Google To Require As Many As 20 of Its Apps Preinstalled On Android Devices

schwit1 writes Google is looking to exert more pressure on device OEMs that wish to continue using the Android mobile operating system. Among the new requirements for many partners: increasing the number of Google apps that must be pre-installed on the device to as many as 20, placing more Google apps on the home screen or in a prominent icon folder and making Google Search more prominent. Earlier this year, Google laid its vision to reduce fragmentation by forcing OEMs to ship new devices with more recent version of Android. Those OEMs that choose not to comply lose access to Google Mobile Services (GMS) apps like Gmail, Google Play, and YouTube.

Comments

good

[Anonymous Coward]

I've waited my whole life for this...

Re:good

[Reeznarch]

Don't be evil (tm)

Re:good

[MouseR]

With the rate of adoption of the newest Android releases, this wont affect too many people.

Re:good

[Penguinisto]

Just note that the evil(tm) will be compounded by the crapware that some OEMs *and* carriers tend to slather onto the phones, on top of what Google is going to require.

At this rate, I hope that every new Android smartphone comes with at least 8GB of onboard storage... I say this as someone who tends to buy phones on the low-end (my little Huawei has maybe 512MB of internal storage + the 32GB micro-SD card that I cannot move the as-built apps onto...)

Re:good

[afidel]

Well Kitkat is apparently making good inroads as it went from 13.6% in June to 24.5% in early September, and versions earlier than JB are down to 21%. This move by Google to cut off the bottom feeders that want to push old models without any hope of them ever being updated can only help these numbers. Personally I think they should cut off any manufacturer that doesn't agree to at least security updates for 2 years (typical length of contract in many parts of the world).

Re:good

[arglebargle_xiv]

Just note that the evil(tm) will be compounded by the crapware that some OEMs *and* carriers tend to slather onto the phones, on top of what Google is going to require.

I was stunned when I helped a family member set up their Android phone from a major vendor. A ton of Google crapware preloaded, and you couldn't do anything without signing up for Google everything (I didn't even know Android had an anal-probe permission before then). When I got my Chinese Android phone ($140, 5.5" IPS screen, unlocked, dual-SIM, quad-core 1.3GHz, etc) it had no preloaded crapware and, apart from Google Play which is needed to install apps (well, unless you want to jump through all sorts of hoops) didn't ask to sign me up for anything. The sole annoying thing about it was that the Chinese vendor's taste in wallpapers doesn't necessarily match Western tastes (it wasn't quite Hello Kitty, but close), but that was quickly fixed.

So it seems like the trick is to buy from vendors motivated by good honest greed (the product is the phone they sell you) rather than strategic business alliance blah blah considerations (the product is you).

Re:good

[serviscope_minor]

The sole annoying thing about it was that the Chinese vendor's taste in wallpapers doesn't necessarily match Western tastes (it wasn't quite Hello Kitty, but close), but that was quickly fixed.

I'm western and I set my wall paper to something which isn't quite Hello Kitty but is close.

I get irked by the forced soullessly bland corporate inoffensiveness which seems to be popular round these parts at the moment. I'm actually heartened to hear that that phone vendor has not also suffered from that particular disease.

Re:good

[jeremyp]

Well Kitkat is apparently making good inroads as it went from 13.6% in June to 24.5% [android.com] in early September

iOS 8 was at 46 percent after four days. Obviously, since Apple control all the hardware, it's much easier for them to get people to upgrade, but it's still a big problem for the Android ecosystem. Presumably, app developers are having to support fairly ancient versions of the operating system in order to reach a sizeable proportion of the market, whereas an iOS developer can reach 95% of the installed base with an iOS7+ app.

Re:good

[arglebargle_xiv]

I get irked by the forced soullessly bland corporate inoffensiveness which seems to be popular round these parts at the moment. I'm actually heartened to hear that that phone vendor has not also suffered from that particular disease.

There's actually two considerations, the obvious one is "Do I like the picture?", but a more important one in many cases is "Can I see the icons above the background clutter created by the picture"? In the not-quite-Hello-Kitty version the answer, for about two thirds of the screen, was "No". So I've now switched to a fairly bland pic of a sunset that has muted, graduated colours that allow the icons and widget displays to be visible. Probably counts as corporate bland, but the usability is greatly improved.

Re:good

[serviscope_minor]

Oh yeah, that's fair enough, and why I abandoned transparent terminals after about an hour.

My cute not quite hello kitty background picture is clear enough for me to see the icons.

Re: good

[kyjellyfish]

Newsflash... When you're the King, you can dictate the rules for those who live in your Kingdom!

Re: good

[MouseR]

http://www.businessinsider.com...

It's sad

[Anonymous Coward]

When a company moves from innovating to abusing its market share, it's usually not a good sign.

Re:It's sad

[TechyImmigrant]

When a company moves from innovating to abusing its market share, it's usually not a good sign.

Except when you get a phone with an old version of Android and loads of proprietary bloatware 'innovation' the phone sucks in ways it would not suck if it just had the up-to-date integrated Google app suite and android versions.

In this instance, the more Google succeeds, the better the products are.

Re:It's sad

[Noah Haders]

For certain values of "better". If this is truly better, why is CM so popular.

Re:It's sad

[gstoddart]

Well, some of the google apps are considered bloatware by some of us.

The constant nagging to sign up for Google+, the automatic creation of accounts and the like.

I prefer to use YouTube anonymously, if at all. Not so long ago on my Nexus 7 tablet, the app decided that I must have intended to sign up for a YouTube account and created one for me ... YouTube had its data cleared and was immediately disabled.

Google has been a little too pushy with some of their services. I don't want your damned Google+, I'm not interested in it ... stop telling me I need the damned thing.

I agree the proprietary bloatware is crap, and that's why I bought a Nexus branded tablet ... but don't think for a minute Google isn't also doing some annoying things.

Sometimes, just launching one of their own apps can change your account in ways you didn't expect, and don't get told about.

Re:It's sad

[ganjadude]

most people who use CM still sideload google apps, I know I do

Re:It's sad

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Remember when simply bundling IE was a monopoly abuse? Google is behaving in exactly the same way, only corporatism has grown so powerful over the last 15 years that the Overton window extends infinitely off in one direction;

2) There are loads of better options to Google's own apps. The first thing I do on an Android device reset is to install Link2SD and freeze most of the Android apps (and OEM apps, but there are fewer of them);

3) The usual problem is with the base OS not being updateable, and with many built-in apps therefore not being updated either (my Messaging and Browser and Phone apps on Android 2.3.7 have been updated... never).

Re:It's sad

[Noah Haders]

Yeah but you choose the ones you want to sideload.

Re:It's sad

[Anrego]

I just created an empty shell of a google+ account like most people.

I have a feeling this is what is driving google to get away from the mandatory google+ for everything. I reckon half of google+ is empty accounts created to make the prompts go away. To anyone who actually wants to use google+, they add all their friends only to find no actual activity.

Re:It's sad

[ganjadude]

true, the choice is there, in my use case, first thing i do on a new phone is flash CM, and load gapps suite. I only use a handful of the apps ,but i dont ever come close to filling my storage so its just easier to load the suite. granted i know not everyone is that way but the sad truth is for many tasks, googles offerings are better than 3rd party apps. Navigation works beautiful, havent found a good replacement for that one yet.

Re:It's sad

[gstoddart]

One of my accounts which I've had for years is definitely not my own name.

Because I use it for different things.

I've been studiously avoiding Google+ because of that stupid real-name policy, because the interweb isn't always a place you want to use your real name.

I understand Google have relaxed the real name requirement for Google+, but I honestly have no idea of what the net benefit of it would be to me.

I'm not interested in Google's vision of social networking everywhere. In fact, I'm actively disinterested in it.

They may feel they've created the greatest social networking system on the planet. But I don't give a shit about it or most other forms of social networking. And certainly not in having it integrated with every damned thing I do on the internet.

Re:It's sad

[ganjadude]

my google+ acct is pretty much only used for games. I have found that the majority of the android games I play make use of google + for logins, They dont force you to use them but i find it convenient to use it as i recall when my first droid crapped out all the save data was tied to the phone. im happy letting google think my sole function in life is to play plants vs zombies.

Re:It's sad

[swillden]

I understand Google have relaxed the real name requirement for Google+

Actually, Google eliminated it rather than just relaxing it.

Re:It's sad

[MightyYar]

My use case was to blow away the crappy, deranged, obsolete version of "Android" that my phone was stuck with and replace it with something closer to stock Android. Without even booting it up the first time, I sideload the gapps.

Re:It's sad

[Andy Dodd]

Much of why CM and other AOSP-derivative projects are popular is to get rid of carrier and OEM bloatware. Very few people don't install gapps, and while some of the gapps packagers (such as PA) now offer "micro" gapps packages with most of the unnecessary Google apps installed, the package recommended by CM (as in, linked from their wiki) is a complete one.

This is effectively Google's response to OEMs (especially Samsung) putting on atrocious crapware that was ruining the Android experience for many users. e.g. "this is why OEMs can't have nice things".

One of the biggest issues is that sometimes the OEM crapware would constantly hound you to create an account with the OEMs own ecosystem. Google's stuff, at least, usually doesn't hound you if you click "no" during the initial Google account setup. Samsung, on the other hand, would constantly spam me with persistent notifications until I rooted and removed their crap. Also, OEM/carrier crapware was far more likely to do funky stuff in the background without the user's knowledge/approval than GMS.

Re:It's sad

[TechyImmigrant]

And if Microsoft required something similar, you'd be crying the same thing, right?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

No. The problem with Microsoft was the Office lock-in with proprietary file formats.

Re:It's sad

[mu51c10rd]

im happy letting google think my sole function in life is to play plants vs zombies.

Don't you get it? You're not supposed to tell Google the truth in a shell account...

Re:It's sad

[mwmitton]

CM use to include Google Apps until Google made them stop. Now they just tell you how to get them.

Re:It's sad

[Darinbob]

I like google+, but I hate having a useless youtube forced on me. Google+ is where friends are. Don't know about facebook, never tried it, probably never will.

Re: It's sad

[Redbehrend]

The reason you have to sign into YouTube has to do with laws and not purely Google. They fought it as long as they could and even posted how the change was forced and one of the laws was having a birthday for certain content.

Re:It's sad

[vux984]

In this instance, the more Google succeeds, the better the products are.

Hardly. I like Android. But I'm not such a big fan of Google.

The play store being installed is fine, and I'd actively like maps installed.

I readily accept that the phone should come with email and a browser but I prefer other browsers to chrome and actively despise the gmail app. So I'd like to be able to easily remove both once I've got something else in place.

I also have no use for hangouts, or google+, play newstand, and I'm not even sure what the other 10+ bloatware apps I've failed to think of entirely would be.

Plus I prefer the samsung calendar app to the google one. So the "bloatware" isn't all bloatware. And if google forces google apps including specifying their placement then that kills oems ability to innovate and differentiate.

For example, I don't want to say "ok google" for voice. The phrase itself irritates me -- but above that I don't want to talk to google. I want to talk to my phone, and I don't want my voice requests to be sent to google as a matter of course. So I'm in the market for alternative voice option that run locally, don't need to talk to google, and won't talk to google unless i specifically ask it to find something in google maps or to do a google search.

So no, the more google succeeds the more like an iphone the products are. If I wanted an iphone, I'd have bought one.

Re:It's sad

[Rob Y.]

1) I think Microsoft also required OEM's to not preload Netscape. Don't think Google does anything like that - though requiring the Google search box in launchers may come close... Plus, Android has not reached anything approaching monopoly status (yet).

2) You prove my point - nothing prevents you from loading alteratives.

3) This does not apply to the Gapps suite - all of which are now upgraded through the Play store.

Anything else?

Re:It's sad

[Anonymous Coward]

Just continuing the tradition of other apples in human history...

Re:It's sad

[LWATCDR]

Humm. The problem that Google is trying to solve is that some companies "Verizon" sold a phone with Bing as the default and locked in search engine.
Most Android users really did not like that.
And you do not have to install any Google apps to use Android but if you want to load any of the Google Apps you have to install all of the apps.

Re:It's sad

[MSG]

Because it's more similar to Android AOSP than OEM ROMs are.

There are some interesting things in CM for Nexus and Google Play devices, but most of the time I'd expect CM to replace the ROM on other handsets.

Re:It's sad

[TheBilgeRat]

This.

The LG G3 I got is preloaded with AT&T bloatware, LG bloatware, and the Google apps. 3 maps programs. One is useful. I see this more as a whipping tool to all the manufacturer and carrier garbage hard baked in the latest ROMS.

Re:It's sad

[StripedCow]

I just created an empty shell of a google+ account like most people.

However, google is still able to use that shell account in the same way as a "cookie" (to track you).
Unless you create a new shell account every time you go on the internet.

Re:It's sad

[jd2112]

This.

The LG G3 I got is preloaded with AT&T bloatware, LG bloatware, and the Google apps. 3 maps programs. One is useful. I see this more as a whipping tool to all the manufacturer and carrier garbage hard baked in the latest ROMS.

It wouldn't be so bad if they would at least make the crapware removable without having to root your phone first!

Re:It's sad

[Jason Levine]

Unfortunately, the way it is structured now, If you change your Google+ name to Some Pseudonym, that will be used for your GMail e-mail also. I want my G+ posts to show my Pseudonym, but my e-mail messages to show my real name. Since e-mail is more important to me than G+ right now, I'll avoid G+ and stick with the e-mail.

Re:It's sad

[Xtifr]

Remember when simply bundling IE was a monopoly abuse?

Saying that MS "simply bundled IE" is like saying that John Dillinger "simply withdrew money from a bank".

Google is behaving in exactly the same way

Only in the sense that I'm behaving in exactly the same way as John Dillinger when I withdraw money from my bank. :)

(The difference, in case it's not obvious, is that when I withdraw money from my bank, I don't do it in a way that violates any laws.)

Re:It's sad

[ShakaUVM]

>This is effectively Google's response to OEMs (especially Samsung) putting on atrocious crapware that was ruining the Android experience for many users. e.g. "this is why OEMs can't have nice things".

