Google Apps License Forbids Forking, Promotes Google Services

Sockatume writes "If you want to ship a phone with Google's apps on it, you need to license them. A copy of the OEM licensing agreement from 2011 was recently leaked, and Ars Technica provides a summary. Amongst the rules: a company licensing Google Apps can't act in a way that would fragment Android, but must also maintain the platform's open-ness; most of Google's services must be included; Google apps must be defaults, and placed within a couple of clicks of the default home screen. No surprises, but it's interesting to see the details laid out."

Comments

First post?

[Calydor]

No surprises

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Re:First post?

[bondsbw]

What about the ability to unlock the bootstrapper? My Motorola phone, which came out while Motorola was owned by Google, doesn't allow me to unlock the bootstrapper. No exploit exists, so no CyanogenMod for me... and Motorola's last OS update was to 4.1.2 over a year ago, and I purchased the phone with that version.

I don't see how you can say there is a requirement to "maintain the platform's open-ness" when the company you own doesn't keep their devices open.

Re:First post?

[tbuddy]

I always shop for a phone that is supported by Cyanogenmod for that very reason.

Re:First post?

[bondsbw]

Agreed... in my case, installing CM is supported for the firmware that the phone had when I bought it.

I hadn't gotten around to installing CM yet, and Motorola sent out a "minor" update, one that didn't change the OS version. While I was typing text on the phone, the update dialog popped up and my thumb was already heading toward the "Update Now" button. It was too late... it immediately rebooted and began installing the update that "fixed" the exploit.

Because of that little number by Motorola (its fairly sneaky update dialog coupled with killing bootstrapper unlock) means I'll probably never buy another Moto phone again, and honestly I've just about had it with Android in general given that quite a few other Android OEMs act the same way or worse (at least Moto uses nearly-stock UI).

Re:First post?

[mellon]

Why'd you buy a phone that couldn't be rooted? And why are you blaming Google? I'm sorry if this sounds callous, but seriously, I don't get it. I don't buy iPhones because they are a closed system. I don't buy locked Android phones because they are hard to update. What led you to decide to buy a locked phone when unlocked phones were readily available?

As for the App issue, it's actually extensively rebutted in the comments to the article. Bottom line: Ars Technica clickbait.

Re:First post?

[mellon]

Jolla? You know you wanna. :)

That really sucks—sorry!

Re:First post?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rooting and unlocking a bootloader are two completely separate things.

Re:First post?

[Anonymous Coward]

Motorola Droid Razr? There are CM releases for it that utilize kexec instead of modifying the bootloader.

Re:First post?

[bondsbw]

My phone is rooted. It's not bootloader unlocked.

Re:First post?

[bondsbw]

Razr HD xt926 with firmware 9.18.79. I haven't looked at the kexec option. If CM works with that, I'll definitely be happy. Thanks for the pointer!

Re:First post?

[mellon]

Yeah, whatever, I can never keep the various euphemisms straight, but the point is that you wanted to be able to install your own firmware, and you bought a phone made by a manufacturer that didn't want you to do that, when you could have bought a phone from a manufacturer who was happy to let you do that. Effectively, you rewarded Motorola for screwing you over. My reason for asking is that I honestly don't get why people who want to mod their phones buy phones that the manufacturer doesn't intend to allow you to mod. Even if you can get around it, why bother? If we reward manufacturers who allow us to mod our phones, and carriers that will let us use those phones, the market will punish manufacturers and carriers who don't, to everybody's benefit. It really saddens me to see people shooting themselves in the foot like this, because it's not just your foot you're shooting.

Re:First post?

[bondsbw]

1) I had never purchased from Motorola. I came off one WinMo phone and 2 iPhones. I just wanted a Verizon Android phone and what I saw from reviews said it was a very good model. And it was. Remember, at the time it was completely bootloader unlockable, it shipped with near-stock Android, and it was upgraded from 4.0 to 4.1 within a couple of months.

2) Motorola was bought by Google and most people, including myself, felt that Motorola was going to become more open as a result. Instead the opposite happened.

3) Very few Android OEMs have a hardware advantage over Motorola. I'm not paying twice as much for half the hardware capabilities and poor build quality just so that I can feel safer that I can unlock in the future.

Re:First post?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're welcome

Re:First post?

[david_thornley]

So you bought a phone because it had a particular security problem which you intended to exploit, and then you're upset because Motorola fixed the security on the phone? Seriously, there's a small number of people who considered that vulnerability a feature, and many more who would consider it a bug. If you want to exploit a bug in your phone's software, never, never, allow an update.

Re:First post?

[bondsbw]

Did you not read that I didn't intend to update? The popup appeared and I hit "Update Now" before I even realized it happened.

Re:First post?

[david_thornley]

The notice appeared. You hit it with your thumb. Presumably, if you hadn't accepted that update you wouldn't have gotten it.

If you don't intend to update, keep that thumb on a leash. Read and think first.

So, what was Motorola doing wrong? They offered an update that was good for almost all of their clientele. It closed a security hole. Are they supposed to put in a screen asking if you're sure you want the update?

Re:First post?

[bondsbw]

I was typing. The button appeared on top of the character I was already in the act of pressing.

Your solution is that I don't type with my phone. Screw that.

Re:First post?

[bondsbw]

Are they supposed to put in a screen asking if you're sure you want the update?

Yes!

My phone normally asks me if I'm sure I want to reboot. But it doesn't ask when the update will take 5 times as long as a standard reboot, my phone isn't plugged in, and most importantly it is a firmware update and no OEM can be absolutely certain it won't brick or permanently wipe the data on my phone. That makes no sense at all.

Re:First post?

[mellon]

My Nexus 5 has excellent build quality. Motorola was deliberately locking bootloaders—this was common knowledge four years ago. Verizon is a poor choice of provider, precisely because they have such draconian policies about handsets.

What you're saying is that you want open, but you aren't willing to punish vendors who give you closed. That's your prerogative, but complaining about it here isn't going to change anything. If you want open, that has to be your priority, because it is _very_ hard to get. And yes, you will pay extra for it. It absolutely sucks that this is the case, but it is a fact of life, and the cell phone manufacturers and providers frankly could give a fuck if we don't like it, because the "we" who don't like it isn't voting with our feet.

BTW, to all the nice folks who modded my previous post "flamebait," I guess that's your prerogative, but that really isn't what I'm trying to do here. And it doesn't look like bondsbw thinks I am either, or he would either have flamed me, rather than responding seriously, or ignored me. But whatever. Slashdot moderation, etc.

Re:First post?

