Google Charging OEMs Licensing Fees For Play Store

Go ahead, give me one more straw! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-23 10:28 · Score: 1

I think I can take it!

Re:Go ahead, give me one more straw! by Zaelath · 2014-01-23 11:03 · Score: 4, Funny

I'm sorry sir, would you like a free streak to go with your phone?
Dear God, no. Keep your pants on.
Re:Go ahead, give me one more straw! by TheRaven64 · 2014-01-23 11:42 · Score: 1

They're not charging me. They're charging the OEM, who will pass on the cost to me without providing me an option of opting out, for something that they will then use to harvest personal information about me to sell to advertisers. Give me a phone for $2 less without the Google crap and I'll happily take it in preference.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Go ahead, give me one more straw! by davester666 · 2014-01-23 12:20 · Score: 2

No problem. Of course, the phone will cost approximately twice as much, as the worldwide market for such a phone is maybe a couple of thousand, versus phones with the full Google experience.

--
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Re:Go ahead, give me one more straw! by Cryacin · 2014-01-23 13:04 · Score: 1

You'd pass up getting a peek at this adonis like physique? (Scratches under hairy belly)

--
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
Re:Go ahead, give me one more straw! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-23 13:20 · Score: 1

They never gave anything away for free, you always paid some price along the way. Difference is now you arent just their product but you are paying them to be their product, the more locked in to their proprietary services the people and the application ecosystem become the more that price will rise.
Re:Go ahead, give me one more straw! by jrumney · 2014-01-23 13:38 · Score: 1

$0.75? How about you leave that out and I'll take it for $2.00 less? How does that logic work?
Profit margins and overheads for manufacturer, distributor and retailer. That's about the right ratio by the time this gets to retail shelves. Except that at retail they'll likely want to round it to XX9.95 or XX9.99, so the end effect on the price is either $0 or $10.
Re:Go ahead, give me one more straw! by niftymitch · 2014-01-23 17:19 · Score: 1

$0.75? How about you leave that out and I'll take it for $2.00 less?
How does that logic work? Besides, you can easily remove the Play Store from most devices.
If not, this site might not be for you.
Yes,,,, but for many not aware of /. the reality is that Google does
a little to a lot of work on the cruft that folk toss onto the application
pile. They have apparently started looking hard at abuses some
software vendors were updating twice a week to update embedded
marketing and advertisements... because I suspect the bandwidth
was free. From benign to just durn nasty there are many abuses that
google is looking to squash (and has already).
I noted on my tablet that Samstung has their own store. But AT&T just a
collection of applications on the Google Shop....

--
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
Re:Go ahead, give me one more straw! by xfurious · 2014-01-24 03:42 · Score: 1

You are always welcome to remove the Google Play Services and the Play Store from your phone in a variety of ways. Are you REALLY upset about a 75c LICENSING FEE on a $700 phone that your likely paying for by buying into a 2-year contract with a carrier who is profiting hand over fist on you?
Solution: Buy a Google Nexus device: No 75c fee to worry about because it'd just go right back into their pocket anyway! Lean into the wind!
Re:Go ahead, give me one more straw! by TheRaven64 · 2014-01-25 00:11 · Score: 1

Because that's 0.75 for the play store, on top of what they charge for the other Google apps.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Go ahead, give me one more straw! by NemosomeN · 2014-01-26 15:32 · Score: 1

I would imagine the 0.75 is all inclusive. I doubt Google allows bundling of Play Store with no other Google apps.

--
I hate grammar Nazi's.

That's fair enough by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-23 10:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's an important service which needs decent maintenance. 75c is cheap for providing Google with the funds to moderate and protect users.

Re: That's fair enough by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-23 10:34 · Score: 5, Informative

Except that they don't. There is plenty of malware on the play store.
Re: That's fair enough by LWATCDR · 2014-01-23 11:14 · Score: 1

Really What apps?

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re: That's fair enough by TheRaven64 · 2014-01-23 11:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

Is that a serious question? Take a look at the proceedings from any security conference in the last 2 years and you can find a very long list. The latest trick is for individuals who release small apps for free or a token amount to be offered money to sell their app, especially if the app already asks for more permissions than it really needs (great incentives there...). The buyers then release a new version bundled with malware. The new version is installed automatically if it doesn't need any more permissions, and since most manufacturers don't ship software updates for Android phones in a timely fashion there are typically a few nice root vulnerabilities lying around on a significant fraction of the installed base. From there, the attacker can do what they want (attack mobile banking apps, harvest passwords, send premium-rate SMS, or just proxy all network traffic and inject their own ads, the last being the most common).
I know a couple of people who have turned down money to sell their (free, with only a few thousand users) apps for this purpose.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re: That's fair enough by knarf · 2014-01-23 12:27 · Score: 2, Informative

Oh well, there is plenty of malware on the Apple app store as well. The Windows store is also full of malware.
These statements are just as unproven as the one you just made. If you back up yours with some evidence, I'm sure I can find some for mine...

--
--frank[at]unternet.org
Re: That's fair enough by Gadget_Guy · 2014-01-23 13:17 · Score: 1

If you back up yours with some evidence, I'm sure I can find some for mine...
Here, let me Google that for you.
Re: That's fair enough by mjwx · 2014-01-23 19:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

Can you backup your claim and list a few of the problem apps?
Of course he cant, it's the truthiness of it. How dare you doubt his completely unsupported supposition when the truthiness is clearly there.

But in reality, the number of compromised applications is incredibly low. Fake banking apps are removed almost as soon as they're added. For the most part you have crappy applications disguising adware and personal data collection (which Apple permits anyway), even these are very low in number. But the Anti-Android crowd would like you to believe you will get pwned as soon as you even breathe near the power button of an Android phone and have all kinds of whimsical arguments to prove it.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re: That's fair enough by cyber-vandal · 2014-01-23 21:32 · Score: 1

Look what came up in the search. From the link:

The message for businesses: Don't spend too much time worrying about mobile threats. "Don't completely forget it, but apportion your resources toward the actual risk in the real world, which isn't very much"
Re: That's fair enough by Xest · 2014-01-23 21:37 · Score: 1

What he describes was recently in the news regarding a handful of popular browser add-ons primarily targeting Chrome because it's the most used browser globally.
A couple of browser extension developers sold their extensions which were then replaced with versions that injected ads into web pages and so forth. Google removed these add-ons from the Chrome add on store as soon as it was spotted.
I've heard of no cases of this happening with the Android store, and even if it has it's pretty clear that Google are willing to act immediately when there is evidence of it as they did with the Chrome store.
It sounds like he's taken the news story about Chrome, twisted it into one about Android, thrown a few anecdotes about "people I know" who have had it happen to them in with a bunch of other unfounded claims like mention of security conference proceedings which also unsurprisingly have topics about every other platform too and chucked it out there as a Slashdot post.
Re: That's fair enough by cyber-vandal · 2014-01-24 01:52 · Score: 1

No it means that the risk is massively overblown - surprise surprise.
Re: That's fair enough by xfurious · 2014-01-24 03:46 · Score: 1

You are mistaking the recent Chrome App Store events with the Google Play Store. One is an unregulated wild wild west, the other has had problems but is far far more maintained. My biggest issue with the Play Store today is the proliferation of excessive permissions which introduces the risk of Chrome Store like badness in the future (or even now!) I generally do not accept apps that need unreasonable permissions even if I really want/need it
Re: That's fair enough by LWATCDR · 2014-01-24 15:21 · Score: 1

I have looked and none of those apps where in the Google or Amazon app store.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.

Google already has a noose on manufacturers by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2014-01-23 10:36 · Score: 1, Troll

I found this Ars Technica article about how hard core Google is kind of interesting. Kind of made me sympathetic for all the work that Amazon has to do to get the Kindle Fire working.

Also, for those who don't know, KitKat has Google Now taking over your home screen, meaning Google now listens on your microphone 24/7 (as if it hasn't already).

Is Apple now the white knight, saving us from Android domination? No of course not, but interesting to see how quickly the idea of Google owning the world has switched. I mean, I can turn off the microphone for certain apps in iOS, but can't in Android.