You have it backwards. The Samsung bloatware is a response to Google's strong-arming vendors on their apps.

Ever wonder why Samsung installs a fucking duplicate app on your device for everything Google does? Samsung Calendar, Samsung memo, Samsung voice, Samsung Apps Store, Samsung Translator, etc?

It's so that they have leverage over Google when Google threatens to remove their apps and force a vendor to use the stone age equivalents. Having duplicate apps means that the threat carries a lot less teeth.

The only people hurt by this conflict are the customers, who have to deal with the shitty situation of two sets of competing apps on the same device.

Re:It's sad

[barc0001]

"popular" is a relative term. If 0.001% of all Android devices out there had Cyanogen running on them at this moment I would be floored.

Re:It's sad

[kaiser423]

You'll be happy then. Within the past couple of weeks Google stopped pushing the G+ logins and you don't get one automatically created, and you can browse YouTube anonymously (although you still can't comment).

Re:It's sad

[TechyImmigrant]

That forcing Google apps discourages OEM bloat is simply an assumption.

No. OEM bloat is directly tied to shipping old version of Android. The OEM bloat takes time to build and test and qualify for release. Thus this happens on an earlier version of Android. While the development is taking place, Android is moving on too.

If you take the vanilla Android, you can release a much more up-to-date version, since you don't need 6 months to 1 year to update and requalify your bloatware with the new version of Android. This is pretty much the value proposition of Nexus over any other brand.

Re:It's sad

[Anrego]

Unless you ascribe to an inconvenient level of diligence (and I don't), they already can.

Re:It's sad

[StripedCow]

This sounds like surrendering.

Re:It's sad

[afidel]

Also owned by Google =)
Sygic maps is a decent alternative if you don't want to go Google, and they support offline maps which can help if you have a limited data plan or you'll be somewhere with expensive or nonexistent roaming.

Re:It's sad

[geekoid]

"I'm actively disinterested in it."
A haters got to hate.

Re:It's sad

[geekoid]

It sounds like practicality and realization. I.e. You're not the important and no one gives a damn.
You can't use a cell phone and have complete anonymity no matter how man spy movie you watch.

Don't want to be tracked, then you should be online or using cell phones. or CC, or banks, or cars, or.. well anything.

Re:It's sad

[SourceFrog]

So you're saying it's a case of, "Google, products so good you need to be forced to use them?"

If they're so much better, manufacturers would simply choose them by default.

Sorry, but this is blatantly just a play out of Microsoft's old playbook ... by the day Google are behaving more and more like Microsoft used to, bullying everyone into using their products.

Re:It's sad

[geekoid]

"kills oems ability to innovate and differentiate."
except all they are doing is innovating ways to confuse customers, and put on crappy bloated software.
They aren't really innovating.

They will differentiate they way the do now: Hardware and style.

Re:It's sad

[SourceFrog]

Android has over 80% market share - that's very close to monopoly. Oh, unless you mean only the US, but the market is the whole world.

Re:It's sad

[TechyImmigrant]

>So you're saying it's a case of, "Google, products so good you need to be forced to use them?"

No. I'm saying the other stuff other manufacturers put on phones is a lot worse.

If they can make something lots better, then that alters the equation. Hence Tizen, Meego etc. I'm not holding my breath.

Re:It's sad

[SourceFrog]

2) No, "nothing prevents you", but we all know that the vast majority of Joe Public users aren't going to - coyly pretending this isn't the case only benefits Google

Re:It's sad

[skegg]

I agree: Google is outright "aggressive" when attempting to capture user data.

And they employ numerous techniques:
    - persistent nagging - incessantly asking for additional data/permissions despite consistently declined in the past
    - trying to capitalise on user error - making it easy to sign-up for services you don't actually want (convert to Google+)
    - and now, forcing manufacturers to add services many people don't actually want (why do we have app stores, anyway, if apps are pre-loaded?)
    - making permissions generic - allowing more aggressive apps to be waved through
    - not allowing granular permissions - anyone remember this?

Re: It's sad

[Anrego]

I'm ok with the amount of data "the man" has on me.

There's plenty of causes I care about, IP laws being the big one, but privacy is someone else's cause.

When the big collapse happens and I'm dragged off to the acid mines because I once ate at a Thai restaurant and had my phone turned on at the time, well, then you can be smug.

Re:It's sad

[exomondo]

1) I think Microsoft also required OEM's to not preload Netscape. Don't think Google does anything like that - though requiring the Google search box in launchers may come close...

I don't think so, Compaq shipped Windows PCs with Netscape preloaded. The real issue back then was Microsoft offered IE for free and Netscape charged a fee for their browser.

Plus, Android has not reached anything approaching monopoly status (yet).

Really? They pretty much own the global market for smartphones.

2) You prove my point - nothing prevents you from loading alteratives.

That's irrelevant, nothing ever prevented you from loading Netscape on your Windows PC either.

For what it's worth I don't think there's anything wrong with Google doing this, so long as you can install alternatives there should be no issue, but then that's what I thought about Microsoft too. If they alternatives aren't compelling enough to entice the users to install them then they are useless anyway.

Re:It's sad

[exomondo]

Leveraging a monopoly in one market to gain advantage in another is anti-competitive and violates anti-trust law. Microsoft used it's Windows monopoly to push IE on users and Google is using its Android monopoly to push gapps on users.

Now for what it's worth I don't think there is an issue, if the alternatives were actually better then users would install and use them rather than the bundled versions.

Re:It's sad

[darkain]

In current Android builds, you can disable virtually all pre-installed apps. They can not be "removed" because the APK files are embedded in a single ROM partition, not the same storage location as downloaded apps. Disabling them is good enough though. They cannot run. They're out of the way. They're removed from any app lists. They're effectively gone, with only their package remaining on the static file system.

Re:It's sad

[swillden]

Actually, they made it COVERT. They have other ways of finding your real name. Like, say, automatically parsing your emails. Or buying your name from the telco which provides your phone service.

You're assuming that getting your real name for their own use was ever Google's goal. I see no justification for that assumption. Even if you assume that Google cares to know your real name, those other options aren't new.

Re:It's sad

[chihowa]

Also, OEM/carrier crapware was far more likely to do funky stuff in the background without the user's knowledge/approval than GMS.

I don't have much experience with OEM/carrier crapware, but it must be pretty extreme if people are running to Google to get away from funky stuff happening in the background. GMS is in constant communication with Google and runs with root access and the ability to do/read/install anything without the user's knowledge/approval.

Most people may install CM/AOSP to subsequently install gapps, but I went that way to get Google's creepy feelers out of my phone.

Re:It's sad

[Obfuscant]

The real issue back then was Microsoft offered IE for free and Netscape charged a fee for their browser.

The real issue back then was that MS required OEMs to install MS OS on every computer they sold if they wanted to install it on ANY computer they sold. That's why you didn't have an option of buying a pre-built computer without Windows. I ought to know, I had to buy alot of them.

Re:It's sad

[exomondo]

The real issue back then was that MS required OEMs to install MS OS on every computer they sold if they wanted to install it on ANY computer they sold.

No, that wasn't the anti-trust issue, that was exclusivity partner agreements.

Re:It's sad

[Obfuscant]

No, that wasn't the anti-trust issue, that was exclusivity partner agreements.

And that was what I consider the real issue. I don't give a damn if MS installed IE on those computers I was forced to buy with an MS operating system on them. It was trivial enough to install another browser, but unless I wanted to take the time to build my own computers from parts and then have basically no warranty on the system as a whole, I had to pay MS for their OS. And that points out that having an MS OS on the system wasn't the issue, it was having to PAY for the privilege.

And you ought to know that I was buying those systems with grant money, which means the taxpayer was actually paying for an OS that was going to be deleted as soon as the system got here.

MS also installs 'explorer' on all their systems, but you could buy Norton commander. Is the fact that 'explorer' was part of the MS bundle a problem? No.

Re:It's sad

[exomondo]

Yes you seem to have interjected in a discussion about the anti-trust issue with something else. Yes it was more difficult to find systems without Windows pre-installed back then and yes if you couldn't you had to pay a few dollars for the Windows license.

Re:It's sad

[TheBilgeRat]

While its been years since I bumped up aganst filling up my laptop or desktop hard drives, I often bump into filling my phone storage. I suppose I should spring for a 32G-64G microSD since my phone is capable of that, but still. Out of the way isn't quite the same as not on my phone and not taking up megabytes of precious storage. It is a slight improvement, but a better one still would be decoupling manufacturers and carriers from the OS entirely.

Re:It's sad

[strikethree]

So you're saying it's a case of, "Google, products so good you need to be forced to use them?"

ProTip: Never go full retard.

What is being said is that the carrier crap is so terrible that Google has to do something.

If they're so much better, manufacturers would simply choose them by default.

No. No they would not. The carrier crap allows lock-in to the carrier or manufacturer. Google's crap does not allow lock-in to the carrier or manufacturer. So really, you should re-evaluate who "better" is for. Google crap is NOT better for the carriers or manufacturers but it IS better for the user.

Re:It's sad

[bingoUV]

Actually it was about general monopoly abuse, not about a specific anti-trust case. YOU brought in the idea of restricting the discussion to only a particular anti-trust case against Microsoft.

Re: It's sad

[TheRaven64]

It's not abusing anything Google apps work better and use less resources than the competitors which is 1 reason why they are doing this.

Really? About the only Google app that I haven't replaced with something better (and open source, so money / distribution rights are not an issue) is Google Play, and that's only because my bank and a few other companies only make their app available via Google Play.

Re:It's sad

[serviscope_minor]

Is samsung that bad?

Last Samsung phone I has was an unlocked Galaxy Ace. It came with a bunch of useful software, and I was surprised how much I had to install when I got a Nexus phone. The stock android seems to be missing among others, some very old fashined features which have been standard since the 80s, or at least the early 90s.

Re: It's sad

[MachineShedFred]

So a abusing their position in the market is fine, because you happen to like their products.

How very Slashdot of you.

Re:It's sad

[MachineShedFred]

So don't buy that phone, or don't use Verizon as your carrier.

There are already solutions to that problem without Google exerting legally questionable pressure on OEMs.

Re:It's sad

[TangoMargarine]

I think you're supposed to argue that it wasn't abuse, not that the abuse was okay.

Re:It's sad

[Phisbut]

For certain values of "better". If this is truly better, why is CM so popular.

How popular is CM really? I mean, apart from your anecdotal data that your small group of acquaintances all use it, what's the actual market share of CM?

CM appeals to a niche market of people that like to tinker with their phone and maintain absolute control of everything from start to finish. It is very good that CM exists, I used to run it too. However, a smartphone is no longer aimed at the most technologically inclined or the tinkerer. Most people don't need or even want full control of everything, they want something that works well with minimal maintenance, and that's what people get with an iPhone. That is why an integrated Google app suite is necessary for Android to succeed in the non technically inclined general population.

Re:It's sad

[Noah Haders]

First, while key google apps are necessary for android, there is a long tail of google apps that are crapware. Second, I don't know anyone that uses CM cuz I use an iPhone and so so all my friends / family.

Re:It's sad

[non0score]

Google Maps also has offline maps....

Re:It's sad

[gstoddart]

Wow, did you think of that all by yourself?

Your mom must be really proud.

Re:It's sad

[Shirley Marquez]

I am running CM on my Galaxy Nexus because Google stopped doing updates for it; if Google had brought KitKat to it I would have just stayed with the stock software. I suspect a lot of people who have older Nexus devices are using third-party builds for the same reason.

My Xperia Z Ultra still has the standard Sony build on it, which is a fairly lightly skinned Android plus some Sony apps. I'm waiting to see whether Sony brings Android L; if they don't I'm likely to switch to a third-party version of Android.

Re:It's sad

[Shirley Marquez]

Everybody bundles browsers now. They should have remained separate applications; I wanted Netscape to get an antitrust judgment against Microsoft, and my preferred remedy would have been to require Microsoft to discontinue IE. But that ship has sailed.

Everybody on mobile has always bundled some core apps. Nothing new there. Google is now pushing a larger collection of them, but it's no more extensive than what Apple bundles with an iPhone or Microsoft bundles with Windows Phone. Again, we might have a better world if none of those companies bundled apps, but fighting it is another lost cause at this point.

Re:It's sad

[Shirley Marquez]

That 80% share includes the Chinese AOSP devices that don't include any Google services. If you leave those out of the picture, iOS and Android are in a much tighter race.

Re:It's sad

[stoatwblr]

"I often bump into filling my phone storage. I suppose I should spring for a 32G-64G microSD since my phone is capable of that, "

Which won't help much. The /system area isn't usually big enough for custom roms and KK upwards won't use the "external" storage without a permissions patch which requires root access.

I've repartitioned my old phone - more space in system and changed the dain-bramaged partition layout away from Gingerbread's default "1Gb /data + rest in internal sd" mindlessness. Having 12Gb in /data makes a big difference from bumping up against the limit regularly and having to shuffle apps around.

The external card now gets game/map/dashcam datafiles and all seems ok.

Re:It's sad

[LWATCDR]

"without Google exerting legally questionable pressure on OEMs."
What? That has got to be the dumbest statement I have ever heard.

Google says you can use all of the Google services or none. You can use Android with no google services as at all like.... Amazon does.
Google allows the user to put on other search engines, It allows other browsers. It allows other nav.....
There is nothing questionably legal about it. Frankly it is about 1000% more permissive than IOS, WP8, or Blackberry.

Re:It's sad

[iampiti]

I cannot believe this has turned into a discussion of whose bloatware is less bad. The obvious good solution is to allow the user to uninstall anything.
I undestand Google has every right to get money back for all they invest in Android but ...20 apps? I think it's a bit too much. Ideally they would provide other ways of compensating them (like good old money)

Re:It's sad

[afidel]

No, it has limited time caching of a specific small tile area, very different from real offline maps.