[bondsbw]

I considered the Nexus 5 but there were 2 things I wanted that it didn't have: expandable memory and Verizon support. I really didn't care about expandable memory, it was more that it didn't have enough stock. I had been on AT&T for several years and I was fed up with their service and many of my friends in my area praised Verizon's, so I was set on switching for months. (Unfortunately the joke's on me, my house is in pretty much the only bad spot in our city.)

Re: First post?

[Anonymous Coward]

do a factory reset, it will revert to original ROM, without the update...

Antitrust

[aphor]

Tying apps to phones might be illegal by Sherman Act: using dominance in mobile device OS market as leverage in the device app market.

Re:Antitrust

[Anonymous Coward]

Ohh right, Microsoft was forced to remove IE from Windows, sorry, that never happened

Re:Antitrust

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you that this sounds like it ought to be in violation of the Sherman Act, but give the shenanigans Apple has pulled and gotten away with on their ecosystem (rejecting apps that compete with their core offerings, that whole equal pricing through the app store and a merchants website, etc), I highly doubt any legal backlash over this policy.

Re:Antitrust

[CTalkobt]

They're not tying it to the phone. They're tying it to the permission to utilize the Android trademark and to utilize the Google Apps. Think of it this way, "Here's a box of screws. If you want to use my hammer, then you need to use my wood also." "If you don't want to, go elsewhere." is fine and no lumber yard would run into anti-trust issues over it. (Might run out of customers however due to nature of the business).

Re:Antitrust

[Anonymous Coward]

"Here's a box of screws. If you want to use my hammer, then you need to use my wood also."

If you're using a hammer for screws, you're doing it wrong.

Re:Antitrust

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it did.

In the EU MS was forced to remove IE and instead offer a special randomly arranged screen to select a browser, incl. FireFox, Opera, Safari, etc.

Re:Antitrust

[geekoid]

It does not. Of course the Sherman act isn't a law, so you can't violate it as such. It's what and when the government should look at trust issues.

Re:Antitrust

[ZombieBraintrust]

From looking at wikipedia the Sherman act doesn't say that. I think your thinking of the Clayton Anti-Trust act. The Clayton act made illegal

sales on the condition that (A) the buyer or lessee not deal with the competitors of the seller or lessor ("exclusive dealings") or (B) the buyer also purchase another different product ("tying") but only when these acts substantially lessen competition (Act Section 3, codified at 15 U.S.C. 14);

Here Google isn't doing A(exclusive dealings). They are allowing other peoples apps on the phone. They allow competing search and location providers. They just require that Google be the default. They are "tying" different product together. It is possible to argue that this substantially lessens competition.

Re:Antitrust

[arbiter1]

Yea its funny how offen apple gets away with same thing other companies get attacked for. Givin how google DOES give android out for free, that plays a roll in to that google can't be gone after for anything.

Re:Antitrust

[queazocotal]

'You can only use our hammers if you only use our hammers' - might not play quite so well legally.

Re: Antitrust

[AvitarX]

The analogy to Internet explorer ties breaks down when you consider that Google allows the system to be used without they're apps.

Re:Antitrust

[CTalkobt]

>> >>"Here's a box of screws. If you want to use my hammer, then you need to use my wood also."
>> If you're using a hammer for screws, you're doing it wrong.
This is Slashdot remember?

If I did make a logical argument people would still argue with me non-sensically. At least this way, I get to pick the argument focus for those individuals. :-)

Yeah.. that's what I was thinking of when I typed that...

Re:Antitrust

[CTalkobt]

Then you don't buy the hammer - or you use the one that they're giving away for free (open source) but you don't get to call it their hammer (ref: Amazon).

Re:Antitrust

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because Apple never had a near-monopoly like Google has (Search, Android) or Microsoft (Windows).

That's the difference. And that Google give Android away for free is totally irrelevant.

Re:Antitrust

[rossdee]

"I think your thinking of the Clayton Anti-Trust act. The Clayton act made illegal"

The USA has a Clayton's Anti-Trust Act? Thats priceless

(In OZ and NZ there used to be a drink (non-alcoholic) called Clayton's . It was advertised as "The drink I have when I am not having a drink"
Although the product eventually disappeared, the adjective Clayton's still remained in the popular usage)

Re:Antitrust

[Anonymous Coward]

IE was never removed, a start screen for selection of alternatives was added, much like the changes to Google pages on the proposed settlement between Google and EU

Re:Antitrust

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it's an update. Browser choice screen for EU users or something. I will probably learn its name some day, because the first thing I always has to do with a new Windows installation is go into Windows Update and throw that one in the garbage bin.

Re:Antitrust

[sexconker]

Yes, because Apple never had a near-monopoly like Google has (Search, Android) or Microsoft (Windows).

That's the difference. And that Google give Android away for free is totally irrelevant.

Apple had a near monopoly in smartphones up until a few years ago, and their monopoly in paid apps still reigns.
Google doesn't give Android away for free. AOSP is free. AOSP is not Android. Android costs lots of money and comes with a lot of strings attached. Now Google is saying the Google apps will cost money and also come with strings attached.

If Google is demonstrating that the Google apps are separate from the Android OS, then Google could easily be shown to be in violation of antitrust if they require OEMs to first buy into Android in order to have the privilege of buying into Google's apps.

Re: Antitrust

[sexconker]

The analogy to Internet explorer ties breaks down when you consider that Google allows the system to be used without they're apps.

Google doesn't allow their apps to be used without Android.
You can't legally get Google's apps on AOSP anymore. You're forced to pay for Android and forced to enter into branding and whatever other bullshit agreements they tie you down with before you even have the option of buying the Google apps to include on your device. The apps are separate from Android, and this is trivially demonstrable. To require the purchase of the OS and agreement to all the encumbering contractual stipulations before one can buy the separate apps is anticompetitive once you show that the OS and apps are separate and represent separate markets. Google is desperately trying to maintain control over Android in the face of Amazon and Samsung (who are more than willing and capable of forking AOSP and going their own way, and both of whom have their own app stores).

Google is using their apps as leverage to keep Samsung on Android and to keep Amazon's Kindle OS shitty and gimped (no Google apps, no Play Store).
It's the same reason why Amazon lets Kindles and iPhones access Amazon Prime Instant Video, but not Android.

Imposing artificial restrictions upon one product or service in order to prop up another separate product or service is bullshit, even if it's a company you happen to give free analingus to.

Re:Antitrust

[Anonymous Coward]

Plays a Roll? Jesus, what are these illiterates doing at a nerd site? Mod that uneducated ignoramus down. The four letter word you can't spell that any third grader can is role.

