Slashdot Mirror
Google May Have To Make Major Changes To Android in Response To a Forthcoming Fine in Europe (washingtonpost.com)
Google could face a new record penalty this month from European regulators for forcing its search and Web-browsing tools on the makers of Android-equipped smartphones and other devices, potentially resulting in major changes to the world's most widely deployed mobile operating system. From a report: The punishment from Margrethe Vestager, the European Union's competition chief, is expected to include a fine raging into the billions of dollars, according to people familiar with her thinking, marking the second time in as many years that the region's antitrust authorities have found that Google threatens corporate rivals and consumers. At the heart of the E.U.'s looming decision are Google's policies that pressure smartphone and tablet manufacturers that use Google's Android operating system to pre-install the tech giant's own apps. In the E.U.'s eyes, device makers such as HTC and Samsung face an anti-competitive choice: Set Google Search as the default search service and offer Google's Chrome browser, or lose access to Android's popular app store. Lacking that portal, owners of Android smartphones or tablets can't easily download games or other apps -- or services from Google's competitors offered by third-party developers.
"Posted from my Samsung-Android smartphone."
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
Nothing.
The EU are trying to avoid a Microsoft Windows situation on mobile phones.
With Android being the only realistic OS available outside of Apple, it seems like a smart move to avoid another monopoly.
Well I imagine Google might have to Fork android in EU then. That's probably the best solution as I don't think anyone else in the world wants to use an Android phone without the Android store.
So let me get this straight. Google provides a free as in beer OS (some of it is OSS but not all) for mobile and strong-arms OEM's to included ALL of Google services or else no app store and THAT is bad because even though there are competing app stores they suck. While Apple doesn't even allow competing app stores, browsers (a wrapper called chrome on Apples engine is not a competing browser), or scripting languages and that is OK? I welcome the scrutiny on Google but lets get real.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Nothing.
The EU are trying to avoid a Microsoft Windows situation on mobile phones.
With Android being the only realistic OS available outside of Apple, it seems like a smart move to avoid another monopoly.
But Apple is 10 times worse. There is no alternative app store at all for Apple. Android has some minor hoops but it's fairly simple to download apps from Amazon or several of the other third party android app stores. There is no way to replace siri with google or alexa. There is no way to change the default map program, the default email program, or the default anything. Android isn't without its flaws but it even lets you replace the desktop manager. It is infinitely more flexible and open than Apple.
Why go after Google first when Apple is by far the bigger offender?
Go on Google Play and download Firefox or Opera. Problem solved. Why should Google be punished for wanting users to have a consistent UX rather than whatever crapware manufacturers and/or carrier want to load up your phone with?
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
bureaucrat: wow we could really use a cash infusion. who has money?? Google has money!!! Let's fine them! We just need to create a reason and we'll be cash rich in a few months!!
if this succeeds in making them money don't worry, they will get around to apple.
Apple is not "far bigger". Kind of hard to be "biggest" offernder when 4 Androids are sold for every iPhone. And all those Androids have one common theme - all the manufacturers have to obey Google's rules to put Google's stuff on it.
And the reality of life is, if you don't have the Play Store, you don't have crap.
You have to remember this probably came out of a long-simmering debate when Nokia tried to release their phone with their maps instead of Google's...
And Apple may be a monopoly, but it's only one phone out of a sea of phones. Just like you don't complain when you buy a Ford Mustang and it has a Ford motor inside of it, or that Ford dealerships only provide Ford options even if you wanted that JVC headunit.
That doesn't make any sense. Android is Google's product and if you're an OEM you are free not to use it and come up with your own mobile OS. If you use Android, Google politely requires you to adhere to their rules because that's the only way to provide a high-quality OS and good experience.
I don't understand this antitrust lawsuit against Google at all. What are Europe authorities advocating for? For breaking Android up into incompatible versions? For breaking up Google's Android department?
> Why go after Google first when Apple is by far the bigger offender?
Because Apple's marketshare is not much.You are allowed to do anti-competitive things unless you are a monopoly.