Re:It's sad

[exomondo]

No it is about anti-trust issues with preloading software on a monopoly platform, that's what this whole story and discussion thread is about. What relevance does partner exclusivity agreements have in this context?

Re:It's sad

[wolja]

When a company moves from innovating to abusing its market share, it's usually not a good sign.

Except when you get a phone with an old version of Android and loads of proprietary bloatware 'innovation' the phone sucks in ways it would not suck if it just had the up-to-date integrated Google app suite and android versions.

In this instance, the more Google succeeds, the better the products are.

Wow your definition of better fails to match reality. Google crapware as a mandatory is not better.

Re:It's sad

[Shirley Marquez]

Voice recognition that runs locally will not be nearly as good as the cloud version. Your phone has neither the processing power nor the storage space to do it well. Recent versions of local applications like Dragon work well but they use three gigabytes of disk space, a large chunk of RAM, and more processor power than your phone probably has to do it. (And even then they aren't as good because they don't get the benefit of crowdsourcing the learning of the kinds of queries that people make to millions of people.) You probably aren't going to want to give that many resources to a local text to speech program on your phone, and if you do it is going to make everything else that runs on your phone behave sluggishly.

To sum up, there is a reason that you can't get what you're looking for. It won't work. It will probably not work any time in the foreseeable future, because the cloud version will always be better and it will ratchet up people's expectations of what is "good enough".

Re:It's sad

[bingoUV]

No one said "anti-trust issues with preloading software on a monopoly platform" except you. "Monopoly abuse" started it in this particular thread, and preloading, partner exclusivity all are being discussed in that context. All are ways in which monopoly can be abused, probably are. In fact partner exclusivity agreements can be used to aid illegal, or at least immoral preloading.

Stop being an idiot.

Re:It's sad

[exomondo]

No one said "anti-trust issues with preloading software on a monopoly platform" except you.

That is precisely what this story is about: Google To Require As Many As 20 of Its Apps Preinstalled On Android Devices <-bundling software, nothing about partner exclusivity agreements

But since you failed to comprehend that I'm not surprised you're having such difficulty with following a discussion thread so I'll point it out for you in list form that perhaps you have the cognitive ability to process:
Remember when simply bundling IE was a monopoly abuse? Google is behaving in exactly the same way <-bundling software
I think Microsoft also required OEM's to not preload Netscape. <- bundling software
I don't think so, Compaq shipped Windows PCs with Netscape preloaded. <- bundling software

And then this post changed the topic of discussion from bundling software to exclusivity licensing.

The real issue back then was that MS required OEMs to install MS OS on every computer they sold <- not bundling software, exclusivity agreements

It really can't be any more clear. Now let's assume you lack the cognitive ability to follow a simple list, if you look here I conceded his point even though that isn't what I and the people I responded to were discussing anyway. So what is your point?

"Monopoly abuse" started it in this particular thread, and preloading, partner exclusivity all are being discussed in that context.

No, nobody was discussing partner exclusivity until this, but again your inability to follow a simple comment thread fails you.

If you want to refute this then do it with quoted examples then I can educate you on where you failed reading comprehension.

Re:It's sad

[bingoUV]

So, idiot, you didn't read "partner exclusivity agreements can be used to aid illegal, or at least immoral preloading".

Re:It's sad

[exomondo]

Actually I did, but the fact that software bundling and partner exclusivity agreements can possibly have an impact on one another was never in dispute, nor is that fact relevant to this discussion, if you thought it was then you clearly didn't understand it. So again, what is your point? Try and concisely explain your point.

Also since you weren't part of the original discussion perhaps you should explain to me what you think it is about and how it relates to the presented story, because obviously you've misunderstood so let's try and find out where your misunderstanding is and I can educate you on that and help you to understand.

Re:It's sad

[bingoUV]

If two points are related and affect each other, why do you exclude one when the other is being discussed? Except because you are an idiot, of course.

Re:It's sad

[exomondo]

If two points are related and affect each other, why do you exclude one when the other is being discussed?

They can affect eachother, in this instance whether they do or do not is not relevant. And I didn't exclude it from being discussed, in fact I discussed and conceded his point, but then you lack the cognitive ability to comprehend that. So again, what is your point?

Re:It's sad

[bingoUV]

My point is nothing more and nothing less than what I said. Your this post is invalid. Partner exclusivity, having strong relation with (potentially illegal) bundling, is not "something else" when (potentially illegal) bundling is being discussed.

Re:It's sad

[exomondo]

So precisely what relevance does partner exclusivity have in the context of this discussion? Many things are related to bundling, that doesn't mean they are all relevant to every discussion about bundling.

Re:It's sad

[bingoUV]

The discussion was about monopoly. TFA is about bundling. Monopoly, bundling and exclusivity cause each other, in some ways. How can it be NOT relevant ?

Re:It's sad

[TheBilgeRat]

Good to know! Looks like more tweaking in my future :)

Re:It's sad

[Man On Pink Corner]

When services like Google+ are shoved down my throat, I just treat them like a role-playing game's character creation process. You want me to join your half-baked nth-tier social network? Meet J. Pierpoint Flathead III, billionaire transsexual CEO and astronaut.

Re:It's sad

[exomondo]

The discussion was about monopoly. TFA is about bundling. Monopoly, bundling and exclusivity cause each other, in some ways. How can it be NOT relevant ?

No, if you think that then you obviously couldn't comprehend it, the discussion is about abusing a monopoly to bundle additional software and I even annotated the progression of the discussion for you in list form quite clearly here since you were unable to follow the thread. If you have a point to make about partner exclusivity agreements and how they relate to software bundling in this context then make it but the post you are so vehemently defending - yet obviously didn't read - does the opposite, it splits separates the two issues:
What he said was:

"And that was what I consider the real issue. I don't give a damn if MS installed IE on those computers I was forced to buy with an MS operating system on them. It was trivial enough to install another browser"

He didn't care about the bundling issue, what he cared about was a different issue, the partner exclusivity agreements (yes the two issues could affect eachother but whether they do or not makes no difference to his point). Now Google is doing bundling but does not have partner exclusivity agreements, so if you don't care about bundling but do care about partner exclusivity agreements then this Google issue isn't going to affect you so partner exclusivity agreements are irrelevant to this discussion. Understand yet?

If you don't understand then explain to me how partner exclusivity agreements are relevant to the discussion, if you understand the issues and the discussion then that should be extremely simple to do, the fact that you haven't been able to do it thus far proves you don't understand any of this.

Re:It's sad

[bingoUV]

the discussion is about abusing a monopoly to ....

Blah blah blah blah. By now if you can't get the concepts in single words each, better give up.

Re:It's sad

[exomondo]

So what you're saying is that you cannot articulate how it would be relevant to the discussion, now the reason you can't is because it isn't relevant, as I have clearly explained time and time again.

And yes, when you've failed at reading comprehension so many times even when I've dumbed it down to list form for you and even explained what these posts mean in the context of the discussion it is indeed time for you to give up. You clearly lack the cognitive ability to have this discussion or to even be educated about it. Your only response has been open hostility, an expression of your own frustration at your inability to understand this discussion and/or articulate your thoughts about it.

As I have already said, I'm happy to hear why you think it's relevant and to discuss it but you can't seem to articulate your thoughts. Stay calm, think and try again.

Re:It's sad

[bingoUV]

Ok, loop from here.

Re:It's sad

[exomondo]

I already explained that to you, I didn't exclude it from being discussed, in fact I conceded the point however he explicitly separated the two issues, he did the opposite of discussing them in relation to one another. It's all here in plain English, very, very simple to understand.

So, again, explain how it is relevant in this context. Whether that's a point you want to make or a point you think he was making. If you understand the issues at hand it would be very easy, the reason you cannot do it is because you lack the ability to understand the issues. Come on, I've asked you this numerous times and every time you have failed, undoubtedly you will fail again, but try anyway.

Re:It's sad

[bingoUV]

Go on, loop from there. There will be no need to post.

Re:It's sad

[exomondo]

I'm still waiting for you to explain how it is relevant in this context, a task you failed at yet again because you lack the intelligence to comprehend the topic of discussion. How many more times will you demonstrate your ineptitude? I've detailed comprehensively exactly why it is not relevant to this discussion - a discussion you lack the cognitive ability to partake in - yet you maintain, in spite of all the evidence, your baseless assertion that it is relevant but the fact is it is not relevant yet you're too mentally defective to articulate your thoughts.

Re:It's sad

[bingoUV]

If you loop from there, you will find all.

Re:It's sad

[exomondo]

False, you're a mental defective.

Re:It's sad

[bingoUV]

Look, you're a tool, so you wouldn't know, but when we humans discuss something, mentioning the cause of an issue is considered relevant. Just a tip.

Re:It's sad

[exomondo]

mentioning the cause of an issue is considered relevant.

Partner exclusivity agreements is not the cause of software bundling.

Re:It's sad

[bingoUV]

OK, loop from here - http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:It's sad

[vux984]

Voice recognition that runs locally will not be nearly as good as the cloud version.

I'm ok with that. There's really only a small subset of commands I want to be processed locally -- to send some canned responses when driving etc, call a contact or dial a number.

Re:It's sad

[exomondo]

Wrong, try again: How is partner exclusivity agreements relevant to the discussion?

Re:It's sad

[bingoUV]

Your idiocy is increasing. Meta loop from here - http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:It's sad

[Andy Dodd]

Samsung was preloading useless crapware on their phones LONG before Google started becoming more restrictive with GMS licensing.

"Ever wonder why Samsung installs a fucking duplicate app on your device for everything Google does? Samsung Calendar, Samsung memo, Samsung voice, Samsung Apps Store, Samsung Translator, etc?" - Yeah, they're arrogant idiots who think their shit doesn't stink. Samsung's apps are utter and complete shite (especially the apps store) compared to Google's stuff. They're a blight on Android, and cause a major negative perception of Android in general when the issue is Samsung-specific.

Android version req - long time coming

[tibit]

I think that the requirement to ship recent Android versions was long time coming and is sorely needed. The other applications aren't that much of a drain, I don't think, other than taking up some of the "native" storage. Low end devices (say a $100 tablet) that often only have 1G of built-in storage will be thus strained more. Yet storage prices keep falling, so I don't see it as that much of a problem. Cost-wise, soldered-on flash is anyway cheaper than a microSD card that has to have extra packaging and a separate controller chip.

Re:Android version req - long time coming

[SuperKendall]

How is this not crapware that you are apologizing for? It was the scourge of the PC industry, we should not be welcoming it in mobile to a greater extent than it exists already.

I agree with you that the requirement to ship recent Android versions is absolutely needed, but 20 different applications sounds awfully overbearing.

Re:Android version req - long time coming

[Noah Haders]

I think it's better for a phone to run the version of android that offers the best user experience. Maybe a cheaper phone is best off with a lightweight android installation. The market should get to choose.

Re:Android version req - long time coming

[gstoddart]

I think it's better for a phone to run the version of android that offers the best user experience.

And many device manufacturers prefer to enhance their revenue stream and monetize your experience.

The market should get to choose.

The market never gets to choose.

Because the market is always skewed in favor of the people who control the market.

And they don't want it to be free and open, they want your money and ad impressions.

The manufacturers don't give a damn what you or the market wants.

Re:Android version req - long time coming

[jklovanc]

It depends on what the apps are. For example, the text message interface may be counted as one of the 20 "apps" but it is a requirement for a functional phone.

Re:Android version req - long time coming

[ganjadude]

well the reason for stripping these "apps" from the OS and putting them into the play framework is because of the OEM issue of taking forever to upgrade the phones. Lets be honest here, apps make the phones these days, and if the app cant be updated because verizon or whoever wont push out andoid (insert new version here) to your 2 year old, yet fully functioning phone, it eventually becomes worthless.

By taking the apps out of it, it allows them more control on the functionality of the phone, even if the framework does not get any help from the carriers

Re:Android version req - long time coming

[Imagix]

_And_ updates! Within some reasonable time of release by Google (shorter if they had access to the betas and RCs). For at least 2 years after the last _shipping_ of the phone (not from initial release date).

Re:Android version req - long time coming

[bluefoxlucid]

Verizon used to remove the E-Mail application from the Motorola Razr V3 phone and charge you $10/mo for a subscription to the E-Mail Application. It was the same application, downloaded onto the phone. If you bought a Motorola Razr V3 from Motorola and activated it on Verizon's network, you got the same app for free.

Re:Android version req - long time coming

[Archangel Michael]

Same was true with VZ Navigator. On one of my old phones (Blackberry), there was a fully functional GPS chip, that only worked if you paid the monthly fee. It is one of the reasons I'll never use VZ ever again. Verizon isn't just satisfied being largest carrier, it also wants to extract every penny it can from its customers.

I hate them.

Re:Android version req - long time coming

[X0563511]

You do have the option to disable these apps, however. My phone came with a bunch of Google Play Music/Games/News shit I don't want, and Google+ stuff. The apps are all disabled, now, excepting a few that I do use such as the actual Play store, gmail, etc.

Re:Android version req - long time coming

[tibit]

The thing is: Android makes crapware rather unintrusive, as far as I can tell. On said $100 tablet. If Windows crapware was so unintrusive, I doubt I'd care much about it. Yeah, I've got Nook, Google+, a couple others. Big deal. Those apps don't have to be updated, they can be disabled, and they won't consume any resources other than being present in the factory image that's on the device anyway.

Re:Android version req - long time coming

[tibit]

You can disable pretty much all Google services and they won't occupy any RAM (System Memory) when you do so. I thought that was like Android 101. Just because those apps are stored on the Flash doesn't mean they have to be running. You also don't need to update them if you don't use them - go to Settings, Apps, go through all Google apps that you don't use and [Uninstall Updates] followed by [Disable] on each one of them. You need to disable automatic app updates as well, otherwise the apps will get updated and will occupy the Internal Memory (FLASH).

Re:Android version req - long time coming

[tlhIngan]

It depends on what the apps are. For example, the text message interface may be counted as one of the 20 "apps" but it is a requirement for a functional phone.