Re: Antitrust

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes IE was removed from Windows. They had to offer a special version called Windows N.

Look it up before you write bullshit again

Re:Antitrust

[TheRaven64]

Apple has 7.68% of the desktop market and 15.42% of the mobile market. They can pull a lot of stuff without getting into trouble because they don't have anything like the market share required to exert undue influence on the market. When they have larger shares, for example in the online music distribution market a few years ago, they do get investigated.

Your comment makes as much sense as complaining that your corner shop doesn't get into trouble for doing things that would be the target of antitrust investigations if Walmart did them. Apple is a highly profitable niche player, but still a niche player. They can't use their dominant position in one market to gain prominence in another because they don't have a dominant position in any market and haven't since the iPod.

Re:Antitrust

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no fucking idea what you are talking about. Using mobile device OS market dominance in mobile device Apps market? Clutching at straws. Let me guess...Apple employee?

Re: Antitrust

[AvitarX]

So the apps are where they would need demostrated to have too much power, I think that's a fat harder case than in OS. And the OS is readily available.

Re: Antitrust

[Anonymous Coward]

Used without they are apps? Christ, can someone point me to a site I can discuss nerdy things without these barely literate high school dropouts morons chiming in?

Re:Antitrust

[technomom]

That's the beauty of this agreement. The apps are not being tied to Android. OEMs are free to build upon pure Android if they want and they can do so without including any of the Google apps at all. What this agreement states is that *if* they include the Google apps, they must take the package in its entirety and under the conditions specified.

Re:Antitrust

[ColdWetDog]

What folks around here seem to forget is that Apple tends to punch above it's market share weight. Likely because it inhabits a very profitable niche and the Reality Distortion Field is still has some power to it. And it's Apple. And MacBooks are cool. But is is a small player overall.

And just to keep all of the Apple haters happy, let's be clear that the US Government has spent quite a bit of time attempting to nail Apple when it thinks they've abused a position in the market place.

Re:Antitrust

[ColdWetDog]

The Sherman Antitrust Act is most certainly a law. It's part of the US Code (Title 15). It describes who to prosecute and how. Rather law like.

Re:Antitrust

[Animats]

The official position of the U.S. Department of Justice is squishy-soft on antitrust enforcement on tie-in sales. This is partly in response to the "U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's 2001 decision in United States v. Microsoft (the Internet Explorer/Windows tying case) which rejected application of the per se rule to "platform software," thereby "carving out what might be called a 'technology exception' to that rule.

What's killed the effectiveness of the Clayton Act is Justice Department policy on "economic analysis". The economic argument is that allowing monopolies to achieve economies of scale is good for the consumer. Read the DoJ position statement linked above, especially the sections on "prosecutorial discretion", to see this.

Re:Antitrust

[geekoid]

Actually, that's a valid way to use wood screw. Hammer then in, turn them out.

Re:Antitrust

[Anonymous Coward]

The Sherman Act has nothing to do with the EU dipshit

Re:Antitrust

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple had a near monopoly in smartphones...

Never. Apple had a near monopoly in smartphones NEVER.

EVER.

EVER EVER EVER.

No. Really. Apple NEVER had a near monopoly in smartphones. The reason they were able to do the closed garden things they did is there was always a viable alternative to what they were offering - don't like it, go with one of the many alternatives available.

They never had a near monopoly position.

They didn't have a market dominance position.

Ever.

You know how I can state that with certainty? They've never even had a majority market share so it is impossible to honestly imply that they ever had anything approaching a near monopoly position.

Please, understand what you're talking about before you make claims.

Re: Antitrust

[KingMotley]

No, windows N is windows without a media player.

Re:Antitrust

[James_Duncan8181]

It does not. Of course the Sherman act isn't a law, so you can't violate it as such. It's what and when the government should look at trust issues.

...what do you think the 'Act' in Sherman Act refers to?

Re:Antitrust

[Karlt1]

I agree with you that this sounds like it ought to be in violation of the Sherman Act, but give the shenanigans Apple has pulled and gotten away with on their ecosystem (rejecting apps that compete with their core offerings, that whole equal pricing through the app store and a merchants website, etc), I highly doubt any legal backlash over this policy.

2010 called they want there meme back.

What next? Are you going to complain that Apple sells DRM'd music?

Re:Antitrust

[desdinova 216]

I think it's more likely that it was a case of autocorrect run amok.

Re:Antitrust

[mjwx]

(In OZ and NZ there used to be a drink (non-alcoholic) called Clayton's . It was advertised as "The drink I have when I am not having a drink"
Although the product eventually disappeared, the adjective Clayton's still remained in the popular usage)

For people under 40, its kind of fallen out of popular usage.

A bit off topic, but the British were best at this, they had a drink (alcoholic) called Dickins Cider.

Re:Antitrust

[farble1670]

having 50-ish percent of the smartphone market, ~15% of the laptop market (and the lions share of the high-end laptop market), and being the 9th most profitable company in the world packs a pretty hard punch.

Likely because it inhabits a very profitable niche

what niche is that? smartphones, tablets, or laptop PCs?

Re:Antitrust

[ozmanjusri]

AOSP is not Android.

' Stop this FUD.

AOSP s Android. AOSP devices can be sold as Android devices.

In fact, AOSP Android is the second biggest mobile OS on the market,comfortably outselling iOS (Android has 77% of the market, 25% is AOSP).

Re:Antitrust

[Grishnakh]

Good ol' Obama, the friend of monopolists.

Re:Antitrust

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because it's valid doesn't mean it's a good idea. You ruin the screw's ability to carve threads into the wood to help hold it together if you hammer in a screw.

Re:Antitrust

[Anonymous Coward]

Never. Apple had a near monopoly in smartphones NEVER.

EVER.

EVER EVER EVER.

You sound just like a little kid going "nuh uh nuh uh nuh uh" whilst sticking your fingers in your ears. You also happen to be wrong.

Re:Antitrust

[Anonymous Coward]

According to a rather old joke about the Irish (alternatively Paisley, Birmingham, others depending on your location) screwdriver, it probably means you're a professional builder.

Re: Antitrust

[Makawity]

You can't legally get Google's apps on AOSP anymore.

My CyanogenMod phone sporting a complete suite of Google apps calls bullshit on that.