Being a monopoly doesn't break anti-trust laws by itself. Doing anti-competitive doesn't break anti-trust laws by itself. It's when both happen together is when it's a problem.
Citation needed. Please list a case where the EU fined a company because they weren't native and/or had no evidence against them.
Methinks you are talking out of your ass.
Android is given out to OEMs more or less for free yet Android's development costs quite a lot of money. In its turn, you're right, Google demands that you use/prominently feature some of their services. Again, you may freely use core Android OS sans Google Play and associated services.
Tell me again about the "coercion" and how it relates to the fact that no one forces any OEM to use Android at all.
And allow the other one (Apple) to continue monopolising and suing third service outfits unabated.
Surely the OEMs can still install their own browsers and stores and won't lose the ability to offer the user the ability to configure those at first start?
When shit hits the fan get some of these https://youtu.be/pY-GncsZ-UE
Don't use Android then. Also, Google doesn't lock anyone from providing their own software. Google wants their software to be included by default and they have the right to.
It's freaking Open Source. you can get what you need to build your own here https://source.android.com/
If a manufacturer wants something else they can damn well build it themselves.
That is pretty much like saying "Don't use Windows" in the PC market, which translates to "leave the market".
If I read you correctly, Apple doesn't provide any choice and Europe is OK with them, Google indeed provides choice with the only exception of mandating that their own apps must be installed, and Google is suddenly a monopoly? Also, who or what forces OEMs to install Android in the first place?
If Europe wants a third major OS/player in the mobile market then why don't they create one?
This time it's not MsMash's fault - it's like that in the original!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
They should fine then $1 for every GB they wasted on people's phones with this garbage. Google photos is using 150MB on my phone and I've never opened the app. I've never even used that service in a browser. I don't use it at all. WHAT COULD IT POSSIBLY BE STORING?!
Android is (according to others here - I have not verified) four times bigger measured by the number of units sold. It is pretty logical that EU goes after the biggest player first.
Really? What about f-droid and more than a dozen of other app stores?
Sounds like exactly what happened in the mid-late 90s, when MS did the same thing with Internet Explorer on Windows. I didn't agree with the bundling then, and I don't now either.
Google hasn't yet gotten to the level of skulduggery that Microsoft approached in the 90s/early 2000s with it's legendary abuse of monopoly power. I'm not really sure it's even possible to get to that level for Google, but I'm also not opposed to some Google smack-down either.
The bigger threat is likely Facebook. Google could be replaced tomorrow with something else, and it wouldn't much matter. There's little tying anyone to Google that couldn't just be walked away from relatively easily. Facebook on the other hand has most of the population hooked on FB like a junkie on heroin.
Fuck no.
There's one just one Windows which is developed solely by Microsoft.
Then, there's Android which you can perfectly use without Google services and which is free to download, modify and compile.
Something is really messed up in your head.
The problem is that Android is (as I wrote) now the only realistic alternative for mobile phone manufacturers.
Is it in the interest of consumers that Google gets more power than they already have?
Was it good that Microsoft ruled the PC platform for 20 years?
Have you compared Apple's profits vs. the rest of the mobile industry? Apple's margins are insane in comparison to everyone else. Android OEMs basically give out their devices for free. And what about Apple using all the loopholes in the world not to pay taxes? Why isn't Europe fining Apple for billions of dollars because in the real world Apple is a far worse offender.
Ad hominem attack. You lost.
In practice there's no difference - their stuff is so bloated there's no space left for anything else.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Hitherto, Google has made the entire source code available almost the same day they released a new version.
Yes. They're large.
Monopoly, though, is defined by market share.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
That's not Google's fault.
Microsoft still does rule the PC platform. They're also trying to pull an Apple/Google by forcing patches, tying their search bar to cortana instead of being a basic explorer search, trying to push people onto the Windows store, etc.
Why isn't there an antitrust lawsuit against Apple whose App Store is 100^100 more closed/restricted than the Android ecosystem?
Because Apple doesn't license its OS to third parties under coercive terms? As far as I can tell, Google is welcome to do whatever they like with something like Pixel or Nexus.