Well, that would be Hangouts now, replacing the AOSP Messages/SMS app with an all in one messaging system that combines Google Hangouts, SMS and other media.

But the other sare like Google Play, Google Play Store Music, Google Play Movies, Google Play Books (which really seem just duplicates of Google Play Store), then there are the likes go Google+, GMail (which doesn't replace the mail app), Google Search

Re:Android version req - long time coming

[Anne Thwacks]

AFAIAC Hangouts, Playbooks and the music thingy are defintiely bloatware. Dont know about Nexus5, but my Nexux7 went to CM solely because the bloatware was over the top. SGS3 same way. Yes I have donated to CM, and hate Google+ as much as anyone else.

Re:Android version req - long time coming

[mlts]

I think because Google gets bashed often, they want to do like Apple and MS, and have the apps be part of the OS, so when a consumer sees a device has a certain version of Android, it will have the same level of app functionality across the board, regardless of what carrier, make, or model of phone.

Android, as it stands now, can mean a device bristling with apps (as a consumer-level one that comes from a carrier comes with) to an AOSP build that has almost nothing. Having Google force OEMs to "standardize" on at least a basic number of apps gives the average consumer a better way to compare devices.

Re:Android version req - long time coming

[Noah Haders]

Verizon used to remove the E-Mail application from the Motorola Razr V3 phone and charge you $10/mo for a subscription to the E-Mail Application. It was the same application, downloaded onto the phone. If you bought a Motorola Razr V3 from Motorola and activated it on Verizon's network, you got the same app for free.

my wife and I had moto razrs. I had a grey one and she had a red one.

Re:Android version req - long time coming

[Jeremy Erwin]

Maybe you should start deleting programs and files instead of merely killing off processes-- odds are decent that you have enough memory (i.e RAM), it's the system partition that's under contention.

Re:Android version req - long time coming

[nabsltd]

You also don't need to update them if you don't use them - go to Settings, Apps, go through all Google apps that you don't use and [Uninstall Updates] followed by [Disable] on each one of them. You need to disable automatic app updates as well, otherwise the apps will get updated and will occupy the Internal Memory (FLASH).

On later versions of Android, you can just "Disable" and the system will also uninstall updates for you. In addition, "Disabled" apps aren't updated automatically, even if automatic updates are turned on.

Re:Android version req - long time coming

[jklovanc]

Do you have a reference for this list? Sorry but posting without a reference opens the possibility that what you think is on the list might not be.

Re:Android version req - long time coming

[thegarbz]

but 20 different applications sounds awfully overbearing.

The reason this sounds overbearing is that not all apps are immediately customer visible. Consider looking up the Play Store and search by the vendor Google Inc. and you'll get a lot of things that your phone already has by default without you realising:

Search
Text-To-Speech Engine
Chrome
Youtube
Play
Maps
Drive
Keyboard
Voice Search
Google Now
Google Cloud Print

These apps are already part of nearly every Android install as it is. Some of the rest of the 20 can be due to Google's (IMO silly) decision to split Play store content by type:

Play Newsstand
Play Books
Play Movies
Play Games
Play Music

So what is really left? 4 apps? I probably won't notice or care if 4 additional apps are installed on my phone, especially if it eliminates some of the crapware that already comes with it.

Not all "crapware" is "crapware" when you realise that they are functions of a system that you already use. i.e. do you consider the Windows Print Spooler crapware too? As usual the article is sensationalist and people are freaking out.

Re:Android version req - long time coming

[ThePhilips]

The apps I listed above are what most people expect on their device and certainly not crapware.

I wish they were...

The problem with Google apps is that they are basically on "rolling release" schedule. In real life that means that pretty much all of them (the commercialized services to lesser extent) are "work in progress" and always slightly unfinished, have problems and bugs, occasionally reset settings or have stupid battery-draining bugs. The QA of rolling releases is pretty much impossible. By the time you get anywhere with a long-term test, it gets invalidated because... - oh, look! we have a new release!! For a device which is expected to run 24/7 non-stop, this is just a moronic non-strategy.

That's why I have stopped updating Google apps altogether. I got tired that I can't even rely on my phone mid-day to have the charge. I got tired to, after every botched update, wait for another update which fixes the problems.

Now, almost a year without updating Google apps, experience is quite good, actually. Though few month after that I have realized that Google apps can also become broken on the server-side. Twice in the last year+ (often shortly after an announcement of big feature release) I had Google servers constantly "pinging" my phone and preventing it from going to sleep. Was pretty bad experience: first time it took me a night of (uninstalling everything) hugging for hours the wireshark before I have localized the problem to the Google itself (and then reinstalling everything.) Problem disappeared few days later, as unexpectedly as it had appeared in the first place.

Back to the "crapware" remark. In my experience, the quality of Google apps if pretty low and as such they fully qualify for the "crapware" moniker. The lack of the usual features doesn't help.

Re:Android version req - long time coming

[jonwil]

You want an N900 or its successor, the Neo900 (which is basically a community-developed board designed to go into an N900 case with a faster CPU, better cellular modem and some other hardware improvements) Runs full linux (including X) and is close to the most hackable phone available.

N900 is available now if you look online for a second hand model and Neo900 is currently at the advanced prototype stage.

Re:Android version req - long time coming

[spire3661]

Day i picked up a my day one iphone 4S the dude tried selling me VZ navigator. I said 'Isnt that what Siri is for?' He didnt have an answer.

Re:Android version req - long time coming

[Loopy]

The market never gets to choose.

Because the market is always skewed in favor of the people who control the market.

And they don't want it to be free and open, they want your money and ad impressions.

The manufacturers don't give a damn what you or the market wants.

"People that control the market" only control it until someone else innovates, meaning they never controlled it in the first place. Did Google control the market when they created Android? Did Nokia control the market when they created their handsets? Did Facebook control the internet when they came onto the scene?

Tell us: what's the alternative?

Re:Android version req - long time coming

[jklovanc]

A land line. I guess I could have said "a functional smart phone" but that would be pedantic.

Re:Android version req - long time coming

[thegarbz]

but the stupid google apps re-enable themselves, chewing up my precious rmemory and making my phone sluggish garbage.

The only thing you may be in the minority about is knowing how Android works. Do yourself a favour and load some debugging tools and find out just how many of your precious resources these apps take up. For some of the ones you don't want, think of them as APIs. Google TTS for instance does nothing unless called upon.

Googles "don't be evil" policy died several years ago and it's progressively getting worse.
Infact I've got to be honest, at this point, I haven't seen them do ANYTHING cool or amazing or "oh man, those amazing guys, god they are so great!" in several years, just worse and worse shit.
I genuinely believe they are worse than Microsoft ever was at this point.

Never go full retard man.

Re:Android version req - long time coming

[KozmoStevnNaut]

These stuff never will replace a real pc for work unless you brag about google vs apple ot surf pages made for tablets or phones..

Of course not, and they're not meant to. They're limited-input devices made primarily for receiving and consuming media, they're not meant for content creation, and the available tools for creating content are limited and usually simplistic in nature. They're meant for quick changes and fix-ups, not for full-on usage as the only tool for a job.

My private phone is Android (Cyanogenmod), my work phone is Android, I used to own an Android tablet and I currently own an iPad Air that I got from a work-related course I'm taking. It would suck trying to do every part of my job on either of them, and I would hate to try it. But they're great for reading the news or catching up on mail while I'm on the bus, that sort of thing. I have a perfectly serviceable laptop, but when I need to check something, it's so much faster to just pull out my phone and look it up. Not to mention having Google Maps available at a whim, mapping really is the killer app for mobile devices.

As for the tablets, I usually bring it along to meetings etc. instead of lugging along the laptop. That way, I can quickly re-check previous mails if a specific subject comes up, or I can jot down quick notes with drawings and maybe show them on a projector if needed. With laptops, people have a tendency to almost hide behind the screens, a tablet is much more like an old-fashioned notepad in that you're not isolating yourself from the rest of the participants.

Re:Android version req - long time coming

[bluefoxlucid]

Red cell phone = cougar flag.

Re:Android version req - long time coming

[Noah Haders]

syxs to be u man cuz I'm 45 and she's 22 met her in vegas if sugar wants a red phone then sugar gets a red phone.

Re:Android version req - long time coming

[SpeZek]

FYI, Google Play Music, Movies, Books, et al are used to view media as well as portals to the Play store.

Re:Android version req - long time coming

[jonwil]

I did a 6 month student internship with Motorola software development (basically 6 months of full time work that counted towards my degree) and I can tell you that phones being in development for a year or more isn't unusual for the industry, especially if its totally new hardware rather than a variant of existing hardware. Plus, remember that these guys are voulnteers and not doing this fulll time.

As for the CPU choice, it has been chosen so that the Neo900 can be backwards compatible with the N900. Plus, its actually possible to GET this CPU wheras you cant even get Qualcomm parts (and the info you need to actually use them) unless you are really big and well established.

The Neo900 isn't meant to compete with the Galaxy S or iPhone, its meant to be a phone that takes all the good things about the N900 (physical keyboard, full Linux/X setup, openness) and make it better (faster CPU, more memory, better cellular radio, better WiFi, better Bluetooth, NFC support, more security, more control over the hardware)

Disclaimer:I own a N900 (and in fact am typing this reply on it) and would sign up for a Neo900 preorder if I could afford it. I am also involved in reverse engineering and code work for the N900 and Neo900.

We need a new app for that...

[Anonymous Coward]

Android DeCrapifier.
http://pcdecrapifier.com/

Re:Google has 20 apps?

[Anrego]

I actually find myself liking google keep. I wanted a simple thing to make quick on-the-fly lists/notes.. and it delivers.

Calendar isn't bad either.

I find hangouts kinda clunky, but I use it because it's what was there and seems to work.

This is aimed at carriers like Verizon Wireless

[NJRoadfan]

They are known for pushing their in-house apps above Google's or the handset manufacturer's. They also had that deal with Microsoft that made Bing the default search engine on all their phones ("Droid" branded ones excluded, the rest of their Android phones did have it).

Re:This is aimed at carriers like Verizon Wireless

[Anonymous Coward]

That is not fragmentation.

Re:This is aimed at carriers like Verizon Wireless

[omnichad]

Have you ever tried to use Bing?

Re:This is aimed at carriers like Verizon Wireless

[Ranbot]

I don't appreciate any bloatware, but I'll take Google's over Verizon's. I have had Verizon for years and I like them fine as carrier, because they have the best networks in my area, but their mobile apps are terrible and not being able to remove them is aggravating.

Re:This is aimed at carriers like Verizon Wireless

[frovingslosh]

Fragmentation? I call BS. The ability to choose which APPLICATIONS that I choose to install or not install on my computer is not fragmentation of the OS. Not that I'm at all happy about some vendors changing or omitting basic things, or substituting their own "replacements". But Google's policy will only lead to more issues. By not allowing access to Google Play unless a vendor includes all of the crapware, vendors like Verizon are more likely to include their own crippled crappy app stores rather than access to the Play Store (and yes, I feel foolish every time that I use that term for what used to be called the Android Market). If you've ever seen a tablet with "Slide" rather than the Play Store or Android Market then you know that you don't want that, but Google's threat to take their football and go home if the other kids don't want to play by all of Google's rules will lead to exactly that.

Re:This is aimed at carriers like Verizon Wireless

[TimothyDavis]

They also had that deal with Microsoft that made Bing the default search engine on all their phones ("Droid" branded ones excluded, the rest of their Android phones did have it).

Serious question here:

So fucking what?

Google's entire economic model is based on the user consuming Google services, especially search. There is no altruism from Google to develop Android. They did it to corral users to Google services, and having mobile phone providers place Bing as a default search engine undermines the value of investment Google has placed in Android.

Re:This is aimed at carriers like Verizon Wireless

[toddestan]

I find Bing to be really no worse than Google. But that's more of a matter of how far Google has fallen than anything about Bing.

Re:This is aimed at carriers like Verizon Wireless

[omnichad]

True, but being honest isn't as fun.

Disabled

[tepples]

Just about any app on an Android device can be set to "Disabled" in Settings, including Google's own apps. Then you're out only the megabytes it takes up on the system partition.

Re:Disabled

[kthreadd]

Is there a reason why these programs can only be "disabled," not "removed?"

Re:Disabled

[gstoddart]

Annoyingly, some of them can't be directly disabled.

You need to uninstall updates to get it back to a lower version, and then disable it.

I've seen several of the core Google apps which can't simply be disabled.

It's kind of annoying.

Re:Disabled

[tepples]

That's because any system app with updates exists as two copies on a device: the original version and the latest version. You need to get the latest version out of the way so you can disable the original version.

Re:Disabled

[Animats]

True. My Android phone has no Google account, so I disabled Google Account Manager, Google Bookmarks Sync, Google Contact Sync, Google One Time Init, Google Play Magazines, Google Play Movies and TV, Google Play Music, Google Play Store, Google+, Market Feedback Agent, and Picasa Uploader. No major problems.

Re:Disabled

[messymerry]

Yeah, so they can re-enable them later when you're not looking...

Re:Disabled

[Orange Crush]

They can't be deleted (without rooting) so that they still get restored along with the rest of the system when doing a factory reset.

Re:Disabled

[david.given]

Android devices have a read-write partition and a read-only partition. Out-of-the-box apps go in the read-only partition. There are several reasons for this, one of which is safety --- you can nuke the entire read-write partition and be sure of (a) getting a working factory reset phone and (b) that all user data has been deleted.

If an app's in the read-only partition, then it obviously can't be removed. (Although you can install updates --- the new versions go in the read-write partition and override the read-only one.) All you can do is mark it disabled.

(Of course, if you've rooted your phone, you can remount the read-only partition as read-write and tinker with it to your heart's content. I do this to move updated apps into the read-only partition to save space in the read-write partition. But that only works on rooted phones.)

Re:Disabled

[Krojack]

I've noticed Samsung does this. Their own online store will still check for updates to disabled apps and if one is found, update and enable the app.

Re:Disabled

[swillden]

Yeah, so they can re-enable them later when you're not looking...