Re:Antitrust

[Anonymous Coward]

The agreement (Mobile Application Distribution Agreement) was not leaked. It was part of a lawsuit between Google and Samsung, and the documents were published as evidence (not online, but available in person from the Clerk of the Court). Harvard's Benjamin Edelman wrote about it yesterday: http://www.benedelman.org/news/021314-1.html

Re: Antitrust

[kellywebz]

I have worked really hard on my editorial. I have tried a new method for prewriting—I have a bunch of different things in Word for different parts such as opposing arguments, topic sentences, and others. It is kind of confusing to me because I have all this good information but I can’t put it into a good piece. I have been prewriting for 2 weeks and I still don’t have a rough draft. visit me!

Gee, just fork it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Turns out Apple is the most honest. Google has been playing everyone.

Re:Gee, just fork it.

[Kenja]

You're right, the Apple license to allow me to use iOS and Apple apps on my own phone brand is MUCH more open. At least according to my unicorn lawyer.

Re:Gee, just fork it.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, the Apple license to allow me to use iOS and Apple apps on my own phone brand is MUCH more open. At least according to my unicorn lawyer.

He said HONEST not OPEN

Re:Gee, just fork it.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are free to use the Darwin Kernel and make your own GUI.

opensource.apple.com

Re:Gee, just fork it.

[cduffy]

You are free to use the Darwin Kernel and make your own GUI.

...just as you're free to use AOSP without any Google Apps, and make your own mail reader / app store / etc.

And AOSP is one heckuvalot more than just a kernel.

Re:Gee, just fork it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Alice and George murder Bill. The cops suspect them and interrogate them in separate rooms.

Cop #1: Alice, did you murder Bill?
Alice: Yes.

Cop #2: George, did you murder Bill?
George: No.

Alice and George are both guilty, yet Alice is more honest than George.

Re:Gee, just fork it.

[creepynut]

Except that no, you can't on an iOS device. Those things are locked right down. Jailbreaks don't allow running an alternative OS like on an Android device with an unlocked boot loader.

Wait, what?

[mark-t]

Wasn't Android derived from Linux?

And isn't Linux GPL?

What's going on here? Why is Google allowed to limit what others can do with GPL code?

Re:Wait, what?

[Kenja]

Android is based on Linux. The Google apps are not. Despite what some people claim, not everything written for a GPL operating system must be open source.

Re:Wait, what?

[Grantbridge]

All of Android is open source, except Google Play/Market, Gmail app, Google Maps, etc If you want your phone to have the Google App store, then you need to obey their terms and conditions. Just because the OS is open source doesn't mean any program which runs on it has to be. There are plenty of non GPL programs available for Linux! An android phone WITHOUT access to Google app store, Google Maps, Calender, Gmail etc isn't going to be much use to the majority of Android users. This is how Google controls Android.

Re:Wait, what?

[DdJ]

Wasn't Android derived from Linux?

Not in the sense you probably mean, no.

The Android kernel is a Linux kernel. That part is true. But, a Linux kernel is far from sufficient for building an Android device or running Android apps.

Google is not placing these restrictions on that part. The use of the Linux kernel does not spread virus-like to random other components of the distribution, so has pretty much no bearing on the stuff under discussion.

In practice, Android is not very open right now, and is very deliberately becoming less open over time. (This has both advantages and disadvantages.)

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Android is the Open Source part. This is the contract for the goodies on top of it that aren't so open. You want Google Maps you need to have the Play Store et al. You can use Android but if you want the Google goodies, you need to play by Google rules. No real surprise here.

Re:Wait, what?

[maccodemonkey]

Android is based on Linux. The Google apps are not. Despite what some people claim, not everything written for a GPL operating system must be open source.

I don't think the argument is that Google is doing something illegal. I think the question is are they being unethical. They've been trumpeting how open Android is, and their contracts basically say if you work with them you cannot treat it as an open system. They're acting as if Android is more like Linux, but in practice it's more like iOS. I can go check out the base source for iOS/OS X from source control too if I wanted (http://opensource.apple.com).

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait what, you're saying these apps are not open? But Google said it was!

Re:Wait, what?

[alen]

anyone can download and fork android
anyone except those licensing google apps and if you do license google apps you can't put any other third party search or location services other than google
and downloading android does not make an android phone since you still need to write drivers and ship it with some services for a user to use the device

Re:Wait, what?

[gutnor]

The list of exception is rather significant: the missing apps are also the foundations of the API other apps uses. So you are not just missing out on the Google App Store and a few standalone apps, but all the API related to those apps too - which a very exhaustive list.

When people say "Android is open-source" that is not what they have in mind. In practice Android is open source like OSX is open source (Darwin), sure you get the foundations of a great system, but none of the shiny bits. So rather than a walled garden, you have a fenced garden. If you want freedom you need to look at Firefox and Ubuntu.

Have a look at the following doc for detailled discussion: http://arstechnica.com/informa...

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha ha - see George Carlin skits and find out what he had to say about "Business Ethics" .

Re:Wait, what?

[Anubis IV]

While Android is open source, with you being able to use it as you please, their apps and services are not open source, and if you would like to use them, you'll need to sign their licensing agreement, which includes the limitations stated in the summary.

Re:Wait, what?

[Grantbridge]

Wow, I didn't realise so much had been moved into the Google box from the Android box as time went on. Still, Amazon have produced an Android device without any of Google's bits, but its primarily an Ereader.

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite what some people claim, not everything written for a GPL operating system must be open source.

But doesn't that closer to being true with GPLv3? Or you may say the noose is tightened.

In my very quick search, I couldn't tell if there's still the library provision, where just linking against libraries is allowed (as in GPLv2 and earlier).

Re:Wait, what?

[squiggleslash]

Oh, ease up on the hyperbole. There is no comparison between Darwin (the OSS part of Mac OS X) which is a bare bones GUI-less Unix-type OS, and AOSP (the OSS part of Android) which is a fully fledged entirely usable mobile operating system. You would not buy a computer intending to use it as your main desktop knowing it can only run Darwin. You might well buy a phone or tablet running AOSP however intending it to be your main phone or tablet. And people do.

What Google Play Services provides is:

- An app store.
- An additional set of APIs which exists primarily as a compatibility layer between different versions of Android
- Access to the Google App Suite, which require that framework and need to be downloaded via the Play Store.

Additionally Google has their own forks of several of AOSP's built-in apps, and no longer develops the AOSP versions - though they're still present. Whether this is a good thing or not depends on whether you really want, for example, your photo gallery integrated with Google+ (hell no), or your media player to automatically download songs from Google's Play Store (actually, that sounds useful. Shame the Google version of the music player sucks though...)

