) they don't have their source and 2) even if they did, these files MUST be signed by a specific key which our devs don't have.


----------



## Jaxidian (Jun 6, 2011)

Character Zero said:


> Right but its been out since May 2011 and they have pushed at least one gingerbread and tried to push a ICS update. So why now? I mean, shouldn't they have run into this same very issue with the Neuxs S 10 months ago?


They did, they just never updated the AOSP dev site to reflect it until now.


----------



## Character Zero (Jul 27, 2011)

I think the signing of the files is the key from what I have read. I could be wrong. But what I thought was said was the build had to be signed the same as these closed source (to us) files. So Google has the source, I think, and can make an official build and sign the build with the right keys. Devs can take AOSP and these closed source apks and make a build and sign them with whatever keys (test keys for instance). But the build key and proprietary key don't match. But it is ok since we use a custom recovery to load the build which doesn't care about the signing. Someone correct me here, but a GSM AOSP includes all files and a dev can build it and and it can flashed with the stock recovery?


----------



## miketoasty (Jun 10, 2011)

My views on the situation:

Basically right now, at least how I understand it after reading a couple hours of information, and of course this could all be wrong but.... For the CDMA GNexus there are specific proprietary blobs's that host the CDMA radio files. Now these cannot be specifically distributed by Google in a open source form (Right there making our phone a non AOSP phone as it HAS to have some closed source files), so thus the images being pulled. So, for our dev's to build new ROM's they need to take the latest AOSP source and merge our (Closed source) CDMA proprietary blobs's. Done, well sort of. When Google updates it's software our radio's may not be 100% compatible, now we have one of two options. Hope the dev's make the correct modifications to fix the proprietary blobs's or wait for our carriers to push the OTA of that OS. Also, when creating a new ROM (OTA) it takes a while to push out when you need to add sense or motoblur, with our devices all that needs to be done is new signed proprietary blobs's that work correctly with the OS just need to be merged with current source and pushed, which in my eyes "SHOULD" take a lot less time (Look's at the Galaxy S with ICS, which only took a couple weeks to release).

Initially this isn't much of a problem, I don't believe that we will have a problem until Jelly Bean comes out, if even then, depending on what changes that Google makes. 

Finally, anyone coming from the Thunderbolt know's that these fixes are possible, they just take time and make some things a little wonky.

Finally, finally, so yes Google did blindside us slightly, and yes we are no longer an AOSP device, and yes that sucks, but no the sky is not falling, we are not going to be forever left out of Jelly Bean goodness, things just may take more time than GSM due to some complications.

Finally, finally, finally, anyone who seems annoyed by this check out this link: http://bit.ly/wMfcMp, which is what happens when you use open sourced radio files.


----------



## sucker4pa1n (Dec 31, 2011)

Jaxidian said:


> Think of it like this. We have source for 99% of everything. The 1% are these random radio-specific files (Qualcomm essentially has a monopoly on CDMA radios) and this is what JBQ was talking about not being licensed to release the source to. However, they are licensed to release these files already compiled.


All the anti-VzW comments on Droid Life kind of pissed me off, so reading your comment made me a bit happier. Qualcomm is one of the largest patent holders for LTE, and basically owns CDMA, so *technically* they're the ones who are choosing privatized distribution. Even VzW is probably paying royalties to Qualcomm, unless the handset and tower/infrastructure manufacturers are the ones buying the rights.

Either way, this will still be better than my Incredible; there was much more hacking to be done on that when Gingerbread was unofficially ported over, and from what I can see that will be a non-issue. The only devs that might have problems are those without phones - but I'm sure they'll find the necessary apks easily enough.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


----------



## BennyJr (Jun 26, 2011)

https://groups.google.com/group/android-contrib/msg/f0b4ff77f291bdb5?pli=1

According to this its not supported for personal builds of it. Google says it will still update and develop for the device.


----------



## Jaxidian (Jun 6, 2011)

BennyJr said:


> https://groups.googl...7f291bdb5?pli=1
> 
> According to this its not supported for personal builds of it. Google says it will still update and develop for the device.


I don't believe that was ever in question. If so, I've done a pretty poor job at explaining my interpretation of what this means. :-/


----------



## Berzerker (Sep 16, 2011)

Jaxidian said:


> Think of it like this. We have source for 99% of everything. The 1% are these random radio-specific files (Qualcomm essentially has a monopoly on CDMA radios) and this is what JBQ was talking about not being licensed to release the source to. However, they are licensed to release these files already compiled.
> 
> So our devs can still make custom software, they just can't tweak the code in these radio files because 1) they don't have their source and 2) even if they did, these files MUST be signed by a specific key which our devs don't have.


AOSP still doesn't release CDMA props anywhere on their site for download. We'll still still have to rely on prop leaks for future releases, just like we did for 4.0.3. Since we already have the 4.0.4 props, all we need is source to drop in AOSP, then all the ROM cookers can upgrade.