You mean the Apache license 2.0 is coercive now? The majority of the code is released under Apache 2.0 with a handful of the Linux Kernel things being GPL.
As I understand Android licenses, you are free to use and modify the baseline code while keeping your hardware designs closed. Doesn't sound too coercive to me.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Windows is still a monopoly in regard to x86 desktop hardware. Windows has so many limitations and obligations, Android pales in comparison. When was the last lawsuit against Microsoft? Or they are regularly paying billions of dollars in fines to EU each year? Enlighten me please.
If Microsoft would behave like this and dominate 80% of the mobile market, just as it once dominated the Web with IE, people here would scream.
Somehow, Google with its historic "don't be evil" seems to have an unlimited amount of credit here.
Monopolies are always bad. Monopolies lead to power, and power corrupts, always.
Facts please.
I have a 32GB Android phone and Google apps consume less than 500MB of space (including updates which still leave built-in apk files intact - that's the only way to provide safe and secure factory reset and revert to the original apps if their new versions misbehave).
That is correct.
But as endpoint computing has moved over to mobile platforms, their real power has been severly deminished.
And as we move even further over to mobile platforms, we may not want Google to be the Microsoft of mobile phones.
The primary issue the EU is arguing is that Google uses a monopoly position to encourage or force hardware vendors to include as default certain features in Android OS. Other software monopolies have tried to solve this anti-competitive issue by giving a selection of competitive options, even if a preferred option is listed first or has advertising to suggest choosing the preferred option.
The Microsoft Windows anti-competitive EU (2009) and US(1998) case was this issue but also the fact that IE was baked into the operating system. That fundamentally the Internet Explorer browser was not an uninstallable core part of the operating system. It was found that it is somewhat OK to have software that was not uninstallable and included as long as choice was presented and the product was not default. The same ideas are being extended to any competitive service such as a search engine. It is worth noting that Microsoft didn't exactly play nice after the ruling and in 2013 was fined $732 Million. In all Microsoft paid about 3.4 billion in fines between 1998 and 2009.
The google search engine API might be baked into Android and not uninstallable. However competitive search engine and browser choices would be to need to be presented. My guess is that like Microsoft, Google won't be forced to change the google search bar functionality as it is baked into the Google search suite. However folks may in the future be presented with competitive search bar options such as Amazon or Microsoft. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out as surely Apple, Microsoft, Amazon and others have a key interest in the rulings only harming Google. But not harming so much that they are not able to continue using and gaining from the Android platform.
As others have said, the primary competition in the mobile smartphone market is far less open. Their market share and owning the hardware potentially being their only excuse.
There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principle
No he didn't, you dipshit.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Due to the network effect that is hardly possible today.
Amazon is big enough to have a limited amount of Android fork for its own devices, that are kind of dedicated to accessing Amazon services. Other manufacturers are not in that position.
Just like it was 100% feasible to create a windows API clone (remember reactos?), it just wasn't practical, and MSFT had (and still has) a damanging monopoly for office software.
Now Google has gained an almost monopoly for the mobile market, which might be even more significant than any monopoly MSFT ever had. It is trying very hard to cement and even expand it.
It is clear that something must be done. People should not be so short sighted and believe that a Google monopoly won't be a problem.
Monopolies always lead to problems, too much concentration of power, and all the other problems that flow from that.
A free market economy can only function with healthy competition. For that reason, authorities in market econoies have always tried to prevent, or otherwise dissolve, monopolies.
If this would not be done, the company will become more powerful than the state, than the democratically chosen government, and corrupt it. It will end in fascism.
Because Apple isn't using their app store to force anyone (corporate) to do anything. They sell a phone, that allows you to download apps from their store.
Google is in trouble because they leverage one product to force other businesses to use their other products.
If that were solely the reason then why wouldn't they have gone after Apple instead? Apple's cash reserves are something like $270 billion vs Alphabet at something like $70 billion.
and Google is suddenly a monopoly?
At 75% market share vs Apple at around 24%? Yes, much more of a monopoly.