The Ars Technica article is somewhat hysterical and I was disappointed to read it. It hugely overstates the situation, portraying it as a conspiracy to take control over an OS that Google's been the lead developer on since the beginning. It ignores the success companies like Amazon are having with GMS-less Android.

Re:Wait, what?

[technomom]

Wrong. That's not what this agreement says. Android is still open and OEMs are free to build out AOSP with their own apps.

What this says is that if you take the Google apps, you must include the whole package under the terms specified. That's all.

Sooo many posts here written by people who didn't actually read the article.

Re:Wait, what?

[technomom]

No. Google never, ever said that their apps are open.

Android is open, not Google apps.

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

The tragedy of Linux and open source is the walled garden. Apple and Google have taken open operating systems and built walled gardens on top of them, exploiting today's freedom to destroy tomorrow's freedom.

Sadly, in the 80s and 90s, no one ever thought about walled gardens, and licenses weren't created to prohibit them. So now we have iOS, the Apple app store, Chrome books, Google Play, and so on built on top of an open source base. Countless amounts of DRM have been built in walled gardens which exploit open source.

Re:Wait, what?

[geekoid]

"you can't put any other third party search or location services other than google"

  You absolutely can. you can not modify the Google apps.

Re:Wait, what?

[tlhIngan]

Wrong. That's not what this agreement says. Android is still open and OEMs are free to build out AOSP with their own apps.

What this says is that if you take the Google apps, you must include the whole package under the terms specified. That's all.

Sooo many posts here written by people who didn't actually read the article.

Actually, if you sign the agreement to bundle Google apps, you're restricting in what you can release. If you want, you can release a vanilla AOSP phone. However, if you want to release a phone using AOSP that does things non-standard, you are not allowed to

That's what the anti-fragmentation part does. As long as the agreement is in place, regardless of whether or not your device is going to have Google apps, you're NOT allowed to fragment AOSP by doing things differently. Acer found out the hard way when they wanted to release that phone that had an Android compatibility layer - they weren't allowed to because they signed the agreement.

The thing is, the agreement's terms hold regardless of whether or not the device is to have Google Apps - it restricts what you can do with Android and Android-compatible products. SIgn it, and anything Android must be "official". In fact, if Microsoft were to add an Android layer to Windows 8, this could run afoul of all the Google app agreements, which means a bunch of OEMs may be prevented from releasing Windows Phone phones. Not that it really matters (Windows Phone marketshare is tiny, so OEMs may simply not bother releasing Windows Phone phones), but it is an interesting restraint.

Re:Wait, what?

[technomom]

But you don't need to sign this agreement if you don't include Google apps on any of your devices. That's the point. Amazon, Ubuntu, Firefox all build AOSP devices without Google apps. It can be done. Of course, the hard part is making your own services and apps layer on them that makes it something people would want to use.

What Acer violated was the Open Handset Alliance agreement, something different than the agreement discussed here. Again, you don't have to belong to the Open Handset Alliance to fork Android. Acer did, so they got called on violating it. But you do not need to sign onto it to produce Android devices.

Re:Wait, what?

[technomom]

Correction, I should have said that Amazon, et al build ANDROID devices, not AOSP. My bad.

Re:Wait, what?

[kthreadd]

The operating system is open. The apps you use and is dependent on is not. Smart move there Google.

Re:Wait, what?

[Kjella]

Android is based on Linux. The Google apps are not. Despite what some people claim, not everything written for a GPL operating system must be open source.

No it's not, at least not in a copyright sense. The Linux kernel is GPLv2. The Android code running on top is Apache licensed and open source, but written from scratch using no (L)GPL code which means none of the usual libraries, no GNU tools, nothing. It's the GNU/Linux RMS was yammering about stripped of all the GNU. The Google apps running on top of Android again are closed source.

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Smart move there Google.

Genius move, really. I want to love Google for bringing FOSS to the core of mobile, but I can't help but feel a little betrayed at the way they've monetized it.

Re:Wait, what?

[jrumney]

An additional set of APIs which exists primarily as a compatibility layer between different versions of Android

And also access to Google services, which are used by more third party apps than you realize. How many apps have you seen that use your Google login for authentication? Even if it is optional with alternate login methods available, many of those apps are written with the assumption that the Google APIs exist, and will crash on devices that don't have them. There's also Cloud Messaging and additional Location APIs which are widely relied on by third party apps.

Time Bombs

[chaim79]

Google calls out implanting "any viruses, worms, date bombs, time bombs, or other code that is specifically designed to cause the Google Applications to cease operating" as being banned in approved devices.

It's both interesting and very sad that this has to be spelled out in a license agreement, makes me think that they've run into OEMs purposefully building 'bombs' to keep people buying new phones.

Re:Time Bombs

[Anonymous Coward]

Does creating code to delete/remove the Google app violate the EULA then?

I wonder how much of the EULA is enforceable.

Re:Time Bombs

[Anonymous Coward]

Google calls out implanting "any viruses, worms, date bombs, time bombs, or other code that is specifically designed to cause the Google Applications to cease operating" as being banned in approved devices.

It's both interesting and very sad that this has to be spelled out in a license agreement, makes me think that they've run into OEMs purposefully building 'bombs' to keep people buying new phones.

It's to prevent a loophole where an OEM could ship a phone with all Google Applications, but disable something later. That would be if an OEM didn't want to follow Google's all or nothing policy, which has nothing to do with obsoleting the phone. Use your head.

FFS the "Don't be Evil" ship sailed years ago

[bazmail]

Grow up Google is just as much of a greedy soulless cunt as Microsoft or Apple. Get over it.

Re:FFS the "Don't be Evil" ship sailed years ago

[geekoid]

I think you need to get over it. You seem hostile. Nothing in this agreement can be construed as 'evil' by any rational person. In fact, there are clauses specifically in there to prevent others from being 'evil'.

BTW: It's that language that makes women uncomfortable, grow up.

Re:FFS the "Don't be Evil" ship sailed years ago

[arbiter1]

Funny how greedy google is when they give out more free stuff in a 6 months then apple has in 25 years.

Re:FFS the "Don't be Evil" ship sailed years ago

[TheRecklessWanderer]

Calm down preachy mcpreachy.

Re:FFS the "Don't be Evil" ship sailed years ago

[Mike Buddha]

Anything I don't like is evil, right?

Re:FFS the "Don't be Evil" ship sailed years ago

[BronsCon]

What's wrong with "cunt"? I wouldn't use it in a professional setting; but let's face it, Slashdot is not that.