----------



## jpricesd (Aug 1, 2011)

Berzerker said:


> AOSP still doesn't release CDMA props anywhere on their site for download. We'll still still have to rely on prop leaks for future releases, just like we did for 4.0.3. Since we already have the 4.0.4 props, all we need is source to drop in AOSP, then all the ROM cookers can upgrade.


I'm not too worried about it just yet. Will have to see how it continues to play out. Don't really like the idea of having to wait for leaks, but it is what it is.


----------



## miketoasty (Jun 10, 2011)

Berzerker said:


> AOSP still doesn't release CDMA props anywhere on their site for download. We'll still still have to rely on prop leaks for future releases, just like we did for 4.0.3. Since we already have the 4.0.4 props, all we need is source to drop in AOSP, then all the ROM cookers can upgrade.


That's assuming that we will need new props for it to work, which may or may not be the case. Which even if it is we have talented enough dev's here to work around it.


----------



## BennyJr (Jun 26, 2011)

Jaxidian said:


> I don't believe that was ever in question. If so, I've done a pretty poor job at explaining my interpretation of what this means. :-/


So this means i probably don't understand the point of this thread.


----------



## Pathology (Feb 6, 2012)

So is this going to be a problem with the longevity of the GNex and developers? I just got the GNex and still have 10 more days to take it back.. Is it still gonna be worth keeping or are devs gonna focus more on another device? I don't want to be stuck with something that will eventually fizzle out..

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


----------



## Raziel36 (Aug 14, 2011)

Pathology said:


> So is this going to be a problem with the longevity of the GNex and developers? I just got the GNex and still have 10 more days to take it back.. Is it still gonna be worth keeping or are devs gonna focus more on another device? I don't want to be stuck with something that will eventually fizzle out..
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


This will be the same on any Verizon phone, using CDMA/LTE, so unless you plan on going to a GSM carrier, then you might as well stick with this phone.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using RootzWiki


----------



## whezzel (Jun 25, 2011)

I don't understand y everyone is freaking. I mean how many cdma/ non-google phone (ie. Droid 2/x/razr) still have great aosp rooms and they were never supported on aosp. So people just need to chill out. In no what does this mean the end for development on the nexus

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using RootzWiki


----------



## Jaxidian (Jun 6, 2011)

Raziel36 said:


> This will be the same on any Verizon phone, using CDMA/LTE, so unless you plan on going to a GSM carrier, then you might as well stick with this phone.


This is completely true. But if you go GSM then you give up LTE.


----------



## Jaxidian (Jun 6, 2011)

whezzel said:


> I don't understand y everyone is freaking. I mean how many cdma/ non-google phone (ie. Droid 2/x/razr) still have great aosp rooms and they were never supported on aosp. So people just need to chill out.


I agree, people shouldn't freak out. This isn't a reason to drop your CDMA Nexus. This is just another reason why it sucks being on a CDMA carrier. Its possible that it's the straw on the camel's back but this isn't a dealbreaker.

I disagree about the Droid 2/X/Razr - the dev situation on those phones aren't even in the same league as on a Nexus device. Don't get me wrong, the devs do a great job with what they have but they simply cannot do what Nexus devs can do.


----------



## malac0da (Jun 6, 2011)

Jaxidian said:


> This is completely true. But if you go GSM then you give up LTE.


Galaxy note...GSM and lte no?
http://blogs.computerworld.com/19693/galaxy_note_u_s_release_date_on_at_t_4g_lte?ua

I mean its no nexus but it is LTE and GSM so maybe the nexus plus or whatever will be LTE and GSM

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


----------



## Jaxidian (Jun 6, 2011)

malac0da said:


> Galaxy note...GSM and lte no?


Yeah, I meant Nexus.


----------



## Schoat333 (Jun 14, 2011)

Remember, the OG droid was not "AOSP", but it had plenty of support.


----------



## Pathology (Feb 6, 2012)

I think I stirred up a bit of a panic lol...

What I meant was....will the Nexus stand up ahead of the current smart phones still for development? Or will it be just like the rest now? The reason I got my GNex was because everywhere I read it had the most dev support going for it VS RAZR MAXX & Resound & Bionic etc etc. Will that hold true, or will those others catch up now? Because if so...I may want to try the others before my 14-day trial is up with this one.

I suppose I should have been more clear to my intent with the questions... I wasn't meaning to sound like "OMGZ THE GNEX IZ DED?!?!" But I can see where some got the impression lol. No freaking out here...just want to make the best purchase possible for my interests. I'm a former DX user...and can't live without flashing since.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


----------



## bplewis24 (Jan 21, 2012)

The others will never catch up in dev support. At least not for any Verizon phones.


----------



## Jaxidian (Jun 6, 2011)

bplewis24 said:


> The others will never catch up in dev support. At least not for any Verizon phones.


This is true for now and any known phones coming down the line.


----------



## Pathology (Feb 6, 2012)

I'm from DroidXForums...so idk your names, but I'll take your word for it >.>

Guess I should root and get to flashing..

Any starting points you could direct me to on this forum? PM me so we don't hijack this thread too bad xD

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


----------