Yes, he did.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Wow!
Are you saying Google will be better off by making Android a closed platform just like Apple does? Craptastic thinking on behalf of European authorities! Maybe Google should listen to them and do just that.
> And the reality of life is, if you don't have the Play Store, you don't have crap.
And if you want to sell an Android phone without access to Google's services, good fucking luck. Any manufacturer who wants to sell a non-google Android phone cannot sell an Android phone with Google Play access. Amazon had to find a manufacturer who could build their phone without having to worry about losing their Google Play access.
"Tread softly because you tread on my dreams"
But the Android trademark is not free to use. To be able to call what you ship "Android" you have to agree to additional terms beyond the Apache license.
Because Apple is a closed ecosystem owned and controlled by apple. Apple doesn't let others make hardware for their software.
Where as Android is open source and has plenty of hardware from a a number of different companies, including Samsung, htc, Sony, Motorola, etc.
That's the difference. Google is locking out other companies and businesses from using software that they are allowed to provide.
Apple is completely closed and controlled by Apple and won't even let other companies use their software or create hardware for their platform and somehow you think Google is locking other companies out?
Would you rather Google become a closed ecosystem and ban other manufacturers from using their software?
Your argument makes no sense. You are basically saying that because Google is more open it has to be even more open while Apple is completely closed so that's ok.
âthey have the right toâ ... citation needeed, because apparently not all authorities tasked with handling monopoly malpractices happen to agree.
I have previously worked as a lawyer dealing with the compliance of IT systems (I now work in another area). So I might be coming at this from a different angle to some other people, but nevertheless, let me explain:
1. The issue with Google is that whilst their product is nominally opensource, for use they effectively force companies selling hardware which runs their "platform" to provide a monitization route for them, and requires end users to enter into an agreement with them, in order to allow then to use the device.
2. By refusing to allow hardware vendors to modify the stack in any way (and remove specific google products and services whilst retaining others) they are restricting the hardware vendors from selling platforms to customers to customer specification.
3. If a customer buys hardware from a specific vendor, then it is reasonable for that specific vendor to do whatever they like to tie the product to their other products (say Samsung insisting on using samsung software, or Apple insisting you use Apple software) because the principle contract is effectively with Samsung or Apple, via the reseller.
4. Thus what you have is a non-involved party, requiring that hardware vendors require users to enter a contract with the uninvolved party them via alternative (coercive) means with the hardware vendor. That is the nub of the anti-competitive behaviour.
5. Apple cannot be "anti-competitive" in selling their own product set up how they want, because it's inherently their own product. If they were to begin licensing IOS to other hardware manufacturers, then behaviour limiting the licensee from amending IOS would (arguably) be anti competitive.
BS. "Lacking that portal, owners of Android smartphones or tablets can't easily download games or other apps -- or services from Google's competitors offered by third-party developers."
Entirely untrue. Enable "allow unknown sources" (or grant "install unknown apps" on Oreo), and you can easily download apps from non-Google source. Amazon is a competitor, and there are others.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I guess the crux of the matter here is the fact that android is a open software with other device manufacturers can license and build a resellable mobile device with. Where as apple is the only manufacturer out that making (Apple owned) iOS mobile devices. There's no competition and hence you can't say they are not "playing fair" with others.
I'm sure there are plenty of manufacturers that would love to create hardware that runs iOS. The reason Apple has no competition is because they refuse to allow any competition by locking out competition. Google is playing much more fair than Apple. They allow anyone to use their core OS even Amazon one of their primary competitors.
More or less free is not exactly free...
"Google demands that you use/prominently feature some of their services. Again, you may free use core Android OS sans Google Play and associated services. Tell me again about the coercion."
I think you are incorrect here and that is the crux of the problem. Device manufacturers that want to sell even ONE device that includes Google Play et al are seemingly forbidden from offering other devices that compete with those services.
"Notably, it seems that the AFA is a company-wide document, binding a manufacturer for all of its present
and even future devices. Thus, AFA obligations apply to the entire operations of the companies that sign."