Re:FFS the "Don't be Evil" ship sailed years ago

[geekoid]

I don't know how to write it more simple then " It's that language that makes women uncomfortable"
Which word is too long or hard for you?

Re:FFS the "Don't be Evil" ship sailed years ago

[BronsCon]

Laurie Penny, Ev`Yan Whitney, Gillian Schutte, and the writers at cherishthecunt.com all appear, to me at least, to be women, and they all appear to be more than comfortable with the word. Perhaps you shouldn't speak for an entire gender?

Re:FFS the "Don't be Evil" ship sailed years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, there are clauses specifically in there to prevent others from being 'evil'.

It prevents others from being evil to Google, but enables Google to be as evil as they please. Google can do anything they want, and everyone will have to go along with them, and nobody could fork or do something Google doesn't want.

Re:FFS the "Don't be Evil" ship sailed years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

There are three ways in which you are all the way wrong.

One, geekoid up there wasn't claiming to speak for 100.0000% of all women, not by ordinary colloquial use of language. If you wanna language lawyer him into that claim, fine, but everyone will know you're full of shit.

Two, you shouldn't presume a handful of women speak for the entire gender. No single member of a group ever speaks for all the group. If we are to take your argument at face value, we can never conclude that any bigoted slur is in fact offensive, for there will always be at least one member of the targeted group who doesn't find it offensive.

Three, I haven't looked at that website but I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that it's an effort by the very people targeted by an offensive word to take it back and make it their own. When this happens, it is NOT an excuse for chucklefucks to keep on using such a word in bigoted way. Which is what happened at the top of this thread: chucklefuck "bazmail" used it as a gendered slur.

See also: black Americans and the n-word. What you are, right now, is a rather transparent apologist for bigotry. Whether you realize it or not. Don't you want to be better than that?

Re:FFS the "Don't be Evil" ship sailed years ago

[BronsCon]

First of all, I linked not just to one website, but to four. Second, yes, I know some people are offended by it; in fact, pick something, anything, doesn't matter what, and I bet I can find at least a handful of people who are offended by that thing. If we all go out of our way not to offend, we literally accomplish nothing, because we have to literally do nothing in order to not offend anyone, which, of course, someone is going to find offensive. Follow?

Where was the gender implication in bazmail's use of the word? There was none; in fact, while bazmail may not have been using it in the playful and friendly way it is often used in Ireland (no gender implied, there, either), there was also no vulgarity behind its use. One of three commonly accepted (American) english definitions for the word is "a term used to refer to a contemptible person" (note the late of gender); there is nothing vulgar implied there, and that is the definition which best fits the context of this usage. In some cultures, it's actually used as a slang term for addressing a friend, or group thereof.

Yes, if you want to be a cunt (e.g. "a mean or obnoxious person") and pretend it's nothing more than a vulgar reference to a woman's reproductive organs, I agree, it's quite offensive. Personally, I'd much rather meet you and the rest of that bunch of cunts (e.g. "the kind of people one might go have a beer with") for a beer, though, so I can better explain how your narrow world view and lack of understanding lead you to observe grievous offenses where, in fact, there are none. Then, I can be done using that word for a while.

Re:FFS the "Don't be Evil" ship sailed years ago

[BronsCon]

Typo... The parenthetical "note the late of gender" in paragraph 2 should actually read "note the lack of gender".

Re:FFS the "Don't be Evil" ship sailed years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you this pious when people use the word "dick" to describe asshole behavior?

No? Then piss off, hypocrite.

Re:FFS the "Don't be Evil" ship sailed years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

I can verify that the standard Irish use (in this case the Northern Irish) of the word "cunt" is almost always the "a term used to refer to a contemptible person" definition; furthermore it will in general refer to a male rather than a female.

Re:FFS the "Don't be Evil" ship sailed years ago

[BronsCon]

Thank you for that information, I had been lead to believe otherwise. That still doesn't negate my point, which was that there are several definitions of the word, not all of which are vulgar or indicate a specific gender.

I just wish you could uninstall Google apps...

[Anonymous Coward]

I just wish you could uninstall Google apps...even Microsoft allows you to skinny up its default OS installs nowadays.

Re:I just wish you could uninstall Google apps...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever heard of Cyanogenmod?

Re:I just wish you could uninstall Google apps...

[jareth-0205]

I just wish you could uninstall Google apps...even Microsoft allows you to skinny up its default OS installs nowadays.

You can disable them, they don't get removed from the phone but they also don't run.

Hey, Google...

[CCarrot]

"Open"

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:Hey, Google...

[Anonymous Coward]

They're open as in the design, not open as in your mom's legs.

Re:Hey, Google...

[geekoid]

They are open. In fact, if you got off the high horse, brushed the chip off your shoulders, and then read those agreement you might note that this is actually a very good thing.

They are taking step to prevent the manufacturers from using the apps to limit the users.

Remember, it' about apps, not android.

Re:Hey, Google...

[jareth-0205]

People complain when there's fragmentation, people complain when there's an effort to prevent it.

The platform is still open, but Google's services and ownership of the Play store is not. You can make an Android phone, fork it and do whatever you want, but if you want to run it on the Play store and Google Maps, whatever, you have to agree to the rules. Those rules, by the way, do a hell of alot to standardise and make the platform stable for developers.

Some people won't be happy until everything is completely gratis and uncontrolled, and we'll end up with the same mess we had with Symbian.

Re:Hey, Google...

[CCarrot]

They're open as in the design, not open as in your mom's legs.

How droll. Witty repartee aside, would you care to explain exactly how mandatory design and operating restrictions make this an 'open' design?

Basically, Google is saying that nobody gets to place restrictions on their toys...except them, of course.

Re:Hey, Google...

[Anonymous Coward]

For the same reason anarcho-capitalism doesn't work: if you make it completely free and uncontrolled, people will fuck it up and balkanize because that's how we are.

AOSP still exists and is under a less restrictive license. If you don't like Google's restrictions on the parts that are explicitly proprietary, use just AOSP-derived firmware like Cyanogen.

Re:Hey, Google...

[CCarrot]

People complain when there's fragmentation, people complain when there's an effort to prevent it.

The platform is still open, but Google's services and ownership of the Play store is not. You can make an Android phone, fork it and do whatever you want, but if you want to run it on the Play store and Google Maps, whatever, you have to agree to the rules. Those rules, by the way, do a hell of alot to standardise and make the platform stable for developers.

Some people won't be happy until everything is completely gratis and uncontrolled, and we'll end up with the same mess we had with Symbian.