Re: Google already has a noose on manufacturers by thechanklybore · 2014-01-23 10:42 · Score: 5, Informative

Nonsense. Google Now voice activation only works on a few models (and can be switched off), plus the launcher with Now integrated is solely available for the nexus 5. Please stop the FUD.
Re:Google already has a noose on manufacturers by Desler · 2014-01-23 11:00 · Score: 2

What they are closing off has nothing to do with the ability of OEMs and others to make custom home screens and launchers nor are they going to block that.
Re: Google already has a noose on manufacturers by mlts · 2014-01-23 11:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

There are the SELinux policies that got checked into 4.5 a few days ago which make it impossible for even a program running as root to extract and run files in the /data filesystem. Not an impossible task, but it will require all root apps to be re-engineered.
I don't think Google did this to lock out root apps, but plug some vulnerabilities, but there is a lot of bellyaching about this. It would be nice to have some switch to allow root apps (or just the su binary) to have their own SELinux security contexts, or a way to turn SELinux off without changing kernel arguments.
Re:Google already has a noose on manufacturers by farble1670 · 2014-01-23 11:05 · Score: 1

Also, for those who don't know, KitKat [arstechnica.com] has Google Now taking over your home screen, meaning Google now listens on your microphone 24/7 (as if it hasn't already).
no, it doesn't. you have to start the google search / google now app for it to listen.
Re:Google already has a noose on manufacturers by Threni · 2014-01-23 11:40 · Score: 1

> as if it hasn't already
Was it doing it already, or not?
Re: Google already has a noose on manufacturers by Scowler · 2014-01-23 11:54 · Score: 1

Strangely enough, iPhones also have a pretty good integrated Google Apps experience. Google spends a lot of effort porting their important apps to iOS, and it shows.
Re: Google already has a noose on manufacturers by Nerdfest · 2014-01-23 12:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

Nice to actually be able to see the damn source though, isn't it?
Re: Google already has a noose on manufacturers by Nerdfest · 2014-01-23 12:03 · Score: 1

If you look at many of the lists of 'best Apple apps', Google apps frequently dominate the lists.
Re:Google already has a noose on manufacturers by PixetaledPikachu · 2014-01-23 12:41 · Score: 1

There is a white knight saving us from Google domination while still firmly grounded in the Android camp: Cyanogenmod. They're starting to ship presintalled in devices, now. I hope it's an ongoing trend, since the true power of open source is the ability to fork. And if more and more closely related forks appear, Google will want to keep everything compatible with its Play Store, which will halt its gradual proprietarization (eh?) of Android.
The pre-installed Cyanogenmod on the Oppo N1 is Google certified, akin to TouchWiz on Samsung, Sense on HTC, or Timescape on Xperia, and not exactly a fork.
Re:Google already has a noose on manufacturers by ameyer17 · 2014-01-23 13:17 · Score: 1

The only phones where the mic is always on are the Moto X, Droid Mini, Droid Ultra, and Droid MAXX. The Nexus 5 is the only phone with the Google Experience Launcher, which only listens when the home screen is on.
Re: Google already has a noose on manufacturers by pspahn · 2014-01-23 13:25 · Score: 1

Be careful, Google, lest you alienate users ala Adobe.

--
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
Re:Google already has a noose on manufacturers by jrumney · 2014-01-23 13:33 · Score: 1

Nexus 5 has dedicated voice recognition hardware that listens even when the main CPU on the phone is in sleep mode. It can wake the main CPU when it hears a magic phrase ("OK Google"). Google Now isn't listening on the mic though - if the magic phrase has not been detected, the audio never leaves the dedicated voice IC.
Re: Google already has a noose on manufacturers by Rich0 · 2014-01-23 14:15 · Score: 1

Doesn't seem like that big of a deal. Stock android doesn't have an su on it and there was no convention for having root apps, so the community created one. Well, now we just need to change the SELinux context. There are also frameworks out there for providing other non-stock APIs to root applications on near-stock firmwares. It will be nice if somebody comes up with an easy way to silently disable DevicePolicyManager for selected device managers...
Re:Google already has a noose on manufacturers by Microlith · 2014-01-23 14:50 · Score: 2

The worst parts of Androids have always been the open-source components, the modifiable OS and UI that third-party carriers and OEMs routinely turn to crap.

Then your problem is with the OEMs, not the open source components. And if you're in the US, the carriers.

it can be argued that Google makes better software -- and more significantly, UX designs -- than the open-source world.

Not terribly relevant, especially when you consider that Google created all of the open source bits of Android.

For folks like me who just want a way to effectively use their Google accounts on the go, Google usually does it a lot better first-party than third party, open-source attempts.
Do you even know what you're talking about?

I WANT a closed Google Phone because it's less messy and better integrated.
Which is neither here nor there with respect to the software being open source. Perhaps you would be better off with an iPhone?

It's just my opinion, but open source isn't everything to everyone. Usability matters more to some, and in this case Google is a lot better at it than most third parties.
Which, again, is irrelevant. Of course, that you're at +5 just shows there are people with mod points that have equally poor understanding.
Re:Google already has a noose on manufacturers by Technomancer · 2014-01-23 15:04 · Score: 2

You have mistaken Nexus 5 for Moto X
http://www.ibtimes.com/why-nexus-5-lacks-touchless-control-moto-x-always-listening-voice-gestures-1487038
Here is how to set it up on Moto X https://motorola-global-portal.custhelp.com/app/answers/prod_answer_detail/a_id/94881/p/30,6720,8696/action/auth
Re:Google already has a noose on manufacturers by Altus · 2014-01-23 15:33 · Score: 1

its not really the "open sources world" that fucks up Android. The fact that maunfacturers do fuck it up is because of its open nature but I think all you can say is that phone manufacturers suck at UX. I don't think Android is an indication that open source as a whole sucks at it.
I might agree with that statement but Android is not evidence of it... its not a community making those shitty UIs its Samsun or HJC or formerly Motorola.

--
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Re: Google already has a noose on manufacturers by Altus · 2014-01-23 15:34 · Score: 2

really, because I find googles apps on iOS to be among the worst. Its even hard to say that the G+ app is better than the abomination that is the facebook app.

--
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Re:Google already has a noose on manufacturers by kenshin33 · 2014-01-23 17:47 · Score: 1

.... My phone (a VZW Galaxy Nexus), on the other hand, is crap because Google ceded some of its control to Verizon. So I can't tether or get timely Android updates or clear off the Verizon crap unless I install a third-party ROM, and even then I have to jump through hoops to get the latest Google Apps, and I will always be months behind on Android version updates. If Android were closed to begin with like iPhone was, Verizon could not have done that -- but they also probably would not not have taken Android in to begin with.

That's why, my GSM galaxy nexus is running the latest official google version of android -4.4- (which, it is perfectly capable of running). Oh wait, there's no such thing.
What there is, is AOSP, openness (in a way), that openness gave me (and many many others) the possibility to to get updates, tinker, add features (caller name display comes to mind, there was none for a long time, and it wasn't free).
You want the "Google experience"? Fine buy a google phones from the google play store using your google wallet, not available for your carrier?? well, that's just too bad (not all phones are available for all carriers, this isn't new thing, been like this as far as I can remember).
Re: Google already has a noose on manufacturers by drinkypoo · 2014-01-24 00:28 · Score: 1

It would be nice to have some switch to allow root apps (or just the su binary) to have their own SELinux security contexts, or a way to turn SELinux off without changing kernel arguments.
Can't you use the same tools used to control selinux on linux to control it on Android?

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Google already has a noose on manufacturers by drinkypoo · 2014-01-24 00:30 · Score: 1

If Google had retained complete control over its platform from the get-go, we would not have seen things like carrier-disabled tethering, Verizon's betrayal of the Nexus line, slow-ass/eternally-forgotten Android updates, useless bundled apps, conflicting address books / calendars, SIM/phone storage storage differences across vendors, device-specific apps and accessories, 400 different screen sizes and resolutions, etc.
Wait, what? WHAT? [citation needed] because most of those things would stll have happened. Many of them have actually happened on iPhone.