-source: https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pu...
> You wanna use our app store, you gotta install our search.
> Apple doesn't do that.
Actually if you want to use Apple's app store, you DO have to have their search. Also their voice assistant, their messaging app, their camera app, their email app, their news app, their hardware ...
You can't get a phone with Apple's app store installed unless it also has 36 other Apple apps bundled too.
Google says "our app store is part of our bundle of five or six apps". Apple bundles 37 apps with its app store. So Apple does the same thing, times six.
The problem is that Android is (as I wrote) now the only realistic alternative for mobile phone manufacturers.
Is it in the interest of consumers that Google gets more power than they already have?
Was it good that Microsoft ruled the PC platform for 20 years?
If you want to decrease the market share of Android, probably the quickest way to do this would be to force iOS to allow other manufacturers to create hardware for their device.
Apple has no incentive to allow this because they currently have insanely high profit margins.
we don’t do supernovae on Slashdot.
When I install Windows, I expect it to have a web browser. I don't care if it is IE or EDGE - if I don't want to use what's provided, the first thing I do is download an alternative. But I can't do that if the operating system is crippled.
Same with Android. If I buy an Android phone, I expect it to have certain defaults, and I expect it to have the Play store. From there I can go and do whatever I want to configure it to my needs.
Yes, there are problems with limited choice - but there are also practical problems with switching between platforms.
But ultimately most people look at these type of decisions and don't see any benefit in them - if anything, they see it as something that undermines their expectations.
Apple is not forcing anything on third parties. They sell a complete product and don't license their software. Also, Android is a de facto monopoly whereas iOS isn't. Google is being targetted because they're taking advantage of their play store being the most widely used to strongarm OEMs into installing their rubbish apps.
Android is Google's product
Well that couldn't be more wrong. Android is an OSS operating system.
https://source.android.com/
Manufacturers like HTC and Samsung take AOSP* and customize** it for their devices. They then pre-load the Google suite of apps like Maps and App Market, etc. Google apps are NOT part of Android proper.
Now, Google employees are by far the largest contributors to Android and the surrounding ecosystem. But nonetheless the source is sitting right there for any company to take and build their own product (which many companies do). You just don't get the Google apps with it (unless you pass their test suite and agree to the licensing terms).
* In some cases the initial code comes from a chip manufacturer like Qualcomm who has tailored AOSP for their chipsets.
** This isn't just UI work but can include things like hardware drivers as well. Android doesn't come with a bazillion drivers like Linux or Windows.
What are Europe authorities advocating for? For breaking Android up into incompatible versions?
They are advocating for Google not to require Google app A if you pre-install Google app B. They want the flexibility to say install Google Maps without Google Search. Today Google requires them as a bundle.
What a walled garden is, how they're constructed, and why. Android and iOS are both walled gardens, and even Microsoft is attempting to make Windows a walled garden.
All garden walls crumble; just look at IBM and AOL.
Facts please.
I have a 32GB Android phone and Google apps consume less than 500MB of space (including updates which still leave built-in apk files intact - that's the only way to provide safe and secure factory reset and revert to the original apps if their new versions misbehave).
Must be a magic phone. I have 16GB phone and the mandatory google apps take up 10+GB or space.
You as an individual have to, yes. Antitrust law doesn't care about you.
You as a company do not. If you build a phone you actually can use Darwin, but you can't use any of Apple's apps, their GUI, or their store. They won't force you to use any of them either.
Have you compared Apple's profits vs. the rest of the mobile industry? Apple's margins are insane in comparison to everyone else. Android OEMs basically give out their devices for free. And what about Apple using all the loopholes in the world not to pay taxes? Why isn't Europe fining Apple for billions of dollars because in the real world Apple is a far worse offender.
So, you're just complaining that Apple has a more successful business model than their copycats.
The EU are trying to avoid a Microsoft Windows situation on mobile phones.
The Microsoft Windows situation went like this:
1. MIcrosoft was falsely accused of 'monopoly' because at the time of the accusation a large majority of computer users happened to be running Windows.