Fair enough, at least for the 'no forking' stipulation, but the whole requirement to pre-install all google apps if one only wants access to, say, the Play Store? And the mandatory submission of *very* granular sales data? How, exactly, do these stipulations contribute to platform stability?

I fail to see how it is different from the whole hullabaloo with Microsoft and Internet Explorer, the outcome of which was:

Lawsuits brought by the U.S. Department of Justice, 18 states, and the District of Columbia in two separate actions were resolved through a Consent Decree that took effect in 2001 and a Final Judgment entered in 2002. These proceedings imposed various constraints on our Windows operating system businesses. These constraints include limits on certain contracting practices, mandated disclosure of certain software program interfaces and protocols, and rights for computer manufacturers to limit the visibility of certain Windows features in new PCs. We believe we are in full compliance with these rules. However, if we fail to comply with them, additional restrictions could be imposed on us that would adversely affect our business.

So, here we see MS originally taking the hard-line approach, then being forced to allow vendors to 'bury' Windows-specific features in favor of their own offerings. True, most new Windows PCs still ship with IE pre-installed and ready to go, but it's no longer up to MS to dictate that it shall be so.

Re:Hey, Google...

[CCarrot]

For the same reason anarcho-capitalism doesn't work: if you make it completely free and uncontrolled, people will fuck it up and balkanize because that's how we are.

AOSP still exists and is under a less restrictive license. If you don't like Google's restrictions on the parts that are explicitly proprietary, use just AOSP-derived firmware like Cyanogen.

Oh, I don't disagree...but then that is, by definition, not an 'open' design. It's a closed fork of an originally open design.

It's like if someone took Debian and mandated certain repositories, Firefox and a KDE interface out of the box, and hey, if you want to use our repositories at all, you can't change that. Sure you can go ahead and roll your own, the core system is still open, but you're not allowed to tweak our distribution. Sure you can add other repositories, install Chrome, etc. but you *have* to keep Firefox available and use KDE, at least initially.

Sorry, that philosophy is not compatible with the term 'open source'. Sure, open source has its challenges, but that's part of the culture.

Re:Hey, Google...

[geekoid]

I guess linux isn't open becasue I can put Windows kernel code in it.

Re:Hey, Google...

[CCarrot]

I guess linux isn't open becasue I can put Windows kernel code in it.

Indeed, but would you then try to claim that the Windows code is open source, because you put it on an open platform? Also, are you only allowed to put your Windows kernel on a specific distro?

Android base (AOSP) is open. Android with Google is not. Simple, really.

LOL ... Nokia

[gstoddart]

So this is going to make Nokia doing an Android device even more awkward when Microsoft finishes the purchase.

Because no way in hell Microsoft are going to want that.

Re:LOL ... Nokia

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realise that Microsoft get's more license fees from Android than from their own OS, right...? Do you seriously think, Nokia would release an Android Phone without clearing that with their new masters?

Re:LOL ... Nokia

[technomom]

Yup. It's also going to make life more difficult for Amazon and Samsung. But to me, this is a plus for most people who use the Android product, at least in the US.

It says that Samsung can't put its crap SVoice in place of Google Voice Search or ChatOn in place of Hangouts as defaults if they also want to include YouTube or the Play Store. It pretty much says that Amazon will have to buy into Google apps lock, stock, and barrel if it ever wants to bring back Google Search or enable Google Maps on Kindle Fire devices. As for Microsoft, it says that if they are even considering doing an Android phone, they'll have to build out their own ecosystem of apps and services unless they're okay with Google apps to be front and center. The services are a huge part here, if you don't think so, consider that Amazon effectively built their own workalike version of Google Services, and even that's pretty back level now, but was an essential part of making Kindle Fire somewhat successful. Personally, I think it would be very cool if Microsoft did an MS build of Android apps. They're the most likely company to actually do it well, but I'd be surprised if their stockholders had the intestinal fortitude to take that risk. We'll see.

As an Android user, I'm actually pleased with this decision because while I personally like Samsung phones, I hate the crap that passes for Google workalike apps on it. It's also high time that Google uses some of its own might to bring some order to the Android universe.

True lovers of pure Android can keep building on it. They are welcome to build on its open platform, and build their own apps. More power to them if they can build Search, Maps, video service, etc. that are on par with Google's. That would be great. Competition is good. But cherry picking Google apps or including outdated versions or worse, cheap imitations is not good.

You don't have to have google apps in your droid.

[queazocotal]

http://www.jolla.com/ - for example - is one example of a vendor selling a phone that can run android apps - on top of 'normal' linux - without preinstalling the normal google play market. (because they can't - as what they are doing in making the linux side more open means it's not vanilla android anymore)

Slow day?

[aergern]

Why is this news? This has been known for a very, very long time.

Android is Android and Google apps are Google's apps.

I guess folks really are as stupid as they appear.

What Google apps _do_ people really care about?

[Cajun Hell]

I use Android. I think the Maps app is pretty good. I like it. That's the one I would miss.

Other than that.. nothing. There just aren't any Google apps or services(*) which matter. I think OEMs are over-agonizing on this. Just don't sign the contract, and your phone will be nearly as good as all your competitors in most ways, and better in other ways.

When people say "Android isn't really free, because..." please don't finish your sentence with a list of pretty much worthless (or trivially-replaced) stuff-that-isn't-free. That's almost like complaining "I tried switching my uranium enrichment plant to ReactOS but it wasn't compatible with Stuxnet, so I switched back to Windows."

Except for that Maps thing. But maybe someone else has a mapping (native, not web) app that uses OSM by now. Haven't looked. That'd be hilarious if the list of precious Google apps was zero items long instead of one.

* Services: well ok, of course I still do use Google for searching the web. They are definitely still best (and by a wide margin, it's not even close) whenever I do the blind test. But my computer's maker didn't need any license for that. Any web browser will do. That's my (the user's) problem, not the phone maker's problem.

Re:What Google apps _do_ people really care about?

[robmv]

The Play Store, it is the #1 application OEMs need, unless you are a Chinese OEM where you have a big market with established alternative stores. And Android device without the Play Store is like a Windows Phone without applications. Amazon store is a joke for OEMs because it is only available in selected markets and with the current economics of hardware manufacturing, you win money only at large scales, selling only on Amazon markets will not work for them

Re:What Google apps _do_ people really care about?

[mspohr]

Here's a list of about 100 Android apps which use Open Street Map...
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/...

And, of course, navigation:
https://play.google.com/store/...

Re:What Google apps _do_ people really care about?