The overarching point of my argument is that Android would be better if it were solely controlled by Google in a fashion similar to iPhone or Kindle Fire, not because open-source is inherently bad, but because Android's particular implementation of open-source design meant that carriers and OEMs could and did take good open stuff and replace it with closed crap.
And it's wrong, for two reasons. One, AOSP. Two, there have been non-crapped phones all along, and unlike in iPhoneLand we had customer choice. But there has been no iPhone ever which has embraced customer choice. They spend all their effort preventing you from doing things with your device.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Google already has a noose on manufacturers by drinkypoo · 2014-01-24 11:16 · Score: 1

Not sure how AOSP fits in to this argument. It is because of AOSP that carriers and OEMs are able to take a Google phone and turn it into their own wannabe POS.
It is because of AOSP that users are able to take a Google phone and turn it into a device which doesn't even use Google's bundled software, let alone a carrier's crapflood.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Google already has a noose on manufacturers by drinkypoo · 2014-01-24 13:09 · Score: 1

No. The carriers are the problem. AOSP is the solution.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Google already has a noose on manufacturers by kenshin33 · 2014-01-24 20:05 · Score: 1

I believe the Nexus phones get updates far before third-party branded phones, no?
Not always. the galaxy nexus was left out this time around, and it wasn't b/c of performance or anything, it's working quiet perfectly with an AOSP build of 4.4.2. The official reason was : it's more than 18 months so fuck you very much.
The point is, if you don't like the phone of X or Y company? simple, don't buy it. And if somehow you're forced to, there's always a way to get rid of the original software and install something else (AOSP builds come to mind as they are what you seem to be looking for), and that is due to the "openness" of android (notice the "").
Re:Google already has a noose on manufacturers by bingoUV · 2014-01-27 00:45 · Score: 1

No it doesn't make sense. If you want closed Google experience - you already have Nexus devices. Motorola devices are plain-old-Google too nowadays. Don't install the dialler replacements, messaging replacements, launcher replacements and you are good.
Does the existence of Samsung devices, with altered Google experience, which you don't have to buy - affect your enjoyment of the pure Google experience in Nexus / Motorola devices? No if you are sane.
But the open-ness has enabled other people, who do not want a pure Google experience, to also enjoy almost-Android. Which increases application sales. Which improves experience on pure Google devices ecosystem as well. For example I want micro-SD card support which Google refuses to provide so I shop elsewhere. Every person has different needs - openness provides for all to be happy.
Your wanting one thing doesn't make other people wanting other things any less important.

--
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Re:Google already has a noose on manufacturers by bingoUV · 2014-01-27 00:56 · Score: 1

So yes, my ultimate gripe is with the carriers and the OEMs because they are the most direct villains, but Android's openness was the weak gate in Google's paradise that let them in.
Wrong. You are actually complaining about the carriers being left OUT or the carriers opted OUT - the carriers that you want. You don't realize, but the problem is NOT that they were let IN.
If Google had been less open, and say they would have left out the micro-SD card slot as they usually do. Customers wanting those slots would not have bought Google phones. So carriers wanting those customers would not have sold Google phones. Which could have been carriers that you want just as now the carriers you want don't sell Nexus devices.
Openness is still an enabler - not an impediment.

--
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Re:Google already has a noose on manufacturers by bingoUV · 2014-01-28 18:02 · Score: 1

Still subject to the slower, carrier/OEM controlled updates relative to the Nexus line and iDevices.
Which is why I included Nexus devices in my statement. You have even quoted that, you could as well have read it.

Absolutely. Android fragmentation makes it harder
This is stupid. You like Google's services - and the reason why Google makes so much effort in those services is that they expect profit. Which is because Android devices can be sold to many different kinds of people. Which is BECAUSE of the "fragmentation". Some people want 3 inch screen, some want 6 inch screen. Some want IPS, some want OLED. All buy Android devices, all contribute to potential profit of Google, leading to Google doing a good job for their services.
Basically you want a cheeseburger and don't want to pay for it. Fragmentation is the payment for Google's services.

The fragmentation also affects software developers
If you feel Android doesn't have enough applications for it, you can buy other kind of phones. If you don't want that - you like the cheese of McDonalds, but the bread of Burger King. Yes, choice is tough, which is why most laws require adulthood to make non-trivial choices.

Don't really see how you're justifying this except by reiterating it as a tautology.
Justifying what? The statement is not a justification, but a statement of a reason why people needing micro-SD slots might find their phone of choice in the fragmented Android world, but not necessarily in the non-fragmented Android world that you propose. Not sure you know what a tautology means, so I'll let that go until you learn that.

It's just my opinion, man, not a dictation of universal morality
Of course it is. Even if you state someone else's opinion, it will be YOUR opinion of that someone else's opinion. You are incapable of stating someone else's opinion directly - just like me.
My question was about the non-justifiability of your opinion. Your wanting this means you wanting lack of choice for so many other people - just as some wanting McDonalds to give cheeseburgers free effectively means them wanting McDonalds closing thereby reducing choice for their (potential) customers.

I WISH Google would do this because I would prefer, yes.
Yes, most people WISH to have a cheeseburger without paying for it. Only they don't wrap it around half-truths to make it appear as if their wish is justified, or even worthy of consideration.

--
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Re:Google already has a noose on manufacturers by bingoUV · 2014-01-30 16:56 · Score: 1

Yes, I know. Let's move on from that to the central discussion here:
Existence of Nexus devices renders your complete argument null and void.

But the other model -- closedness -- also made Apple a lot of money, and they still pour a lot of effort into their services.
Which you don't like, as much as Google's. So their effort is wasted, at least on you.
If every cable manufacturer becomes like Monster cable, they might reduce Monster cable's profit but most will end up losing profits. You haven't come up with any argument for Google increasing their own profits by becoming Apple, considering Google's other business and synergy (yuck) with that.

Don't know what you're getting at with the cheeseburgers. I am more than willing to pay for a closed Google ecosystem. I would pay even more for it, in terms of both money and freedom, than what I currently pay for Android.
That is not how payment works. You cannot tell McDonald's to accept your payment in the form of you performing dance for their shareholders / customers / management. You have to pay Google the way they ask you. Eating bad bread at McDonald's is a "payment" for eating their good cheese for example. There is the option to perform surgery on the burger - which is like installing CyanogenMod, tweaking it according to your liking, and then removing root abilities to make it "simple".

And yes, I am asking to deprive others of their freedoms, in the same manner that I wish all electronics chargers were standardized with a "good enough" system like MicroUSB. That may prevent better chargers from gaining a foothold, and it might make companies less money, but it adds to ease of use I feel the same way about mobile phone ecosystems: KISS, and enough is enough, and too much choice is meaningless for the consumer even if it benefits OEMs and Google
But the analogy works more like this : If MicroUSB could maintain compatibility while giving extra features (loved or hated). Example some cables jump at the slot and go insert themselves. Some come with Mickey Mouse image on them. Some have an integrated LCD screen.
Enough is enough, which is why Nexus devices exist. Not installing CyanogenMod on Nexus is not a punishable offence in any jurisdiction.

I'm saying yes it does, but at a cost to simplicity and usability
Unambiguously and demonstrably false. Not at the "cost" - because Nexus devices exist.

--
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.

For those worried about the Droidocalypse by rsborg · 2014-01-23 10:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

You know, where Android supplants all other OSs and electronic-based lifeforms?

Yeah, not going to happen. Google is now going to monetize, so you'll see forks like Amazon FireOS. Or you might see a resurgence of WindowsPhone Yes Android will continue to dominate, but it's not going to become some monoculture.

And somewhere in Cupertino, Tim Cook is laughing quietly...

--
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting

Re:For those worried about the Droidocalypse by Paradise+Pete · 2014-01-23 22:32 · Score: 1

Samsung will simply tell Google they don't want to pay the 75 cents and Google will acquiesce. They'll structure it in such a way that it appears that they pay it, but the money will come back some other way. In the end this will only help Samsung squash all those small competitors.

Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-23 10:37 · Score: 1

Google is willing to leverage their stranglehold on the mobile market to control and monetize wherever it can.

If "leverage their stranglehold" means "make money of the stuff they make" then yeah, I guess they would be willing to do that.