Google does not do that.

Re:Disabled

[JohnFen]

Of course you can. You just wouldn't get the apps back afterwards.

Re:Disabled

[Andy Dodd]

Because the /system partition is read-only. Removing the apps will screw up OTAs and/or make them MUCH more complicated and difficult to test.

Once disabled, removing them has zero benefit. Free space in /system gains a user nothing whatsoever since, as stated before - it's read-only.

Re:Disabled

[Noah Haders]

You're mistaken - it's quite easy to banish apples stock apps to a folder and put them elsewhere.

Re:Disabled

[kthreadd]

Maybe this would be possible if the vendor offered a restore image for download.

Re:Disabled

[innocent_white_lamb]

Indeed. I've "disabled" Flipboard on my Galaxy S3 several times, but it keeps on getting updated and showing up again.

What in the blue schmoo is Flipboard and why would I want it on my phone anyway? It seems like one of those things that I would install myself if I wanted it; since I didn't, I don't.

Re:Disabled

[JohnFen]

You can also just reinstall them all by hand.

Re:Disabled

[Ptur]

Yes, because they are in the ROM image, not the filesystem.

Re:Disabled

[robmv]

Because firmware updates become difficult, instead of binary differences between releases, you need a full fledged package manager and dependecy resolution to update the phone

Re:Disabled

[swillden]

The important thing is can they?

No, I don't believe there is any mechanism in AOSP that would allow Google to remotely re-activate apps. I can't speak for the code as modified by OEMs, of course.

Re:Disabled

[ThePhilips]

Yeah, so they can re-enable them later when you're not looking...

A number of Google's apps are actually services with front-end.

Some 3rd party apps are using the services and as such require the apps to be installed.

Well known example is the maps/location service.

That way, Google can update the service, while updating the apps, regardless of the Android version.

Re:Disabled

[nbetcher]

Because most phones are NAND locked. Removing the application would require NAND unlocked (write access) and for those who have NAND unlocked they can remove the applications (although not through the Application Manager).

Re:Disabled

[Obfuscant]

You need to uninstall updates to get it back to a lower version, and then disable it. I've seen several of the core Google apps which can't simply be disabled. It's kind of annoying.

If you are disabling an app so it cannot be used at all, why do you care that you have to remove an update to the very app you don't want in the first place? Others have pointed out the technical reason for the way it is.

Re:Disabled

[bingoUV]

Then it wouldn't be factory reset, using a definition that will be useful to many people.

Re:Disabled

[Andy Dodd]

Recovery (which is used to apply OTAs) has read/write access to system. Official OEM recoveries will only apply ZIPs that were signed by the OEM. (This is to prevent, for example, people just flashing SuperSU to gain root access, or some app maliciously altering /system with a bogus "OTA" update.)

Re:Do no EViL(tm)

[Anrego]

For the time being, I can still legally get rid of the crap I don't want and install anything I do on my nexus. It's what makes google the least shitty in a pile of shitty options imo.

Re:Google has 20 apps?

[SoCalChris]

Camera, calendar, chrome, hangouts (messages), clock, google+, dialer, people (Contact manager), photos are all apps that are a pretty central part of an android phone. Not to mention the suite of Play apps (Movies, news, store, music, etc.) and other google services that aren't required but are very useful such as translate, google+, sky map, goggles, etc.

Re:Google has 20 apps?

[tepples]

checks the list of apps on his first generation Nexus 7
It's probably referring to Hangouts, Google+, Keep, Play Books, Play Music, Play Movies, Play Newsstand, Chrome, Currents, Earth...

Re:Alright...

[i kan reed]

Yeah, this is the correct answer. There's a lot of crap on my phone that I'd have murdered if I had genuine administrator access to it, like I do my PC. Nowadays it's weird to think there was a time I liked google products.

Root it

[tepples]

They can be removed if you have unlocked the bootloader and flashed an OS image that contains su. Then you can become root, remount the OS partition read-write, and remove the apps completely.

Re:Root it

[sinij]

>>>They can be removed if you have unlocked the bootloader and flashed an OS image that contains su. Then you can become root, remount the OS partition read-write, and remove the apps completely.

This is why mobile space computing devices will always be toys in my eyes. They system designed to dictate how you suppose to use it. Sure, with enough effort you could bypass and regain control that should have been there from the beginning.

As for quoted response - imagine buying a PC during 90s era where you didn't have enough permission to uninstall AOL. Plus you'd get prompted for AOL credentials to use unrelated productivity software. Even MS in its prime wasn't that evil. Google, on other hand...

Re:Root it

[Kielistic]

As for quoted response - imagine buying a PC during 90s era where you didn't have enough permission to uninstall AOL.

Or like trying to uninstall first party software like IE. Oh wait...

Re:Root it

[ic3m4n1]

They can be removed if you have unlocked the bootloader and flashed an OS image that contains su. Then you can become root, remount the OS partition read-write, and remove the apps completely.

And void warranty and support on your device in the process.

Re:Root it

[sinij]

"Oh wait.." as in, the present situation is comparable to the worst of Microsoft excesses where they were justifiably criticized? If that was your point, then yes, I agree.

Re:Root it

[Kielistic]

Were you trying to say Windows PCs were "toys"? I think most might disagree with that.

Re:Root it

[freeze128]

The ecosystem is like that because the telephone carriers NEEDED to institute some kind of protection. If they didn't, imagine the horror that modern communications would be. Every 12 year old kid would be cloning the cell phones of senators and start making crank calls to the Premiere of China. It would be anarchy.

Re:Root it

[Lehk228]

there is no reason for that other than gross negligence on the part of the telecoms in the first place.

Re:Root it

[SourceFrog]

This is why mobile space computing devices will always be toys in my eyes

That's exactly what they used to say about PC's when PC's were new and cheap and crap, in the early 90s. Ten years later PC's were dominating, and had become much more powerful. We're just seeing history repeat.

Re:Root it

[thegarbz]

As for quoted response - imagine buying a PC during 90s era where you didn't have enough permission to uninstall AOL. Plus you'd get prompted for AOL credentials to use unrelated productivity software. Even MS in its prime wasn't that evil. Google, on other hand...

Erm IE?

Also while we're being pedantic which unrelated app are you using that requires you to hand over Google credentials? Think carefully about what you are doing before you respond considering you can use any Android device without even having a Google account (though installing apps becomes a bit of a pain).

Re:Root it

[tepples]

I thought AT&T and T-Mobile weren't allowed to ban devices per the GSM license, and Verizon was subject to open application and device requirements on its 700 MHz allocation. Sprint might but it's got a pile of MVNOs anyway.

Re:Root it

[sinij]

I understand what you are saying, but you also have to admit that Google is doing a superb job trapping the careless user into handing over credentials. I strongly believe that this is Bad Design for $$$ reasons.

Re:Root it

[thegarbz]

I understand what you are saying, but you also have to admit that Google is doing a superb job trapping the careless user into handing over credentials. I strongly believe that this is Bad Design for $$$ reasons.

I don't follow your logic. I turn on my phone and fire it up as I work through the first time prompts I get to a page that says sign in with your Google account. There's two buttons on the screen, the two with equal prominence are "next" and "skip".

If a user is so careless that he can't read one single sentence and decide which button to press then I don't think there's any helping them. It's like the uproar over the location tracking website which can show you where your phone has been. People are freaking out that Google knows whereas I distinctly remember them saying exactly that on the screen where you enable location services. It's not buried in some massive EULA it's right there on the screen in half a paragraph.

I just think people are getting stupider and then get upset when something they were plainly told was going to happen actually happens.

Re:Root it

[sinij]

You know, I tried using Android phone this way - disabling location, refusing to link accounts... you couldn't do much other than place calls and maybe use browser. Android smartphone isn't a very useful device unless you surrender to Google.

Re:Root it

[thegarbz]

That's only because you didn't try. Why not do it again and this time sideload the Amazon app store, or better yet F-Droid. You'll find you can do pretty much everything with your phone without Google services except access gmail. Android devices aren't any less useful without Google and you can see that from the quite capable devices which ship without Google apps like the Kindle Fire or the default install of Cyanogenmod without Google Apps (a separate download).

Without linking to a google account:
Maps works
Navigation works
Youtube works
Internet browsing works
Side loading apps works
Sideloading whole app stores works (obviously not the Play Store)
Contact list works
TXT messaging works
Every email program except for Gmail works.

So tell me what exactly are you interested in doing with your phone that doesn't fit in the above categories?

Why preinstall?

[Orange Crush]

What's the benefit of baking all these apps into the system partition? I've found that even after an OTA update, most have been replaced by newer versions in the data partition within a few weeks. Why not just provide the barest core apps and default to asking to download the rest? I vaguely remember Froyo or Gingerbread doing something similar.

Re:Why preinstall?

[JohnFen]

Because then most people would never install most of the apps, and Google needs as many people to install this stuff as possible in order to compile the most complete dossier on you that they can.

Re:Why preinstall?

[BarbaraHudson]

What's the benefit of baking all these apps into the system partition? I've found that even after an OTA update, most have been replaced by newer versions in the data partition within a few weeks.

... because you won't receive a notification that you can update a non-existent app. As long as I can remove what I don't want and install what I want, what's the big deal? For example, I don't use Google Music, but it's only taking up 14 meg, so I'll just leave it installed. If you're worried about space issues, take the plunge and delete something useless like the Facebook apps. Unless, of course, you like Facebook.

My point is that most phones come with a decent amount of storage, and one 20-second cat video can eat up more than a lot of apps do. Critics (esp. Apple fanbois) have been going "Android fragmentation yadda yadda yadda" and now Google is addressing the issue. Minimum specs for the latest and greatest makes sense, and once consumers get used to it, they'll know that a device that comes with a certain version of the OS meets at least the minimum specs for that OS.

Re:Why preinstall?

[bluefoxlucid]

Standard feature set. No 'Go to the Gallery... oh, what? You don't have that?" "Pull up the browser.. what? Oh. First go to Market and install Chrome...". No unboxing the phone and spending 40 minutes getting Maps, a Web browser, and e-mail working, and then trying to figure out wtf media player you need (Apollo).

Why all the separate PLAY apps?

[crow]

I use the PLAY store to get apps, and it has a bunch of other stuff integrated like music and movies that I ignore. That's fine. Buy why are there now all these separate PLAY apps? What's the point?

Re:Why all the separate PLAY apps?

[BarbaraHudson]

Think of them as shortcuts to just the section you want - though of course the real reason is marketing Google Plays' various sections.

Re:Why all the separate PLAY apps?

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

Play Books, Play Music, Play Newstand, etc. are the applications you use to view/play the media that you bought in the Play Store.

Re:Why all the separate PLAY apps?

[Anne Thwacks]

But I didnt buy any media from the play store, and I am not likely to ... particularly if I cant play it with the media player of my choice.

ColorNote

[tepples]

Before Keep I used ColorNote, which came on my Archos 43, an old iPod touch-like device running AOSP. And I still use ColorNote on my first-generation Nexus 7.

Empty shell of a Facebook account

[tepples]

Are the people who create an empty shell of a Google+ profile the same kinds of people who created a Facebook account just for FarmVille, Spotify (when it required one), Answers.com (when it required one), or The Huffington Post's comments section (which still requires one)?

Re:Empty shell of a Facebook account

[hodet]

I don't know. But I created an empty shell Facebook account, my only facebook account, because it is the only way to access a slingbox on Linux. The FB Slingbox app works great. I never created a shell Google acct.

Re:Empty shell of a Facebook account

[jeffmflanagan]

It also allows you to comment on sites that use FB comments. Everyone should have a fake FB account to bypass the harm FB has caused on other sites. An empty Yahoo Mail account, and G+ account under a real-looking but false name was useful for the same reason until they dropped the real name requirement. No one asked for ID when I picked the name of someone I haven't talked to in decades.

Re:Empty shell of a Facebook account

[Matheus]

I actually use my FB account but have been fairly cranky with people who can't bother to create a dummy one to see something I've posted there. "So you *really want to see something on FB but creating an empty no-effort account is crossing a line? Sorry... if you really want to see that you have to get over it."

As for Google+? I've had an "account" forever just because it just sorta happened. I post to YouTube and had a gmail address (just a forward) but the "login" to that ecosystem turned into a Google+ account so it kind of stuck. More recently I actually started using it a *tiny bit because their remote conferencing is actually really well done so we use it here to tie our various offices together for free. It's also better than uStream for what they provide (and free) so I've started using it for streaming live shows.

"It" is relative... Google+ the social network? I basically don't use it. Gmail, Hangouts, IM, Maps, etc... all of those are tied into that ecosystem so peripherally I use it all the time.

Re:Empty shell of a Facebook account

[bingoUV]

Farmville forced people to bother their "friends" to tend to their farms - people watered each others' farms if I remember correctly. This revealed to Facebook a lot of networks of "friends". My facebook account was created when I was bullied into virtual agriculture.

Google+ is doing more sneaky things than even facebook in this regard. It is ok if an empty shell account is created. And synchronization of contacts might be enabled by the user without realizing they are giving away their people network - it is probably even enabled by default. But Google uses this information to discover people networks.

I used to synchronize contacts earlier - and from that I get Play Store application recommendations from people who used to be in my contact list earlier.I have no explicit connection to them in Google+, or facebook. I haven't even stored their email address in my contacts - just phone number. This is why now I prefer cyanogenmod based ROMs which don't even have the synchronization capability.

Re:Empty shell of a Facebook account

[stoatwblr]

"No one asked for ID when I picked the name of someone I haven't talked to in decades."

Noone asked for ID when I chose "Pogue Mahoney" either (there are Greek and Russian equivalents. For English, why not use Terry Wrist or L. Kaydar?)

Better to use an obvious empty shell than possibly ID-theiving someone.

The alternative is not a crapware-free phone

[langelgjm]

The alternative is a phone filled with either the OEM's additions, or the carrier's crappy branded apps.

The cleanest phone you can buy is probably the Nexus 5.

Those of us who want more control will be smart buyers and purchase hardware that is easy to load with custom ROMs, then we can decide exactly how much of gapps we want.