[TheRaven64]

I tried Google Maps a bit, and then switched to OSMAnd. It was about the only Google app I used, although I don't know if the Android Browser is developed anymore now that Google has shifted all of their focus to Chrome. I would love to be able to get a reasonable Android phone with F-Droid installed as the default market and no Google stuff.

Re:What Google apps _do_ people really care about?

[hax4bux]

Google maps will not work without Google Play

Re:What Google apps _do_ people really care about?

[Cajun Hell]

(Thanks.) Not surprising; I've just been lazy, I guess. So... yeeeah. I probably wouldn't miss Google much. Their cooperation really does look totally optional and expendible, from the PoV of a user of the platform. Not that I'm ungrateful for commodotizing mobile OSes (thanks, Google). But anti-trust? Oh, please. The people getting their panties in a bunch about these agreements, need to take a chill pill.

Re:You don't have to have google apps in your droi

[Threni]

I refer you to the first sentence of TFA:

> If you want to ship a phone with Google's apps on it, you need to licence them

Oh NOW we care about fragmentation

[Anonymous Coward]

Google doesn't want people forking Android, though they had no problem forking Java to create it

Re:Oh NOW we care about fragmentation

[technomom]

No, Google has no problem with anyone forking Android. What they don't want is people taking the Google Play Store, Google apps, but supplanting them with others, like Samsung has done.

Android itself was built to be forked. It literally is a platform to build other platforms.

The Google apps and Play Store are a different thing entirely.

Dictatorship

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole reason to fork a project is because some dickhole in control of the project who refuses to implement your feature/fix/patch. Now Google is effectively saying, "We will decide everything".

and why do people bash RMS again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't Android derived from Linux?

Not in the sense you probably mean, no.

The Android kernel is a Linux kernel. That part is true. But, a Linux kernel is far from sufficient for building an Android device or running Android apps.

Porbably slightly off-topic but isn't this the argument RMS used for 'GNU/Linux' instead of 'Linux'?

Captcha: persist

"give"

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

I almost NEVER say this about an A/C, but...

[mmell]

Somebody mod this person up!

Re:You don't have to have google apps in your droi

[technomom]

Right. And he pointed out that there's nothing that says you have to license those apps. You can build a perfectly good, workable Android phone that has zero Google apps on them. This agreement has nothing that stops you from doing that.

So google = Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Google = Apple with that closed stance

Re:So google = Apple

[CCarrot]

Google = Apple with that closed stance

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that...but the trend is definitely towards MS territory, at least.

"Here's a shiny mobile platform, completely open! Oh, and to effectively use it, you'll just have to agree to this list of conditions and restrictions to get access to our API's, kk? What!?! It's still open, we just dictate how and when and where our stuff is used...and hey, 3/4 of the ecosystem for this platform is dependant on these API's, so c'mon, what're you waiting for..."

Re:You don't have to have google apps in your droi

[nightfire-unique]

Ouch. I don't been to be a downer, because I love competition and consumer choice, especially in the computing market.

But, I gotta say. This "other half" gimmick is about the most idiotic thing I have ever seen. Trying to sell themes, backgrounds, etc., by manufacturing hardware backs with RFID chips? Seriously?

Phone! I'm in a bad mood. "Applying bad mood theme. Done."

Or am I missing something?

DJB, is that you?

[Anonymous Coward]

When did they hire Dan J. Bernstein? Making up stupid licensing policies that prevent his code from being adapted was *his* trademark! We'll know it's him if he decides that all of his application's directories go in "/".

For those who don't know, Dan wrote djbdns, qmail, and daemontools, all of which had good ideas but failed to be generally used because of Dan's funky "you can't publish modified code, only my original code and your patches which the end user must compile themselves" nuttiness.

Re:You don't have to have google apps in your droi

[Anonymous Coward]

Or am I missing something?

Yeah, pretty much everything. :)

While the NFC tag is a gimmick, TOH also has pins for the I2C bus, an interupt pin & charging pins.
Like this, you can make TOHs with additional hardware, like keyboards, e-ink displays, aditional sensors, bateries, bigger flashes, gaming buttons, etc.

So basically the first real extensible smartphone. :)

Relacks!

[Anonymous Coward]

Gees relacks phat boi! Weeve oll mayde spalling misstakes.
I gess you're prefekt? Tossa!

Take a break from Slashdot Fantasy World

[vlueboy]

Why'd you buy a phone that couldn't be rooted?

• In the real world, people walk into a store with no research whatsoever and blow money for what's got fame and good marketing, even if it sucks. Or did we forget that there ARE Zune, windows 8 and Windows Phone lovers on this site?
• In the real world, alternatives do not exist for everything. See the HD-killed-high-res-screens debacle. See the hardware-keyboards-smartphones-are-scarce standard
• In the real world, you buy devices that cannot be rooted or unlocked because it's a pain to leave your carrier, (we're not Europe), there's network effect (aka peer pressures ... how did Facebook become so big?), and premiums aren't everyone's cup of tea.

That you stop to interrogate this one user as if he'd violated some law shows just how blinding self-selection becomes... you've forgotten that we don't sign a contract to follow all these tenets you hold unthinkable to ignore. Just because we are slashdotters does not mean we're ALL zealots.

Re:Take a break from Slashdot Fantasy World

[mellon]

To paraphrase, "people allow themselves to be misinformed, and suffer as a consequence." I agree. That's why I'm engaging in zealotry! :)

Anti trust

[Anonymous Coward]

Tying contracts are specifically forbid by anti-trust laws. It only comes into play when one can show a monopoly or near monopoly. Android might have enough market share to qualify, it only needs to be the dominate player.

I think you mean...

[Virtucon]

You can't use our hammers if you also don't use our nails and our boards and buy them all from our web store.

So don't use it.

[Virtucon]

There's alternatives to Google Maps out there for Android. There are alternate app stores as well. You don't have to deal with Google's mind numbing tracking of your every action but it's not as "convenient" as some people would like.

This is no news and Android is free.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is known from the beginning. Anyone who ever worked on Android is very well aware of this license.
License is very simple: android is free, Google apps and Google services are not.
Saying that this license make android closed system is ridiculous. Look at Amazon and zillion of Chinese mobile makers building their devices on android for free without using Google apps and without connecting them to Google Play.

Ouya

[trollboy]

Isn't this precisely what Ouya has done? They run their own app store and unless you root it (which is encouraged) you can't use the Google App Store to load apps.

Windows N Edition

[baronvonj5561]

Yes IE was removed from Windows. They had to offer a special version called Windows N.

The N editions had Media Player removed. [source].

Look it up before you write bullshit again