Re:Hmmm by viperidaenz · 2014-01-23 11:31 · Score: 1

You must be new here.
Re:Hmmm by Nerdfest · 2014-01-23 12:05 · Score: 1

Apparently you're only allowed to make it on locked-down hardware these days, and you should be proud if paying so much.
Re:Hmmm by squiggleslash · 2014-01-24 00:21 · Score: 1

Yeah, I'm struggling to see the cause of the hysteria in the summary, especially as Google doesn't have a stranglehold on mobile, and Google supports the only major mobile smartphone platform open enough to allow multiple app stores to co-exist.
Oh wait, I know the cause of the hysteria: Facebook. Specifically, the money FB has been paying to their shills to post anti-Google nonsense lately.
The funny part is that Google is genuinely easy to criticize, but these idiots insist on focussing on stuff that's obviously bunk. Google in bed with the NSA? Sure - as I am, after all, networks I use have probably been hacked by the NSA too. Google controlling mobile? WTF? And OMG THEY RUN A BUS IN SAN FRANCISCO!!! This cannot be allowed otherwise MORE PEOPLE WILL WANT TO LIVE IN SAN FRANCISCO!
Meanwhile they have a terrible search engine that gets worse by the minute - even Bing, a third rate clone, has now surpassed it in usefulness, and their attempts to push Google+ have broken numerous services, some of which because they've intentionally withdrawn them.
But, sure, ignore the actual problems with Google and focus on the made-up complaints instead. That makes total sense.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.

I thought they were already charging by hawguy · 2014-01-23 10:39 · Score: 2

I thought they were already charging for access to the Google Play store and Google Apps like Maps. I thought that was why Android based devices like the Nook, Kindle; and Cyanogenmod releases didn't include access to Google Apps and the Store. Is that just a licensing restriction?

Is a 75 cent fee really significant to anyone that wants their Android device to have access to the Google Apps and Play store? It's not like there aren't alternatives (though the Google Maps alternatives are lacking).

Re:I thought they were already charging by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-23 10:55 · Score: 1

75c per phone could make Samsung look into developing its own alternatives for the google apps. With 80M android in Q3 2013 alone they look at over 200 million in licensing fees in 2014.
Re:I thought they were already charging by farble1670 · 2014-01-23 11:21 · Score: 1

to a big poly corporation like samsung, giving out even the smallest sliver of pie isn't tolerable. samsung has their own android-clone operating system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
Re:I thought they were already charging by sexconker · 2014-01-23 11:29 · Score: 1

I thought they were already charging for access to the Google Play store and Google Apps like Maps. I thought that was why Android based devices like the Nook, Kindle; and Cyanogenmod releases didn't include access to Google Apps and the Store. Is that just a licensing restriction?
Is a 75 cent fee really significant to anyone that wants their Android device to have access to the Google Apps and Play store? It's not like there aren't alternatives (though the Google Maps alternatives are lacking).
AOSP is free.
Android is not. OEMs pay unknown amounts of money (lots) for access to Android. The earlier you want access, the more you pay. If you want to launch a flagship product as the first wave of products with the latest Android version, you pay a lot for the privilege.
Google is now also charging for their "apps", which used to be free (or buried in other costs related to the overall Android agreement).
Since we don't know the specifics of the pricing structure between Google and any given OEM, we don't know if this will end up costing them more or not. It may now be possible for an OEM to pay for Android without the Google apps and end up paying less than they were before for Android bundled with the Google apps. It may be the same. Or it may cost more.
The interesting thing about this is that given Google's position in the market, and the separate nature of the Google apps from Android, they may not be legally able to require OEMs to buy into Android in order to have the privilege of buying into Google apps. This would then open up the possibility for other OEMs to buy the Google apps and NOT Android. Anything running off of AOSP or some fork of it (such as the Kindle) may be able to be bundled with the Google apps if they pay the piper.
Re:I thought they were already charging by hawguy · 2014-01-23 11:37 · Score: 1

to a big poly corporation like samsung, giving out even the smallest sliver of pie isn't tolerable. samsung has their own android-clone operating system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
I think you mean Tizen, as far as I know, Samsung has given up on Bada.
I'm looking forward to seeing some Tizen devices, the more players the better. Microsoft hasn't shown itself to be a strong contender, so hopefully Tizen will do well.
Re:I thought they were already charging by Threni · 2014-01-23 11:45 · Score: 1

> they may not be legally able to require OEMs to buy into Android in order to have the privilege of buying into
> Google apps.
Google can decide who to sell their apps to. If they decide to only sell, say, Maps for use in Android, then that's that, as far as I can tell. Google is the piper.
Re:I thought they were already charging by rtaylor · 2014-01-23 11:48 · Score: 2

It may have been Samsungs idea in the first place.
Large companies like to poo-poo regulation, fees, etc. but they also realize it increases the barrier to entry which greatly benefits them.
Samsung has healthy profit margins and can cover the cost. Other manufacturers Samsung competes against will struggle just a bit more as a result. Some new guy on the block is really going to struggle if it's up-front per device manufactured and not done on a per-sale basis.

--
Rod Taylor
Re:I thought they were already charging by hawguy · 2014-01-23 13:03 · Score: 1

Slowly but surely they are moving from a free and open operating system to a vendor lock-in proprietary system, they are the Microsoft of the mobile space but with one difference: they also build profiles on you to use for advertising by mining your data. It used to be that the services were free of cost because the cost was made up for with advertising revenue but they are now charging OEMs for it, sure the cost is small now but not so long ago it didnt cost anything and was free and open, it has gone a long way from that in a very short space of time so if you think a 75 cent fee will be the end of it you are looking at this with google glasses on.
Why do you think Microsoft isn't also building profiles on you to use for advertising by mining your data?
Re:I thought they were already charging by jrumney · 2014-01-23 14:14 · Score: 1

They weren't charging per device before, just requiring membership of OHA and requiring the device to be certified as passing some tests to ensure compatibility.
Re:I thought they were already charging by jrumney · 2014-01-23 14:16 · Score: 1

Good luck explaining to customers why a large number of third party apps that rely on Google APIs suddenly won't work on your new phones. They would be better off switching platform entirely than trying to fork Android.
Re:I thought they were already charging by jrumney · 2014-01-23 14:18 · Score: 1

Per device fees don't really hurt the newcomers as much as the upfront certification fees and industry body membership fees that they already had. $0.75 per device is $0.75 whether you already sell millions of devices, or you are just starting out.
Re:I thought they were already charging by cbhacking · 2014-01-23 19:45 · Score: 1

10% isn't strong? WP is edging towards that worldwide, and has beaten it in several markets. It's the #3 spot right now, easily beating Blackberry (former #3).

--
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Re:I thought they were already charging by drinkypoo · 2014-01-24 00:25 · Score: 1

OEMs already "paid" but they paid a nebulous amount of money to Google for support for the feature. Now they pay a well-defined amount of money. The deal has been altered, but it has been standardized. This will probably lead to more uptake of the store. OEs could even offer the same handset with and without google services, at different prices.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:I thought they were already charging by sexconker · 2014-01-24 04:53 · Score: 1

> they may not be legally able to require OEMs to buy into Android in order to have the privilege of buying into
> Google apps.
Google can decide who to sell their apps to. If they decide to only sell, say, Maps for use in Android, then that's that, as far as I can tell. Google is the piper.
Wrong. That can be easily considered anticompetitive.
MS can decide who to sell their OS to and how to price it.
MS can decide to bundle a media player in their own OS.
MS can decide what browser to include in their own OS.
Imagine if MS said that they were going to charge for the Xbox Smartglass app, and Widnows Phone OEMs had to paid $.01 for it, but Apple and Android OEMs had to pay $.01 for it plus $.50 for a license to use Windows Phone even though they're not using it and the app has already been demonstrated to be separate from Windows Phone.

If it comes from Google by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-23 10:42 · Score: 1

Just have to say this.

If it comes from Google it is not free, not matter what they say there is a price attached to it, be it your personal information or your time. Google cannot exist without you but you can live without Google.

Another moron submitter by oldhack · 2014-01-23 10:43 · Score: 2

Cooking up Android costs money. You expect Google to pour all that money for nothing?

--
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.

Re:Another moron submitter by Desler · 2014-01-23 11:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

For nothing? So they make no revenue from the apps they sell or the ads?
Re:Another moron submitter by nurb432 · 2014-01-23 13:14 · Score: 1

They make plenty of cash without locking the store down like this. Furthermore, this isn't really about money, its about vendor lock-in and control of OEMs.
Yes, its their store and they can do whatever they like, but they make regret it in the long run by locking companies out.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

What if Samsung threatens to fork? by Scowler · 2014-01-23 10:47 · Score: 1

Then what? Wouldn't Google have to cave given the enormous market share Samsung has amongst all Android devices?