Re:The alternative is not a crapware-free phone

[CaptSlaq]

The alternative is a phone filled with either the OEM's additions, or the carrier's crappy branded apps.

The cleanest phone you can buy is probably the Nexus 5.

Those of us who want more control will be smart buyers and purchase hardware that is easy to load with custom ROMs, then we can decide exactly how much of gapps we want.

The 2013 MotoX is probably the closest second. I haven't had a look at the 2014 MotoX, but I certainly hope they carried on the tradition.

Re:The alternative is not a crapware-free phone

[mlts]

I'd probably say either the N5 (or another GPE device), or if one wants to be completely GApp free, then go with CyanogenMod and another store or repo. Amazon has their own (heavily curated/moderated) app store, and there is always F-Droid.

I don't mind the Google stuff, so I've found GPE devices or CM + Gapps pretty workable, although I do replace the messaging app with TextSecure and the dialer with RedPhone (disabling the other SMS utilities) so I have additional security. I also have XPrivacy running as well, so if something doesn't _need_ GPS, let it think I'm in Antigua then.

Re:The alternative is not a crapware-free phone

[moderators_are_w*nke]

Or Jolla, or an IPhone, neither of those come loaded with OEM additions, or carrier branded apps.

Re:The alternative is not a crapware-free phone

[spire3661]

Moto G and E as well. There are a few motorola apps, but they are easily ignored/disabled

Might as well do one better

[bytestorm]

Require OEMs to have >80% of devices sold in the last 2 years capable of running the most recent version of Android within 3 months of release.

So when does GOOG get an EU lawsuit?

[YrWrstNtmr]

How is this different from Microsoft and bundling IE?

Re:So when does GOOG get an EU lawsuit?

[MrEricSir]

Android is open source and can be forked to work however you like. Windows, not so much.

Re:So when does GOOG get an EU lawsuit?

[Zalbik]

How is this different from Microsoft and bundling IE?

Google doesn't have a monopoly on smartphone OS's. Microsoft does have a monopoly on desktop PC OS's

Re:So when does GOOG get an EU lawsuit?

[SourceFrog]

It isn't, but Google apparently have better marketers that have managed to carefully portray a carefully-preened image of Google as a "friendly" company, so everyone here will defend it.

Re:So when does GOOG get an EU lawsuit?

[jareth-0205]

How is this different from Microsoft and bundling IE?

When we decide that they are in a monopoly position. We might be getting there, but probably not yet.

Google IE 6

[Snufu]

Google Intertubes Exploder 6 (TM) is tightly integrated with your Andoid operating system. Attempting to uninstall it will void your warranty, the screen will get scratched, the phone will prank call your Aunt, the battery will burst into flames, and you will get a bad case of athlete's foot.

Re:Google has 20 apps?

[JDG1980]

I actually find myself liking google keep. I wanted a simple thing to make quick on-the-fly lists/notes.. and it delivers.

Google Keep is nice. Sucks that there's no public API, though.

worse than crapware

[frovingslosh]

Actually, it is crapware, at least as I see it. I have no use for social media sites and I'm not a 13 year old girl, so I'm never going to use anything named "Hangouts". If I have to have it installed on my device and I'm never going to use it then it is crapware.

I'm also never going to buy DRM infested books and audio, and if I have to have DRM in my video at least I'm going to buy it on a real piece of physical media, not as a low bit rate crippled download that can go away or might even be taken away at a whim. So the apps that deal with Google selling me stuff that I'll never ever buy are crapware to me.

But it is worse than the crapware installed on a laptop. While the manufacturers think nothing of selling a laptop with an undersized hard disk ad then filling that disk space with crapware, at least I can uninstall the crapware on a laptop and recover the space. On Android, by Google's own design, you can't simply uninstall the crap that has been pre-loaded on your tablet. Significant amounts of very limited flash memory get taken up and are not recovered by a simple uninstall. Even worse, the crap runs, taking resources, and even gets updated, taking more resources and risking an update that might introduce a problem to the tablet, all for software that I didn't want in the first place.

If Google would simply allow this stuff to be easily removed from an Android system, then I could support their requiring the vendors to include it with a new system. But until that happens, it is another case of Google being evil.

Re:worse than crapware

[Archangel Michael]

Hangouts is not just IM. It is also a fully functioning VOIP client, especially if you use gVoice. Really handy when you don't want to give out your Cell number, but want them to be able to call you. Don't dismiss it, if you don't use it. The fact it also does IM, and Video IM (similar to Skype/GotoMeeting) is also nice. And the ability to do desktop sharing has caused me to almost stop using TeamViewer.

It has finally become a very useful application.

I find it funny that a number of people who "don't want to be tracked" are using Smartphones at all. The only way to "not be tracked" is go all Unibomber and live off the grid.

Re:worse than crapware

[innocent_white_lamb]

As with so many other things in life, there are degrees involve.

Not everyone who "doesn't want to be tracked" wishes to live in a log cabin in the forest. The fact that I have a smart phone doesn't imply permission to follow me around with a camera-equipped drone all day. And I might sometimes leave my phone at home when I go out, too.

Re:worse than crapware

[Matheus]

This. (Mod points lacking or I would).

The only reason I log into Google+ is for Hangouts because it's just that useful. Dismissing it because they named it poorly (if it is... don't mind the name myself aside from it's being a bit too 'friendly' for the workplace) is ignoring a very useful product.

The whole "don't want to be tracked" thing I find quite entertaining coming from all the cromags who have no clue what's actually going on. The whole don't install the Facebook App and Messenger App thing is pretty hilarious. Sorry people... you lost your privacy years ago so why cripple yourself now?? Privacy and Security are an illusion. The faster people realize this the better this world will become.

Re:worse than crapware

[tibit]

Hangouts is a conferencing tool. It's most definitely not something that was designed for teens. It's a Google alternative to Skype. It's also not true that the crapware always runs. Sure, it's part of the factory image, but it never needs any additional space, and it's stored compressed on that image. Simply uninstall any updates to it and disable it. Done and gone.

Re:worse than crapware

[Dixie_Flatline]

Yes, heavens forfend that you use your communications device to communicate with people.

The things I use most are chat applications. I use iMessage, Hangouts and WhatsApp because that's what the people I want to talk with use. I like iMessage best for various reasons, but the whole point of my phone--by which I mean this little communications computer that I carry with me--is to stay in contact with people throughout the day. I also use it for social media because that's also about keeping in contact with people.

I understand everyone's use case is different, but slagging Hangouts as an app for teenage girls? C'mon.

Re:worse than crapware

[frovingslosh]

As for no use for social media sites, where do you think you are right now?

That's an amazing statement, even more so when posted by someone hiding behind the Anonymous Coward name!

I don't see Slashdot as Social Media. I reserve that term for privacy forfeiting sites like Facebook, Twitter, and the rest of that sorry lot. And Google wants in that sorry lot too. They have done pretty poorly so far with failed attempts, and are now trying to increase their share by forcing hardware vendors who use Android to include their tools like Hangouts in the device rather than let users elect to install it or not as they see fit. I do post here, and I never post as an AC. But I have the sense to use a screen name and not link back to my real name or use my personal email. The one time that I did get a submitted story accepted years ago, my email was getting fresh spam from the email reference to me in the story even before I knew that the submission was accepted. Thankfully I had used a spamgourmet disposable email for that and didn't have to abandon my real email address and start a new one. But Hangouts on Android, as I understand it, forces users to use the same account that they get email under and access the Android Market with. I don't want to do that. So don't talk to me about the wonders of the Hangouts social networking tool when posting as an Anonymous Coward.

Re:worse than crapware

[thegarbz]

Actually, it is crapware, at least as I see it. I have no use for social media sites and I'm not a 13 year old girl, so I'm never going to use anything named "Hangouts". If I have to have it installed on my device and I'm never going to use it then it is crapware.

Ok so you don't like social apps. Now tell me how you feel about having a market place for apps, a keyboard, the system level text-to-speech interface, google maps, a browser, a print service, an easy to access search function, ... the list of Google apps that are almost necessary to the Android experience goes on yet people keep using the word crapware. I wonder what my computer would be like if I installed an OS which had no browser or ability to print.

But it is worse than the crapware installed on a laptop. While the manufacturers think nothing of selling a laptop with an undersized hard disk ad then filling that disk space with crapware, at least I can uninstall the crapware on a laptop and recover the space. On Android, by Google's own design, you can't simply uninstall the crap that has been pre-loaded on your tablet. Significant amounts of very limited flash memory

You had me until you said Significant amounts of very limited flash memory. Google's complete app package takes up a pittance of the total OS even including those features required on a system level like a text-to-speech engine and a keyboard.

The reason you can't uninstall them is the same reason your laptop which allows you to delete everything will come with a multi-gigabyte large recovery partition hidden from the OS. The default apps are read-only to facilitate a factory reset. Nothing more. Don't like the apps? Hide them. If you seriously have problems with storage space then maybe you should spend more than $50 on your next Android phone, or get one with an SDcard slot.

Re:worse than crapware

[Namarrgon]

If Google would simply allow this stuff to be easily removed from an Android system

Go into the Settings/Apps list, tap any app you don't want, Uninstall any updates, and Disable it. That frees up all the writable space taken by that app, stops it from consuming CPU cycles, and hides it from your app drawer. Takes seconds, can be easily done by the average consumer, and provides all the results they're looking for.

Not enough for a power user? You don't even want it taking up bytes on your read-only /system partition? Google allows you to do that too, by making it easy to unlock your phone, root it, edit the system partition, flash new ROMs etc, and by providing the source to the latest version of Android so that third parties like CM can give you fully customised software on your hardware - and you don't even have to give up access to Google's closed Android apps to do it, if you don't want to.

I really don't see how any of this is "being evil", especially when you compare it to the offerings of the other major mobile systems.

Re:worse than crapware

[chihowa]

The faster people realize this the better this world will become.

How I stopped worrying and learned to love the creeps.

Re:worse than crapware

[MachineShedFred]

I don't want to install FaceBook Messenger because it is change for the sake of change, and is worse than what they had before. Now there are two apps that give you a jarring user experience as you get ripped from one to the other, rather than having it integrated like it should be.

Net effect: I no longer use Facebook for messaging, and neither does anyone else I know, Good job on that one.

Re:worse than crapware

[TangoMargarine]

Sorry people... you lost your privacy years ago so why cripple yourself now?? Privacy and Security are an illusion. The faster people realize this the better this world will become.

"Well, you're in the future now, so you'll finally be treated with dignity. Now strip down and get on The Probulator, Fry."

Fine, as long as I can delete them

[erice]

And, as long as Google is forcing the OEM's to pre-load Google apps, why don't they force all apps to be deletable?

When space gets tight (and this time will always come), I should be able to delete any app I am not using.

Re:Fine, as long as I can delete them

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

When I got my Samsung Note 3 there were several shortcut icons that looked like pre-installed apps, but were really just shortcuts to where you could download the free app(s). That way the part that comes pre-installed is tiny (probably only a few kilobytes), just enough room for a URL and an icon. If they went that route, so that it looked like the apps were there, but didn't eat up storage space, then most people wouldn't have an issue.

Re:Fine, as long as I can delete them

[tibit]

They are - the updates, at least. The factory image is compressed and stored in a read-only partition. Deleting anything from it is equivalent to making your own "rom" (as that's what the system partition constitutes, in a large part).

Re:Google has 20 apps?

[Krojack]

I would consider the camera, dialer and play store apps as part of the OS.

Knee Jerk Reaction?

[jklovanc]

Has anyone seen the list of required apps?
Are the apps on the list required to run the phone?
Is this story a knee jerk reaction to incomplete information?
Is this story click bait so people will sign up to theinformation.com?

Re:Knee Jerk Reaction?

[KozmoStevnNaut]

That's how the Google apps appear at first when installed along with Cyanogenmod. An icon for the Play Store, and then everything else in a folder, which is just one swipe to remove from the home screen. Personally, I think at least putting the Play Store icon pretty much front and center is a good idea. Smartphone users want apps, and the first thing they do when they get a new phone is install all of their favorites.

not Alright...

[frovingslosh]

Unfortunately, rooting is not always easy for Android devices, and is said to introduce extra security issues. If Google would let us remove the crap without rooting, or provide the option in some other way, then I would consider this less evil. But as it stands I sure don't like the idea that more and more crap is being forced on the Android users. This stuff takes all kinds of resources, and updates may even introduce additional vulnerabilities, all for software that a lot of people didn't want in the first place. Sounds evil to me.

Re:not Alright...

[sinij]

Issue with rooting, is that almost anything in mobile space defaults to auto-run. This is not a big deal if permissions are severely restricted in non-rooted phone and the worst stuff won't survive the reboot. Modifying this default promiscuous behavior is not a simple configuration change and is beyond abilities of majority of technically-inclined /. crowd.

Re:not Alright...

[roman_mir]

Agreed.
Here is what I either want to have or can tolerate on the phone:
1. Phone.
2. Address Book / Phone Book.
3. Maps.
4. SMS.
5. Text notes.
6. Camera.
7. Voice recorder (very useful if can also record phone calls).
8. View of images / movies.
9. Browser.
10. Alarm clock.
11. Daily planner.
12. Calculator.
13. File manager.

That is what I think a smartphone is for and I do not want anything else on it.

Re:not Alright...

[innocent_white_lamb]

Audio applications? I use my phone to play music and listen to mp3's of old time radio plays regularly. It even automatically connects with the stereo system in my truck so I can play stuff off of my phone while I'm driving.

Re:not Alright...

[roman_mir]

I do not require audio applications, I do not listen to music that much, don't need it but I do not mind it. However if it is an 'audio application' it should be standalone and not tied into any 'platform' whatsoever.

Re:not Alright...

[rhodium_mir]

It should be tied to whatever the free market says it should be tied to.

Re:not Alright...

[rhodium_mir]

Agreed.
Here is what I either want to have or can tolerate on the phone:
1. Phone.