Re:What if Samsung threatens to fork? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-23 10:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

Samsung can't (realistically) fork. They've agreed not to as part of their membership in the OHA. To fork they would have to leave Android compatibility behind. Meaning whatever OS they create cannot be Android compatible. Its not going to happen. Nor can Google get rid of Samsung as they have become the dominant player in Android. I think both companies would prefer the relationship were different, but neither is in a position to do anything about it.
Re:What if Samsung threatens to fork? by sexconker · 2014-01-23 11:20 · Score: 2

Samsung can't (realistically) fork. They've agreed not to as part of their membership in the OHA. To fork they would have to leave Android compatibility behind. Meaning whatever OS they create cannot be Android compatible. Its not going to happen. Nor can Google get rid of Samsung as they have become the dominant player in Android. I think both companies would prefer the relationship were different, but neither is in a position to do anything about it.
AOSP is freely available for anyone, including Samsung, to take and fork. It's what Amazon did.
Unless you know of specific contractual terms Google and Samsung have agreed to, Samsung is free to do what they want.
If you do know of specific contractual terms Google and Samsung have agreed to, please post them, read them, then realize that Samsung is still free to do what they want - they'd just have to pay any penalties stipulated in the contract if they breach it.
Hint: You don't know of any specific contractual terms Google and Samsung have agreed to.
Re:What if Samsung threatens to fork? by AlphaWolf_HK · 2014-01-23 11:39 · Score: 2

The terms of using the Android trademark require that you can't distribute any kind of fork of Android. This is why Amazon makes sure to NEVER use the word Android anywhere on its products, nor can they ever have anything to do with the Play store.
Android the OS itself is still very much open, but the Android trademark isn't (nor is any trademark for that matter - the whole point of a trademark is to be exclusive rather than open.)

--
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Re:What if Samsung threatens to fork? by q.kontinuum · 2014-01-23 11:54 · Score: 2

Quote from http://www.amazon.com/kindle-f...:

All-New Fire OS "Mojito"
New Kindle Fire tablets are powered by the latest version of Fire OS—Fire OS 3.0 "Mojito", which starts with Android and adds cloud services
As far as I understood the restrictions, they could use the word Android, but they can't use the Google logo or Google Apps (Mail, Maps and others) without Googles permission. For Samsung, they might not be allowed to fork Android, but they do invest in Tizen. I'm looking forward to finally see the first devices.

--
Trolling is a art!
Re:What if Samsung threatens to fork? by crashumbc · 2014-01-23 12:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

And the fact that Samasung, is working VERY hard to replace all the Google apps with their own versions.
calendar, googleNow, and mail ALL are either off or not installed by default on the S4
S-voice
Scalender
and plain mail being the defaults
It will be interesting to see what Samsung does on the S5 (openmaps maybe?)
Samsung WILL either switch to Tizen OR fork Android in the next couple years, its coming...
Personally, I hate the Samsung apps, I'll never buy another unless I can get a version without touchwiz(horrible) and Samsung's crapware
Re:What if Samsung threatens to fork? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-23 12:58 · Score: 1

Samsung already has it's own app store, I have a Note II and have to visit the samsung app store to update polaris office, and a few other "Samsung Only" apps. I doubt developers that normally contribute to Play store will begin to contribute to the samsung app store, but it's a possibility. I'm a bit worried that every OEM will soon have their own app stores, with each model locked down to the OEM's play store, unless a paid for service is activated allowing access to the Google Play Store.
If google wants to monetize the Play store, why don't they make non-OSS, paid apps, pay a distribution fee?
Re:What if Samsung threatens to fork? by ducomputergeek · 2014-01-23 14:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

This. I think Samsung was waiting to see how well Amazons and others did. The biggest threat to Android was never Apple & iOS, but Samsung. The question in my mind has always been, what happens if Samsung forks and derives their own OS without google...

--
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Re:What if Samsung threatens to fork? by breeze95 · 2014-01-23 16:04 · Score: 1

Quote from http://www.amazon.com/kindle-f...:

All-New Fire OS "Mojito"
New Kindle Fire tablets are powered by the latest version of Fire OS—Fire OS 3.0 "Mojito", which starts with Android and adds cloud services
As far as I understood the restrictions, they could use the word Android, but they can't use the Google logo or Google Apps (Mail, Maps and others) without Googles permission. For Samsung, they might not be allowed to fork Android, but they do invest in Tizen. I'm looking forward to finally see the first devices.
Tizen is not an Android fork. Tizen is built on Linux and the project resides within Linux Foundation. So, Samsung building Tizen phones doesn't break their agreement to abide by Google's OHA requirements.
Re:What if Samsung threatens to fork? by breeze95 · 2014-01-23 16:26 · Score: 2

This. I think Samsung was waiting to see how well Amazons and others did. The biggest threat to Android was never Apple & iOS, but Samsung. The question in my mind has always been, what happens if Samsung forks and derives their own OS without google...
What is Samsung going to do for apps if that happens? No one is going to buy a Samsung phone if there aren't much apps available. The window to defeat Google has closed. Motorola and Google Nexus line of smart phones and tablets have made Samsung not as important to Android's success as in the past.
Re:What if Samsung threatens to fork? by mjwx · 2014-01-23 19:07 · Score: 1

This. I think Samsung was waiting to see how well Amazons and others did. The biggest threat to Android was never Apple & iOS, but Samsung.
What you call a threat, most of us call a thriving ecosystem. This is exactly what Android was designed for.

The question in my mind has always been, what happens if Samsung forks and derives their own OS without google...
I doubt that will happen. Why?
Bada
Tizen

Samsung has tried and failed. I expect them to try again though, but breaking app compatibility with the existing catalogue and forcing new developers to choose between Android and Samsung would be suicide for them.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:What if Samsung threatens to fork? by bickerdyke · 2014-01-23 20:43 · Score: 1

considering that Samsung replaces 90% of the core apps a normal user expects on their phone, what Samsung did feels already like a fork.
https://plus.google.com/+Marqu...

--
bickerdyke
Re:What if Samsung threatens to fork? by AmiMoJo · 2014-01-23 23:09 · Score: 1

You misunderstand what Samsung is trying to do. Like most phone manufacturers they want to differentiate themselves. Why buy an S4 when you can buy a Nexus 5 for half the price? It's because you get all the Samsung stuff on it, like their camera app which actually has some useful features no-one else does. Of course you can debate how good things like Scalendar and Svoice are, but the reason they exist is to differentiate Samsung phones from all the others.
Samsung won't fork Android in the sense of getting rid of the Play store and other Google apps. Customers want them, it would be suicide. They will just keep offering their own slightly modified UI and app set that keeps them a little bit ahead feature-wise and makes they phones clearly different to the competition. Everyone does it, LG, HTC, Motorola, Sony, Sharp, Huawei...

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:What if Samsung threatens to fork? by q.kontinuum · 2014-01-24 01:35 · Score: 1

For Samsung, they might not be allowed to fork Android, but they do invest in Tizen. I'm looking forward to finally see the first devices.
Tizen is not an Android fork. Tizen is built on Linux and the project resides within Linux Foundation. So, Samsung building Tizen phones doesn't break their agreement to abide by Google's OHA requirements.
I thought that is what I wrote? They can't fork Android, but they can invest in Tizen... That's why I'm looking forward to Tizen :-) I wouldn't if I thought it was Android...

--
Trolling is a art!

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2014-01-23 10:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

Comment removed based on user account deletion

What's the big deal? by asmkm22 · 2014-01-23 10:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see what the big deal is. Like it or not, Google exists to make money. If they feel they have enough leverage to charge people for stuff that used to be free (be them consumers or OEM's), then so be it. If the market can't bear it, the endeavor will fail.

Too often I hear the people complaining about products or companies are the same ones buying their stuff. We are asking for companies to regulate themselves and do what's in our best interest, when we can't even regulate ourselves. I think that's the whole reason government regulation even exists for things like this, is because people know they lack the willpower to make a chance on their own (stop buying the product), thus need some kind of external force to demand it.

Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-23 12:16 · Score: 1

I don't know why people are so surprised.
If you're paying attention (and not a mindless apple hater) you'll notice android's success is tightly correlated with how iOS - like it becomes. Locking it down, making it more tightly integrated, tighter requirements, more strict agreements with OEMs. All of these become much stronger with each iteration. Android also gets better, and more popular each time too.
I've got an iphone 5s and a 2013 nexus 7. I love my iphone and I doubt I'll switch anytime soon, but my android tab has displaced my ipad. Android keeps getting better.
Re:What's the big deal? by Sockatume · 2014-01-23 22:10 · Score: 1

Once upon a time, Android was supposed to be an open-source OS anyone could take and work on, and not just "iOS, but designed by Google instead of Apple". These days you can have AOSP and attempt to scrape together an out-of-date OS and thirdparty services, or you can be a signed up licencee of Google's vision for mobile.

--
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Re:What's the big deal? by asmkm22 · 2014-01-24 09:59 · Score: 1

Android is still open source though. You can download and set it up however you want, if you're knowledgeable enough -- just like any other open source product. What's changed is Google is slowly migrating apps (and app store) to closed-source, but that doesn't change the fact that Android is still very much open.

Response to Microsoft making it free? by omtinez · 2014-01-23 11:13 · Score: 1

Funny how things change. Now OEM partners can slap WinRT for free on any device as long as they pass the certification tests, and Google charges for access to a store on which they take a significant cut of every sale. If they keep squeezing that cow for more milk...

How cheap! by MouseTheLuckyDog · 2014-01-23 11:15 · Score: 2

$0.75 cents for what is essentially a collection of apps. Wow!

Re:How cheap! by viperidaenz · 2014-01-23 11:36 · Score: 1

Its just one app really, Google Play. The article is a bit wrong saying Maps, Search and GMail are being charged for. They free to download, once you've got Google Play.

Re:Shrug by farble1670 · 2014-01-23 11:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

Despite have a tremendous number of Android smart phones active world wide and over 48 billion apps installed the Apple App store blows away Google Play revenues.

that's like saying people who own $1M+ homes also spend more on cars. duh? apple sells high-end devices, and it's users spend for money on add-ons such, peripherals, and cases.

google doesn't care. they want people using their search and services. sure, they are happy to earn $ from the play store, but search profits dwarf what apple makes on their app store. the are about getting the largest # of devices in the most hands, not add-on sales.

Re: Shrug by Scowler · 2014-01-23 11:34 · Score: 1

Google makes more lifetime revenue from each iOS device sold, on average, compared to each Android device, on average. Even if we limit the comparison just to high end Android devices, it's probably a close comparison.

Good news! by Mister+Liberty · 2014-01-23 11:35 · Score: 1

It shows Google is feeling the heat.
Isn't compettiton great?

Re:Shrug by Threni · 2014-01-23 11:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

> apple sells high-end devices, and it's users spend for money on add-ons such, peripherals, and cases.

Apple sells expensive devices, but there's nothing high end about the 5S; it's in the same class as the Nexus 5, only for twice as much money.

if ads, then bail by SeanBlader · 2014-01-23 11:51 · Score: 1

When Google starts putting advertising in their mobile applications, then it's time to find a provider that doesn't. I've already paid Google directly for the phone there's no excuse for them to be pulling a Myspace after I've already given them access to nearly everything about me through the device.

Re:Stranglehold? by TheRaven64 · 2014-01-23 11:52 · Score: 1

Pretty much. As someone involved in cross-platform app development, iOS is still the undefeated king at around 75% of app sales. Even better, iOS sales result in 1.5x-2x better return on average overall.

How do the revenue numbers look when you add in apps? The last numbers I saw were about a year ago so things may have changed, but back then iOS users were a lot more likely to buy apps, but Android had a much bigger share of downloads for ad-supported apps. The revenue was about the same for both platforms, because you'd get less from the ad sales in Android apps, but you'd get more downloads.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News

Re:Shrug by Uberbah · 2014-01-23 11:54 · Score: 1

Apple sells expensive devices, but there's nothing high end about the 5S; it's in the same class as the Nexus 5, only for twice as much money.

Does the Nexus 5 come with a calculator for those who are willfully obtuse when it comes to math?

It's not that much by Pop69 · 2014-01-23 12:01 · Score: 1

It's probably less than Microsoft scam from OEMs for their bogus patents

Re:Shrug by Uberbah · 2014-01-23 12:01 · Score: 1

that's like saying people who own $1M+ homes also spend more on cars. duh? apple sells high-end devices, and it's users spend for money on add-ons such, peripherals, and cases.

Not when there are high-end Androids with add ons and peripherals and cases. duh?

Re: Shrug by Scowler · 2014-01-23 12:13 · Score: 1, Interesting

Funny, I never see this attack directed towards Samsung Galaxy devices, which cost roughly the same as iOS devices, run Android, and dwarf Nexus devices in terms of units sold. Go figure.

What is the big deal? by linuxguy · 2014-01-23 12:35 · Score: 1

I am trying to understand what the big deal about any of it is? If I am a phone manufacturer or a hobbyist, I have the option to use Android as-is without Google Play.

With Android you get a lot for free. With Apple, RIM and MS, not so much. The poster is complaining that with Android *everything is not free*. Horror of horrors! It is an extremely stupid post!!!

I'd take a mostly open mobile OS where you have to pay for some things over a mostly closed mobile OS where you have to pay for most things.

Re:What is the big deal? by nurb432 · 2014-01-23 13:17 · Score: 1

Without Google services, the value of an android device drops significantly.
Its not just about the 'market', as you also lose the entire Google ecosystem, Drive, Hangouts, etc etc.. Some you can access via web interfaces, some by 3rd party and others you cant get to at all.., and the ones you can manage to get to work wont will be fully integrated and its a huge kludge.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Re:What is the big deal? by tepples · 2014-01-23 13:22 · Score: 1

If you want an open source download manager for open source apps, try F-Droid.
Re:What is the big deal? by MouseTheLuckyDog · 2014-01-23 13:34 · Score: 1

You can also go to Amazon or Opera they both have Android stores.
Re:What is the big deal? by geminidomino · 2014-01-24 02:49 · Score: 1

And to think, some of us jump through all sorts of hoops to peel that shit out as part of our normal turn-up...
Re:What is the big deal? by nurb432 · 2014-01-24 09:00 · Score: 1

I really doubt that and call BS. Sure, many of us go out of our way to remove carrier boat, but crippling your device by removing the fundamental Google framework? I seriously doubt it.
But if by chance i'm wrong and you really are a member of that small group of dumb-asses who do, more power to you, idiot.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Re:What is the big deal? by geminidomino · 2014-01-24 16:25 · Score: 1

Outside of the app store, none of it is worth a damn to me. My carrier provides a better GPS app, my phone gmail account is separate from my real mail account, so gmail is useless, and if I want to look something up on google, I open a fucking web browser. I also droidwall the shit out of anything that I can't remove because Google "Internet Explorered" it into the main OS.
Lost functionality? I can't rate apps on the app store. The horror! Pretty weak definition of "crippled". I've been using android for years, but I've got to say, you Google fanboys are getting to be as bad as the Apple team.
Re:What is the big deal? by nurb432 · 2014-01-25 01:55 · Score: 1

I've been using android for years, but I've got to say, you Google fanboys are getting to be as bad as the Apple team.
If you look at some of my other posts on this ( and related ) topic you can clearly see i'm not a fanboy and quite displeased with many of Google decisions/moves.. But i'm also not a moron, as you apparently are.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Re:What is the big deal? by geminidomino · 2014-01-25 09:49 · Score: 1

Then you need a lot more practice expressing yourself, since what you've said in other posts is irrelevant to what you posted in the one I responded to. You made the ridiculous claim:

Without Google services, the value of an android device drops significantly.
Its not just about the 'market', as you also lose the entire Google ecosystem
It never, apparently, occurred to you that the benefit of a smart phone might, in fact, be its extensible functionality, rather than the baked in social garbage that you claim the phone is "crippled" without. This does not speak well to your objectivity to begin with.
Then you claimed I was lying and flew into the ad-homs because my use case doesn't fit your baseless assertion, and tried to handwave away what you actually said.
If you're not actually a fanboy, you might want to stop running from their playbook, chummer.
Re:What is the big deal? by nurb432 · 2014-01-26 01:46 · Score: 1

Why not just buy a brick then? That is effectively what you have created when you strip the phone down to nothing but a voice calling device.
I have one for you, ill even give it to you for free. Right through your window. Dumbass.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Re:What is the big deal? by geminidomino · 2014-01-26 02:33 · Score: 1

Clueless *and* illiterate. Your parents must be so proud.
Re:What is the big deal? by nurb432 · 2014-01-26 11:09 · Score: 1

Be sure you stand in front of that window when i 'deliver' your brick.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

A future for "generic" and old devices? by nurb432 · 2014-01-23 13:09 · Score: 1

So what does this mean for people that run alternate OSs built from source ( like CMxxx ) or have "generic" products? What about people that have existing products with no vendor support? We will not have Google services at all and Google will disable it ( not just the play store, but everything that goes with services )?