The telephone network is regulated by statist thugs. Why would you voluntarily submit to slavery like that?

Why are we talking about this?

[AyukawaZero]

What does this have to do with the new iPhone bending?

Double edged sword

[maliqua]

Getting less of Google crapware will be nice, but i fear that the OEMs not compliant enough to carry the google bloat, will create their own much more bloated and crappier crapware

Not suprrising really

[blueshift_1]

Of course there are the usual complaints of "This is my device and I only what I want." However, I feel like it's naturally in their best interest to provide a standard user experience across multiple platforms. Since much of the mobile debate is with regard to OS instead of actual device, it's just a standard PR move.

Re:Not suprrising really

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Putting the Play Store icon right on the default home screen is a very sensible move. Smartphone equals apps, and people don't want to hunt around for the app store.

At least all of the other stuff is in a single folder that's easy to remove from the home screen. I know the apps are still installed, but maybe I'm just getting older and less reactionary, because I don't really care about the 200MB or so they take up. I haven't even come close to running out of space on an Android device yet.

Re:Google has 20 apps?

[omnichad]

And Google probably counts the entire list as part of the OS.

Re:Do no EViL(tm)

[CastrTroy]

What I don't like about Android is that you don't get the updates from the guys writing the OS (Google in this case). You have to wait for the hardware manufacturer to issue an upgrade. Often there are updates specific to different carriers, and if you have a smaller carrier you may have to wait longer for and update, or not get any updates at all. With both iOS and Windows Phone, the updates come directly from the company making the software. I wish Google would fix this. People should be free to update their own phone as they see fit. I don't have to ask Dell to update my copy of Windows when something get's fixed. I shouldn't have to ask LG for an update when something gets fixed with Android.

Re:Google has 20 apps?

[SoCalChris]

But why should they be a part of the OS? They can be, and frequently are replaced with third party apps with different functionality. Having those remain apps that are separate from the OS allows this, as well as allows people to keep their phones up to date easier since they're not as reliant upon the manufacturers and carriers to push out updates to the OS. This is Google's way of dealing with the version fragmentation that has plagued Android. This is a good thing, in my opinion.

I don't have a problem with this...

[sirwired]

In return for a free (and Free) OS, and a free suite of half-way decent applications, Google is asking to be "paid" in the form of some prominent exposure on the phone. Did anyone think Google was providing all this stuff out of the goodness of their hearts? Of course they aren't... the whole reason Android exists is to get you using services that feed Google more information about you, which they then sell; it's kind of their entire business model.

If an OEM doesn't like this, they still get to use the OS itself for free; they just have to provide their own apps. Seems like a pretty decent trade-off to me.

If the OS wasn't Free, we might could have a discussion about evil monopolies and such, since there isn't really any other viable OEM-able OS. But since OEM's have the option of discarding the whole package, while keeping the OS, it's kind of a silly argument.

Re:Google has 20 apps?

[mr_mischief]

This is from my head, so I'm sorry if it's not complete or includes apps not considered part of the GMS suite.

Other than Gmail, Play Store, Youtube, and Maps I can think of:
Play Music, Play Books, Play Games, Play Movies & TV, Play Newsstand, Google search, Google voice search, Google Translate, the Chromecast app, Google+, Google Now, Drive, Chrome, Hangouts, and Google Wallet.

That's nineteen of the twenty I guess. I don't really use the movies/tv app or the newsstand app. The rest I do to some extent. I wonder if the separate Google Settings icon is considered part of the apps suite, or if maybe the Chromecast integration isn't.

Are the default clock, calendar, contacts, calculator, and SMS messaging app (that they keep trying to obsolete in favor of Hangouts) part of the suite?

Google as it turns out has a list of apps for Android and another for iOS in case you want their apps on Apple hardware. Some of those I didn't think to list above.

It's not forced bundling with the OS.

[mr_mischief]

People aren't being forced to install the GMS to sell an Android phone. They are, however, being forced to install the entire GMS or none of it. There's no unbundling of just one or two apps and leaving the rest uninstalled. So if you want to sell an Android that has for example the GMail app or the Google+ app (or the Play Store app, which is the big clincher) then you have to install the others.

Google services are overrated anyway

[WaffleMonster]

The industry is too set in its ways and excessive aggregation of power is sustaining a distorted up market.

The hardware guys deserve all the praise for kicking ass while the software guys play games for financial optimization of their entrenched positions.

This bullshit of creating OS builds for every specific hardware target is beyond idiotic. This happens all the time... a year later vendor decided it wasn't worth their time to release any new versions of OS for any price without wholesale replacement of device and things stagnate while customers are placed at unnecessary risk from mounting number of unpatachable exploits.

Intentionally nerfing security levers available to end users for financial gain is morally bankrupt. If there was proper separation of concerns in the market this would never occur.

Allowing carriers to nerf operating system functionality is as unacceptable as allowing your ISP to nerf your computer when you use the Internet yet they are still getting away with it.

Allowing advertising companies to preload their wares on your devices with no viable means of removal by an ordinary person is indefensible. Remember when we spent years bitching about the inability to uninstall IE... now look around...

Re:Google services are overrated anyway

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Allowing carriers to nerf operating system functionality is as unacceptable as allowing your ISP to nerf your computer when you use the Internet yet they are still getting away with it.

The absolute worst is when carriers disable tethering or hide it behind a tethering plan at extortionate prices. They have absolutely no reason to care whether the traffic coming through my phone originated from the phone or from my PC. If my subscription allows me 5GB of data traffic per month, it should not matter one bit which device it is used for.

/system is read-only for reliability, unless root

[raymorris]

Unless you choose to root, the /system partition is read-only, so it can't be changed, accidentally or on purpose. That means you can always go back to a stock, working, bootable system. Bugs, hacks, and accidents can't make the phone unusable because the main functionality is unchangeable, unless you root and explicitly mount it read-write. This is one reason that it's safe to pull the battery out of your running phone, while it's not safe to pull power cord from a running computer.

When the push is on

[jmd]

I'd guess this means the company has met its apex in development or econimic health. Or both.

I bought a Google Nexus Galaxy and Google has said they will not put out Android 4.4 for this model. Too old they say. But they will shove other crap down my throat.

Something will emerget in time to push Google aside. Firefox OS? Ubuntu? something from Asia?

MS is basically history, Apple shows signs of cracking... Google is up after Apple.

Same as Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

No different than Apple. An iPhone comes with 22 pre-installed, non-removable apps: Contacts, Photos, Camera, Messages, Tips, Reminders, Clock, App Store, Videos, Notes, Calendar, Game Center, Mail, FaceTime, Weather, Newsstand, Maps, Health, Calculator, Compass, Voice Memos, & Stocks.

Many of them are sort of essential to the use of a smartphone, e.g. Camera or Messages, but many are not or have 3rd party replacements available in the App Store, e.g. Gmail, Evernote, Fantastical, etc.

I'd guess the major difference is that Apple makes its money on the hardware, not on the apps (or ads in apps).

RASPBERRY PI TO THE HELP

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone put a display on it, some batteries, a GSM txmitter module (they are not difficult to obtain) and put it into a box ?

These folks could also be of great help:

https://www.olimex.com/

Plus the 10 Euro eval stick with an ARM processor from Infineon. We really don't need to volunteer into the jails they build for us. Plus, all these jails have "FREEDOM" ingrained into their bricks. Remove the shackles, use the Linux/BSD kernel properly !

Re:RASPBERRY PI TO THE HELP

[jonwil]

If you want a phone that doesn't lock you into proprietary crap-ware, wait for the Neo900. Or buy a used N900.

Re:Google has 20 apps?

[T.E.D.]

There's the Google Calendar app. Both of the Android manufacturers I've had phones from delivered their own calendar apps. The one on my Note II looks nicer than Google's (at least on the Note II it does), and has some good widgets, so I can easily see why a manufacturer would want the ability to make their own versions of these basic apps.

However, my Note II calendar app has issues with viewing shared calendars that I didn't create myself. The one on my old HTC phone was gawdaful. So I can see where Google is coming from, that vendors really need to make base functional versions of critical apps available. If a vendor wants to make competing aps, I should be using them because I like them better, not because I can't find the standard ones.

"As many as", or as few as zero

[raymorris]

TFA says the contracts include "as many as" 20 Google apps. I'm familiar with that weasel - "as many as", "up to". We all know "up to 30 Mbps" means "3 Mbps, most of the time". So "as many as 20" might well mean "2", most of the time.

One carrier has a contract that mentions they might install up to 20. And?

Re: Apples and Oranges

[Flytrap]

You couldn't be more wrong... the point made by Anonymous Coward (no, not you... the first Anonymous Coward) is valid and is informed by legal precedent set during the Microsoft anti trust case.

• 1. Apple has a less than 15% market share... they may be very influential, but I hardly doubt that anything that they do could be construed to be abuse of market share.
• 2. Apple can only dictate iOS requirements to itself since it is the only OEM using iOS. If they make decisions that are bad for the only iOS OEM, Apple are the only OEM to pay the price, not Samsung, HTC, Huawei, LG, Xiaomi or Motorola.
• 3. Google should be able to dictate how Android is configured for its Nexus line of handsets; but, just as Microsoft was accused of bulling tactics for insisting that Windows OEM licensees had to make Internet Explorer the default browser to maintain their most treasured partner statuses, Google finds itself in a similar position for insisting that OEMs must pre-install Google services (even when the OEM has its own competing alternatives) or risk losing access to high value Google services that are not easily substitutable. By having such an overwhelming market share such that OEM's have very few alternative options, Google could be attracting the same attention that Microsoft attracted when they did the same thing with their market share.

So, just to set the record straight... if Jonny Ive and Craig Federighi decide to screw Dan Riccio over by making onerous demands that the hardware engineering team much comply with in order to qualify to run the next version of iOS, the worst that could happen would be that Apple could have no new hardware to ship their fancy new operating system on next year. There would be howls of protest from investors, mobile network operators and customers... but Apple would be the biggest loser... not their competitors.

Re: Apples and Oranges

[Atrox Canis]

1. Apple has a less than 15% market share... they may be very influential, but I hardly doubt that anything that they do could be construed to be abuse of market share.

15% market share of mobile phones? Really? I guess I expected their penetration in phones was much greater than that of their computer (desktop/laptop/tablet) market.

When they a) unlawfully b) abuse c) monopoly d) an

[raymorris]

Microsoft was busted for abusing their monopoly power to engage in unlawful, anti-competitive practices.

For example, in Microsoft internal emails, executives discussed the fact that they understood they were hurting their own company, in order to hurt the competitor more. It's okay to try to make your product better than the other guy - that's competition. Intentionally making your product worse, in order to cause compatibility problems for the other guy, is not okay.

99.99% of the time that's self-regulating - most companies can't go around intentionally harming their own company and products or they'll go out of business. A monopoly is a special case. In 1996 Microsoft had 99% share of the desktop market. Therefore they could intentionally damage the computer industry, costing themselves $4 billion, if by doing so they'd cost Netscape $3 billion and put Netscape out of business. Any ordinary company purposely costing themselves $3 billion would be committing suicide, but for a monopolist losing $4 billion in order to make your much smaller competitor go out of business is a "smart" move. That kind of thing is why there are laws about what a monopoly power can do and not do.

Android has 51% of the market. They aren't a monopoly. If Google purposely creates a problem that makes Android worse, in order to also cause a problem for iOS, Microsoft would be jumping for joy. Microsoft only has 3.5% of the market, but they also have $380 billion to spend taking advantage of anything stupid Google might do.

So Google isn't a monopoly, and their actions are competitive, not anti-competitive (in the legal sense).

Do you also wonder about the difference between what Hans Rieser did and what Miley Cyrus did at the MTV awards?

Re:Smells a lot like US v. Microsoft

[tibit]

Call me silly, but does Vimeo actually, you know, reliably work?. Every other time I get across a Vimeo link, there's something wrong either with the link itself, or the web player, etc. I don't know what Youtube does right that Vimeo doesn't, but for me, the bad UX just doesn't justify using Vimeo. And this has nothing to do with anything that Google has any influence over, BTW, I'm using neither Chrome nor Chromium, and I'm not following google search result links either.

Re:Do no EViL(tm)

[RJFerret]

Yes, Apple is way overpriced, considers itself fancy, likes to dictate what you can do, likes to secretly track what you do, and have you pay for it.

M$ is overpriced, but lets you do what you want.

Google has no price, they ask if you wish to trade info for useful services.

Apple is like a wife; lets you think you'll get some for all you're paying, but you end up badly screwed.
M$ is like a girlfriend; you actually get some for what you pay.
Google is like a lover; you not only get some, what you give is less, and they are honest about it.

Mobile number roadblock

[tepples]

I've read stories of Facebook putting up a "roadblock" screen where it won't let the user log in unless the user provides a phone number capable of receiving text messages and not shared with any other Facebook user. This excludes people on land lines and people who share a cell phone with someone else.

Re:Mobile number roadblock

[TangoMargarine]

Guess I'm glad that I signed up for facebook and Gmail before they required a phone number, then. They can continue biting my shiny metal ass as long as they want. Fuck no I'm not going to give them a RL phone number to track and market.

Re:Mobile number roadblock

[stoatwblr]

"I've read stories of Facebook putting up a "roadblock" screen where it won't let the user log in unless the user provides a phone number capable of receiving text messages and not shared with any other Facebook user. "

The few times I've run into this it also did voice verification after texts failed.

For such cases:

Setting up a burner number is pretty easy. I have one on a UK "070" range which costs the caller around $3/min for such cases (these cost $10/year, can be forwarded anywhere in the world, and are not overtly 09* numbers, so most filters allow them). Another "070" number is given to businesses which insist on a phone number.

If anyone other than those I _want_ to call me wants to do so, they can pay for the privilege. It keeps unwanted telemarketing to a minimum - and if I do get such calls it's amusing to keep them online and paying through the nose for as long as possible.

Re:Mobile number roadblock

[tepples]

Setting up a burner number is pretty easy.