Makes the devices pretty worthless for many, and might even drive people away from android.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Re:A future for "generic" and old devices? by Technomancer · 2014-01-23 15:46 · Score: 1

CyanogenMod does not come with Play Store or Google apps (they stopped distributing them few years ago in September 2009 http://androidandme.com/2009/09/news/cyanogenmod-in-trouble/). If you want them you have to download and flash them separately. The only exception is Oppo N1 CyanogenMod Edition which applied and received the certification so it can include Play store. Most white box Chinese Android tablets did not include Play store either or if they did they used "borrowed" device IDs and pretended to be something else. This is slowly changing and some of them do apply and receive the certification and official Play store and Google Apps. It is probably not that expensive if they can afford it.
The certification was always a requirement, it seems quite logical that it requires payments since it requires some testing and work by Google engineers and developing all this software and infrastructure wasn't free either.
Re:A future for "generic" and old devices? by xfurious · 2014-01-24 03:37 · Score: 1

This has *always* been the case and does not change with this announcement. Google Apps and Services are not open source and you cannot redistribute them as an Android ROM provider or OEM. Look at Amazon's line of Android devices: they have their own store and no Google store, so they get Android without any restrictions. Also the Chinese Android group, which doesn't use the Google store but has their own.
People put the Google services/apps on their custom rom phones separately, the custom roms rarely attempt to bundle or automate this because it's against Google's wishes.
Re:A future for "generic" and old devices? by nurb432 · 2014-01-24 08:58 · Score: 1

you must not get out much into the true Chinese market. I would be hard pressed to find a device that didn't have the framework installed and operational. I'm not talking about the cheap crap at CVS or Walmart, but the true no-name products direct from the mainland.
True, i agree that Google has never 'approved' of this, but to be honest i don't give a flying-F what Google 'approves' of. I don't acknowledge the concept of IP, so will can do whatever i like.
But beyond all of that, my interpretation of this new move towards more restrictions isn't just more of the same 'we frown on this' but moving towards preventing devices that are not a 'blessed model' to be able to access the back end APIs.. *that* will piss me off to no end.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Re:A future for "generic" and old devices? by nurb432 · 2014-01-24 09:02 · Score: 1

Most white box Chinese Android tablets did not include Play store
Ummm, incorrect. Most do. ( perhaps using bogus ID, but everyone i have seen for a LONG time include it out of the box )

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

75 cent fee by nurb432 · 2014-01-23 13:12 · Score: 1

If your vendor doesn't want to play ( no pun intended ) and send Google what could amount to millions with all the hassle that goes with it, you cant just pony up the 75 cents yourself.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Re:75 cent fee by hawguy · 2014-01-23 13:43 · Score: 1

If your vendor doesn't want to play ( no pun intended ) and send Google what could amount to millions with all the hassle that goes with it, you cant just pony up the 75 cents yourself.
I'm not sure if you're making a point or just stating how a license fee works.
But it sounds like a reasonable choice -- the vendor can save a dollar on the cost of the handset to be more price competitive, or they can add a dollar to the price and provide a feature that some users want (but others might not care about). I'm sure the front camera on my phone wasn't free, yet the manufacturer chose to put it in there and I paid for it even though I have never used it and am unlikely to ever use it.
Re:75 cent fee by nurb432 · 2014-01-24 09:06 · Score: 1

The point i was making is that if they are going to be militant about it, there should be an option to buy it from the market on your own, and not be stuck with the choice your vendor made.
THAT would be true consumer choice. Not this crap way of doing business.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Re: Shrug by tepples · 2014-01-23 13:14 · Score: 1

Are you counting Galaxy Nexus as a Galaxy or Nexus?

Re:Stranglehold? by pspahn · 2014-01-23 13:19 · Score: 1

Where is this "here" you speak of? I'm curious to observe their reactions when I use my laptop to make a call with Google Voice instead of the adequately sanctioned device.

--
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.

Re:Shrug by pspahn · 2014-01-23 13:29 · Score: 1

I have Android installed on my laptop. Pretty sure that's faster than any IOS crap

--
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.

Re:Shrug by farble1670 · 2014-01-23 13:33 · Score: 1

do you have any breakdown of how much high-end android phone users spend on apps vs. apple users? no? do you know they don't spend as much as apple users? duh. it's well understood that there are many, many more low-end android devices compared to zero low-end apple devices.

it doesn't take a genius here to understand that the difference is economic.

Re:Shrug by farble1670 · 2014-01-23 13:36 · Score: 1

sorry. you can't just compare apple w/ the latest greatest android device. you have to take into consideration the bulk of the android market that is mid to low-end devices. of course those are included in the stats.

or did you have some data on how much nexus 5 users spend in apps vs. apple users? no? then why are you making the comparison?

Re:Shrug by Threni · 2014-01-23 13:41 · Score: 1

The maths is simple. Which part are you having difficulty with?

http://m.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/review...

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2014-01-23 16:12 · Score: 3, Interesting

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2014-01-23 16:31 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Shrug by mjwx · 2014-01-23 19:14 · Score: 2

that's like saying people who own $1M+ homes also spend more on cars. duh? apple sells high-end devices, and it's users spend for money on add-ons such, peripherals, and cases.

Its more like saying people who dont know much about cars, spend more on cars.

Someone who doesn't bother to learn about how their car works will pay $500 for a oil change and brake check, someone who does and just cant be arsed doing it themselves will pay $100.

The person who doesn't know much about cars pays full list price for an Infiniti G37, a person who knows the Infiniti is just a Nissan Skyline 370GT with a different badge and bigger price tag gets the Nissan with a few thousand off the asking price.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.

Re:Shrug by Threni · 2014-01-23 20:42 · Score: 1

The amount of money Apple users spend has no bearing on whether this or that device is high end, does it?

Re:Stranglehold? by RaceProUK · 2014-01-24 00:31 · Score: 1

Google is willing to leverage their stranglehold on the mobile market.

This is funny considering I know four people with iPhones and only one with Android.

Around here, if you have Android, you get the "too cheap to get a real phone?" question.

Tell me, is Cupertino nice this time of year?

--
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun

hooray by ILongForDarkness · 2014-01-24 02:00 · Score: 1

It has been too long since I found a "company tries to make money on products they make" story on /. Good job op.

Bullshit by xfurious · 2014-01-24 03:24 · Score: 1

"Add that these proprietary applications and the proprietary Google Play Services are the primary areas for Android innovation and development and you end up with an operating system that is less and less 'free' in the freedom and cost senses of the word."

Bullshit. Charging miniscule amounts of money at the OEM level for Android does not affect my ability to install any application I want (or I have written), change central elements of the OS via addons, or dig down and read the source code if I wish. How, exactly, does Google monetizing Android stop any of that? Because I am locked out on the other platforms but at least on Android I have freedom!

And 75c up front on a device? Yes that WILL make it difficult to buy that new $700 phone I wanted! 75c is a LOT of money when you are spending that much, isn't it? And all of the other ways Android monetizes the platform are mostly indirect, as a result of the ecosystem.

Also, "Google Play Services" are the "primary areas" for "Android innovation", what the hell does that mean? I think TFS must have been written by someone butthurt by how awesome Android is and how popular it has become. Suck it up, Android is awesome.

Re:Ahh good old Google by xfurious · 2014-01-24 03:32 · Score: 1

Let's be fair about what Google really is. They take open source projects and profit from them. Now Apple has done this with Safari although I credit Apple for basically now giving away OS X and of course Safari has always been free.