So long as someone else on Facebook didn't already use the same burner number before it was reassigned to you. And you still have to buy a phone on which to use the burner number.

Re: Apples and Oranges

[Penguinisto]

GP is speaking of global marketshare, not US. IIRC, Apple has a far higher marketshare in the US (not sure offhand what it is, but I think it's like 40% or so.)

Re:Do no EViL(tm)

[AF_Cheddar_Head]

You are correct that you don't have to go to Dell to upgrade your copy of Windows but you sure as hell might need Dell to provide specific drivers for your hardware. The issue is the phone vendors need to make sure the hardware drivers are compatible with your new version of android before you upgrade or your phone might be broken. This is the reason so many phone lose a bit of function when you install CM.

I am not defending the lack of updates just giving the reason that Andriod is updated through the manufacturer and not Google. Unfortunately too many of the phone manufacturers would prefer to sell you a new phone instead of investing the time to test the old hardware with a new O/S.

Re: Apples and Oranges

[danbob999]

Apple had less than 12% market share in 2Q2014 This is in the smartphone market. They of course have even less in the total cell phone market. They usually get higher numbers right after they release a new phone, so yes, 15% average over one year sounds about right.

What's in a name

[frovingslosh]

Several people here are saying that I implied that Hangouts is for 13 year old girls and I was wrong. I see it somewhat differently, I believe that Google is the one who implied that when they gave it the Hangouts name. Sure, sure, it's a professional business tool for communication. Then why the hell did Google give it a name with the connotations that are implied by the name Hangouts? They might as well as called it "My Little Pink Unicorn", and if they did and put in even more features then I expect you would still call me short sighted for not wanting to use a product with such a name?

I think the name makes it clear who they are targeting the product to.

While we're talking about whether Google is evil or not, lets remember that the VOIP API used to be open to other developers and some were offering good products like GroovIP that took advantage of that to compete in the Android marketplace. On May 15 of this year Google took that away and replaced the VOIP services with a closed unpublished API that only it is allowed to use. Otherwise even fewer people would use Hangouts.

Re:What's in a name

[Dixie_Flatline]

Yes, yes I would. Geez, what's in a name? Do you really need it to be called something more aggressive and manly? It's a tool used for chatting with other people. I talk to my Google-employed friends using Hangouts. I chat to my Human-Rights-Lawyer friend using Hangouts. And if it were called "The Pink-Lace Chatroom App" and my friends preferred that, I'd use it. I don't care--my applications are there to get things done, not impress people with their branding.

Are you somehow concerned about the perception people will have of you if you use something to talk to people you know? I figure the only thing my apps say about me is that I know people and I like to talk to them. I'm only a few years away from 40 at this point--maybe it's just my age that makes it so wildly unimportant to me what the name of the application is.

Honestly, I think Hangouts is among the worst of my chat applications. It's among the least reliable, and has the fewest features. If they decided to make it 10 times better and give it the name 'My Little Pink Unicorn' as you suggested, I would 100% keep using it. What's wrong with pink unicorns anyway?

Re: Apples and Oranges

[geekoid]

Android and the MS case aren't even comparable. It's like comparing oranges to trucks.

Apple can make demands on the phone companies, and Apple can make changes to the carriers don't move any device. This would hurt more then just Apple.

On the one hand

[pkinetics]

Yeah, cause I hate downloading all the bloody apps.

On the other hand, doesn't this get close to bundling like the whole Windows and IE issue

On the foot, I usually root and load custom rom on my phone anyway, so this is less of a concern

On the other foot though, that just bloats up the ROM.

On the knee, how many of these apps do I really want? I'd rather be able to pick and choose at time of install.

On the other knee, i want i want i want...

Awww Hells bells...

Google is the source of the problem

[ThePhilips]

Earlier this year, Google laid its vision to reduce fragmentation by forcing OEMs to ship new devices with more recent version of Android.

I have read an interview couple of years ago, where Russian(?) reporters have grilled local Samsung rep about the updates. He was trying to avoid any direct answers, but as far as I have understood the source of the problem is the Google itself. Google has basically no predictable H/W platform roadmap and decides on the H/W requirements for every version separately. That's why many older devices didn't get the Android 4 update: the version was improved specifically for low-power and low-memory devices, yet at the same time the minimum memory requirements of the OS were increased. And as such the OS version couldn't be installed on them since that would violate the conditions of the license from Google.

Re:When they a) unlawfully b) abuse c) monopoly d)

[raymorris]

-- because the user ultimately has the choice, and oems have never been prevented by microsoft from installing a 3rd party browser or media player, nor have users

That is a difference, only Microsoft set IE (the only browser shipped oem) to refuse to download Netscape. Android will download Opera and Firefox just fine, you're right.

Oh, were you under the impression that it was Google who got caught inserting the "don't download Netscape " code in their browser?

> and some jurisdictions consider rooting a mobile device to be illegally breaking its drm

Citation? When I got this phone I'm using right now, I went to the website of the manufacturer (HTC) to look at their instructions for how to unlock the bootloader. You're saying it is illegal to use the phone in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions? Previously, I've visited Google's code site where I downloaded the SOURCE CODE for Android, and Google provides instructions for how to compile your own custom build if you wish, along with a license allowing you to do so. I don't think it's illegal to use Google's code according to Google's license- in any jurisdiction, except perhaps North Korea. I think you're confusing Android with Windows Phone. Microsoft does have DRM in their operating system.

TRWTF: No stable driver ABI

[tepples]

In that case, the problem with Android compared to Windows (x86 and x86-64 versions) is that it lacks a stable driver ABI that would let the user carry the handset manufacturer's driver modules forward from one version of Android to the next.

GoogleSoft?

[EvilIntelligence]

Isn't this something Microsoft did years ago? Forcing Internet Explorer down everybody's throat, and threatening OEMs that didn't include it? They even went as far as requiring that no competing browser be pre-installed. My... how things come full circle......

Sarcasm not needed

[Taco Cowboy]

... when it becomes the reality

Big whoop?

[buckfeta2014]

I don't see the big deal here... It's not like apple has a bunch of preinstalled apps on their phone, and winmo (or whatever you want to call their current version) probably has them too...

It's a google phone, of course it's going to have gmail, hangouts, maps, drive, youtube, etc. Just in the same token that apple stuff is going to have their own software (safari, itunes, etc)... I wouldn't doubt that winmo has office preinstalled too.

Big whoop.

OEMs cannot write software

[bingoUV]

Samsung cannot create Software, nor run Software a market, to save their lives. The sooner they realize this, the better. Same goes for most other OEMs - Xiaomi does punch above its weight in this field but the weight is very small.

And the threat is less for Google's applications, and more for Google's services. It is easy to create a video application, close to impossible to create and run something matching Youtube.

So if Samsung's bloat is trying to do something, it is a misguided attempt and they are failing miserably. The only option for OEMs is to unite and learn how to create usable software. Vaguely like what Symbian could have been earlier, minus the later full control by Nokia.

Re:OEMs cannot write software

[TheRaven64]

A few of the HTC apps were nicer than the AOSP versions and the same is true of the Motorola ones. The problem for people who don't drink the Google kool-aid is that hardly anyone is working on the AOSP versions of most apps. If you buy a new Android device, there's no calendar app that can talk to a CalDav server (which, for example, any iOS device and most open source calendar apps for desktop can do out of the box). F-Droid has one that is designed to, but it has a terrible UI and doesn't integrate nicely with the rest of the system. There are a couple of sync adaptors, but Google has increasingly broken the sync APIs for things that are not Google.

Re:OEMs cannot write software

[bingoUV]

Yes, some HTC apps were said to be good - though on short inspection I found their UI illogical but eye candy was nice. I've used Motorola Android phones - their blur is detested by many. Their applications were very stable, but with spartan features.

Anyway, most OEMs can make very simple acceptable software, or slightly complex bad software, or complex shit software. The lock-in comes from complex software - parts of which reside in the "cloud" which are insanely complex. Beyond capabilities of most OEMs in their wildest dreams.

Their any hope to compete with the big 4 - Google/Microsoft/Apple/Amazon in the software department is in a next generation Symbian. The half-hearted attempts of Samsung as ShakaUVM mentions don't even begin to address the gap.

The problem for people who don't drink the Google kool-aid is that hardly anyone is working on the AOSP versions of most apps

Google isn't either. More and more, they are replacing the AOSP software with "Google" software. Without publicizing that now they are all closed source, while still reaping publicity benefits of Android's earlier image of open source. Sneaky.

terrible UI and doesn't integrate nicely with the rest of the system. There are a couple of sync adaptors, but Google has increasingly broken the sync APIs

Currently I am using the local calendar adapter for Google calendar, from F-droid. Works well. There is a similar CalDAV adapter too - doesn't it work nicely with owncloud? I was hoping to use it some day.

Anyway, that was my point. Google and the other big 4, really do good UI - much as I hate to expose my data for their inspection.

Re:OEMs cannot write software

[TheRaven64]

Currently I am using the local calendar adapter for Google calendar, from F-droid. Works well. There is a similar CalDAV adapter too - doesn't it work nicely with owncloud? I was hoping to use it some day.

The issue I'be had with it is that it doesn't really do merging, it does 'server always wins'. This means that if you delete an event locally, on the next sync it will reappear. It's fine for new events created on the device and for events created elsewhere if you just want to view them on the device. I use owncloud on the server and iCal on my laptop and editing things on either of those is fine.

Anyway, that was my point. Google and the other big 4, really do good UI - much as I hate to expose my data for their inspection.

The reason I stopped using the search engine was that they made a UI that pissed me off enough to make me quit. I've not found Google UIs to be particularly well designed in general - I could file a few hundred UI bug reports on the general Android system, including a lot that are regressions.

Re:OEMs cannot write software

[q4Fry]

I looked at the F-Droid .ics adapter source, which looked like it would work for importing and exporting .ics files, but after the events were in, that was the end of the life cycle. It probably couldn't maintain a subscription in case of event cancellations or updates.

...Oh. Sorry. Just did some research. You're talking about this, instead, right?

My cynical theory on why there is crappy support in the AOSP app is that Google specifically desires you to use their calendar so they can mine the data.

Re:OEMs cannot write software

[q4Fry]

I couldn't help but think "Someone has to have tried to get this into AOSP. It seems ridiculous that they wouldn't have.

It turns out that at least some of the code was written a year ago and still hasn't been merged. If one of you Slashdotters is a gerrit reviewer, can you check out the these two requests?

Google is dying

[LordWabbit2]

I've stopped using google as my primary search engine, it sucks at searching for warez (yes I pirate the odd movie, am currently stuck in an ass backward country) and the first ranking searches are paid for. It tracks the crap out of you and now there is a big push from them to try match all your google accounts together so they can track you even better. Fvck that sh!t. I have to use 3 different browsers just to stop it. With all the DMCA notices they are receiving their searches are getting next to useless. Started using bing (god forbid but it WAS better for certain searches) until I discovered duckduckgo.

Re:When they a) unlawfully b) abuse c) monopoly d)

[KozmoStevnNaut]

android as shipped on virtually all devices is a closed ecosystem, windows is not. windows users have choice of program to run and dont have to jump through hoops to do so, most android devices require rooting or other tricks to run apps not sanctioned by google... and some jurisdictions consider rooting a mobile device to be illegally breaking its drm.

You can install any .apk package that you want, if it's not "sanctioned by Google", you get a message that you have to enable installation of packages from unknown sources. It's a single checkbox to enable it. Of course, the alternative app stores aren't available in the Play Store, but they're just .apk files like any other Android app, and easy to download and install. So you have security with an official app store for the common user, and flexibility with alternative app stores for the power users. Hell, there's even an app now for installing Cyanogenmod, and it's super easy to use.

The only hoop to jump through is a single checkbox. That's how the stock Samsung firmware was in my Galaxy S4 Mini, and that's how it is in Cyanogenmod as well. Then you can scan all the QR codes you want, and download and install any third-party apps. The official Humble Bundle app sort of functions as an alternate app store for games/ebooks/music you've bought, and that's actually available on the Play Store, despite offering an alternate "store" for games already on the Play Store.

The illegality of rooting a device is a legislative problem, not a Google/Android problem.

recent Android versions are overrated

[bingoUV]

Except the bragging factor, latest versions of Android don't cause any real effect on 99% of mobile phone users' phone using lives. If users were happy with their phone with the version of Android it had, why does the release of a new Android version by Google suddenly make them unhappy?

Application security fixes come through Play Store, 10 months ago I got Maps update on Gingerbread. So this cannot be the excuse. OS security issues are rare.

Correction!

[KreAture]

The sentence
"Those OEMs that choose not to comply lose access to Google Mobile Services (GMS) apps like Gmail, Google Play, and YouTube."
should really read:
"The customers of those OEMs that choose not to comply lose access to Google Mobile Services (GMS) apps like Gmail, Google Play, and YouTube."

That's the sad truth...

Re:Do no EViL(tm)

[soccerisgod]

Apple is like a wife; lets you think you'll get some for all you're paying, but you end up badly screwed.

Pro tip: get out of the basement and discover that women are not the enemy!

Good & Bad News

[business_kid]

The Good news is they are getting tough with OEMs. Let them start in China. Companies like Rockchip, a chinese SoC manufacturer, sell their boards into tablets, cubes and all sorts of gimmicks, but never update. I have such a tablet with Android-4.2.2. No update available, and there are shameful holes in security. It has proprietary modules which prevent using CM or other software. As for the bad news - 20 google apps - well, that's a shameful waste of memory, but I can always delete the shortcuts :-). Perhaps even the packages too.

Google crapps

[rlh100]

We used to have crapware preinstalled on Windoze PCs.
Now we get google crapps preinstalled on our smartphones.

This.

[DarthVain]

I have to routinely ignore "reminders" from Samsung to register, and/or agree to various things... it is annoying. Provided Google does it in a smart way, this is likely a good thing as it may make individual OEM's stop some annoying practices, which Google is correct, degrades the user experience and hurts the Android branding. If OEM's don't like it I am sure they are welcome to come up with their own OS to run on their devices.