Apple only gives OS X away because they have a problem with getting all the Macs to upgrade as nicely as the iOS users do. It has nothing to do with giving back. Apple LITERALLY takes open source projects and profits from them *and gives back only what is required of them by license*. Google gives back as much as it takes. If you think otherwise, my guess is you do not write code.

Meanwhile Google *literally* gives away all of Android except the bits that represents the Google part of the equation. Wow, are you trolling here??

Google to me is simply taking advantage of open source projects and while I don't see much in a legal problem with what Google does. I have issue with Google on so many levels with what they do. Google Play is certainly something I think Google already profits from. So why charge OEM's for something that is basically a web applications? The benefit its seems to me being installed on OEM's is all Google's.

I think that you are under the impression that a large portion of Android was not WRITTEN by Android the company which Google bought and subsequently open sourced. Android sits on top of Linux. So Google "took advantage" of the Linux stack, and then *gave back to the community* by open sourcing the rest of Android.

Additionally, the licensing fees here are for the GOOGLE APPS which were never open source, and Google is not taking advantage of ANY community members here. No one who is serious about open source cares.

Maybe I am missing something? But for me I have become real tired of Google the nickel and dimer of everything. From the government fuel breaks for their corporate jets to pushing Google + on everyone because it sucks and nobody really wants it. If you look at Google on a wider vision, its all about gathering data about your. Not to be paranoid but if you deny Google is not collecting this data then you are a fool.

Google is the nickel and dimer here?? When Android has been and continues to be free for OEMs? The Play Store, Play Services and the Google applications have ALWAYS been how Google maintains control over Android, this is not news. Also, no one denies Google is collecting data about us. But if you think that everyone else is NOT doing that, then *you* are a fool.

Re:Stranglehold? Where are the iPhones, then? by xfurious · 2014-01-24 03:34 · Score: 1

I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees the utter ridiculousness of this "news story"

Re:Shrug by Kagato · 2014-01-24 06:31 · Score: 1

There's no analogy. It is what it is.

I'm an independent software developer. I work in a large community of software developers. Two years ago when we did projects for ourselves or startup ventures it was pretty common to try to release the iOS and Android version of the app as close as possible and with the same feature sets. What we found was the sell through rate on iOS was huge compared to Android. At the same time we found the piracy rate of Android was huge compared to iOS.

If I'm charging by the hour and a client wants an Android version of an app, great. But I'm not spending my time and capital writing a paid app it's going to be iOS because there simply isn't a payday at the end of the Android trail.

Re:Shrug by farble1670 · 2014-01-24 06:54 · Score: 1

the original post said android users are loathe to purchase apps. that's wrong. lower-income users are loathe to purchase apps, and are more likely to pirate them (more time than money). yep, it is what it is, but characterizing all android users as "loathe" to purchase apps is not correct.

p.s., re-check your findings now that the iphone is released in china.

Re:Shrug by Kagato · 2014-01-24 07:15 · Score: 1

Having spent time in that part of the world I can attest the idea behind copyright of virtual things is cultural. They don't see stealing it as being wrong. Some even see it as their nationalistic duty to take things from the west to level the playing field. Generally in the US you can't lease space in a mall and open a store that sells clearly pirated software. But over there? It's not a problem until a representative from a Western company makes a complaint. It's an apples to oranges comparison.

Be that as it may, since we're making comparisons, I will remind you that older (but quite capable) models of iPhones have sold in the free and under $99 tiers for some time now. Even in the pre-paid market iPhone has been dropping. The carriers have been taking the hit as a customer acquisition cost for some time. By your logic there should have been at least some amount of equalization in the app sell through rates years ago. I'll tell you as a professional in the field it hasn't happened.

Update to the article: by lauterm · 2014-01-24 09:28 · Score: 1

"This article was amended on 24 January 2014 to reflect a clarification from Google that it does not charge manufacturers for Android licenses."

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2014-01-24 10:04 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2014-01-24 10:06 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2014-01-24 10:23 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Only one problem by WhiskeyJay · 2014-01-24 12:04 · Score: 1

Google has specifically denied this. They aren't charging any OEM's for this stuff.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2014-01-24 12:52 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Shrug by Uberbah · 2014-01-25 12:47 · Score: 1

The part where delusional Fandroids try to pull a slight of hand in comparing the 5 to the S instead of the C. Any more questions?

Re:Shrug by Uberbah · 2014-01-25 12:52 · Score: 1

do you have any breakdown of how much high-end android phone users spend on apps vs. apple users? no? do you know they don't spend as much as apple users?

Batshirt irrelevant. The fact is there are high end Androids and no shortage of accessories for the Android platform. As you would be bragging about in a second of anyone claimed that Androids were limited to cheap, low end phones.

Duh.

Just buy what you want that does what you want and get over it.

Re: Shrug by Uberbah · 2014-01-25 12:59 · Score: 1

He's pointing out that the Apple Hatbois never make the same complaints against other companies when they do the same thing. Samsung releases high end phones with comparable prices and tries to make them "fashionable"? Not a problem! Same with SD card slots or easily-replaceable batteries. Or the wankers who whine about Apple's "walled garden" while owning an XBox and a Playstation.

Presence of alternatives by tepples · 2014-01-25 15:19 · Score: 1

Or the wankers who whine about Apple's "walled garden" while owning an XBox and a Playstation.

In this particular case, the difference is that there's a clear alternative to Apple's "walled garden" in Android. There isn't much of an alternative to Xbox, PlayStation, and Wii consoles in the field of local multiplayer (1 monitor, 2 to 4 gamepads), and there won't be until the Steam Machine reaches stores. Standard desktop PCs can be connected to HDTVs, but most PCs sold in stores aren't made with a case for that nor shipped with a default UI for that, and I'm under the impression that for this reason, far fewer PC games than console games are made for that use case.

Re:Presence of alternatives by Uberbah · 2014-01-30 03:08 · Score: 1

In this particular case, the difference is that there's a clear alternative to Apple's "walled garden" in Android. There isn't much of an alternative to Xbox, PlayStation, and Wii consoles in the field of local multiplayer (1 monitor, 2 to 4 gamepads), and there won't be until the Steam Machine reaches stores.

If "walled gardens" are really the problem, it shouldn't matter if there are available alternatives or not. As will be demonstrated after the Steam Machine has been released and absolutely none of the Apple Hatebois start complaining about Sony's or Nintendo's "walled garden".
Just as they haven't complained about other mobile phones that don't come with SD card slots or replaceable batteries or Ogg Vorbis support, when there have been no shortage of "clear alternatives", because their real problem is Apple.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2014-01-25 20:14 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2014-01-28 08:53 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Complaints about not licensing FAT by tepples · 2014-01-30 05:21 · Score: 1

Just as they haven't complained about other mobile phones that don't come with SD card slots

I've read plenty of complaints in Slashdot comments about the lack of SD card slots especially on Nexus devices, claiming that it's a Google conspiracy to get people to store their stuff in Google's cloud. Come to think of it, you can find a lot of these complaints just by searching Google for Slashdot comments by me (tepples) giving an excuse that it's an effort to avoid paying a royalty to Microsoft for the VFAT and exFAT patents that would be needed to interoperate with other devices carrying the SD logo.

or replaceable batteries

For one thing, a lot of Android devices do have user-replaceable batteries. For another, that has become slightly less of an issue now that the major consumer battery makers introduced external battery-powered battery chargers.

or Ogg Vorbis support

That's because Android has played Vorbis audio as a standard feature since 2.x.

Re:Complaints about not licensing FAT by Uberbah · 2014-02-05 14:16 · Score: 1

I've read plenty of complaints in Slashdot comments about the lack of SD card slots especially on Nexus devices
No you haven't. No more than you've read complaints about the "walled garden" from Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo on their game consoles. Because, again, the real problem here is Apple.
Re:Complaints about not licensing FAT by tepples · 2014-02-05 14:37 · Score: 1

No more than you've read complaints about the "walled garden" from Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo on their game consoles.
And I have in fact read those complaints. Look for stories about Lik Sang, PSP or Wii firmware updates, Bob's Game, The Binding of Isaac, or George Hotz.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2014-01-30 10:02 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Slashdot Mirror

Google Charging OEMs Licensing Fees For Play Store

162 of 225 comments (clear)