2. In a Kurt Vonnegut-style attempt to settle the dispute, MS was made to cripple its virus detection by pulling it out of Windows and replacing it with a motley band of third-party antivirus systems. The best of these merely sucked, as opposed to fatally bogging down PCs.
3. Other operating systems sprang up in competition with Windows and, finding that Microsoft was not actually emitting any special radiation that prevented people from using competing systems, began to draw off market share.
4. Windows still has a majority of users, but nobody cares any more because the other operating systems work so much better. People use Windows because it comes "for free" on their new laptop and because they have to run their legacy software.
Shit, I think the Google Keyboard takes up more then that, especially if you check the cache, which is not simple to clear.
Cheap storage VM.
The point of antitrust law is that if you have a (near) monopoly in one area, you are not allowed to (ab)use that to also gain a monopoly in another area. Antitrust law always removes freedom of enterprise for the (assumed) benefits of consumers. The justification for this is that free markets work well iff there is healthy competition; and that if left alone companies tend to concentrate by merger or natural growth and then get monopoly pricing power (see e.g. the history of US railways). If there is only two companies left, they have a very strong incentive to merge because as monopolists they can make much more profit than when they are in competition with each other. So, in reaction to the abuses of (especially) 19th century capitalism the government stepped in to break up companies, prevent mergers, and restrict the freedom of (near) monopolists if break up is not sensible or not needed.
Concretely, it is fine if a random linux distro would by default install its own browser. However, if MS by default installs its own browser on its (near) monopoly desktop OS, it is abusing its OS market power to increase its market share in the browser market.
So, yes, if android didn't have a (near) monopoly there would be no problem. However, now that it is a near monopoly they lose the freedom to use their mobile OS market share to effectively push their other services onto users.
No, claiming that he had a bad argument because something was messed up in his head would be an ad hominem. Claiming something is messed up in his head because he had a bad argument is not a logical fallacy.
Umm, my phone has only f-droid on it and no google play store. Works fine.
Monopolies are always bad. Monopolies lead to power, and power corrupts, always.
You need to look at the big picture. Google provides an entire mobile operating system, free, including the source and the licensing to use the source however you want (see: Amazon). To anyone. Then they provide an entire suite of apps, again FREE (but no the source).
The Google suite of apps only makes money off search. Most of them have zero advertising. If you allow companies to take most of the Google apps then leave out the one app that makes Google any money in the whole deal, what do you think is going to happen? What's the end game? To have Google stop providing an entire operating system for free? To have them start charging you $ to use *any* of the apps?
Yes, Windows is still a monopoly. It's why there are special editions of Windows without Media Player and IE by default for EU regions. And even Korea gets its own version (The K version).
The big thing that MIcrosoft did was stop leveraging - that is, using their power in one area to distort the marked in another - like bundling a browser and media player with the operating system, which distorts both markets and why Microsoft offers versions of Windows with both disabled by default.
Google is attempting to leverage a much-desired feature (i.e., Play store) to insert their other services (e.g., YouTube, GMail, Drive, etc) along side it by forcing manufacturers who want Play Store to make those apps one-tap away at most, punishing OEMs and ODMs who are Play-licensed to not produce any vanilla Android without Play (see Amazon) and of course, defaulting to Google search.
Nokia a few years ago wanted to do just that - replace Google Maps with their HERE Maps. Google slapped them down - they could not license Play unless Google Maps was a part of it, and it had to be default - you can't bundle your product in and have it be default.
Of all the manufacturers and ODMs out there, only Samsung has possibly the most complete collection of replacement apps, so they could theoretically dump Google at any time.
If you want to decrease the market share of Android, probably the quickest way to do this would be to force iOS to allow other manufacturers to create hardware for their device.
Can't be done, legally, and thank $Deity it can't.
No more than the EU can force Samsung to allow other companies to make their smartphones under license.
See how absurd it sounds when the word "Apple" isn't in the sentence?
However, IMHO, this is an absurd position by the EU. Samsung, HTC, LG, et al. are absolutely free to write their OWN mobile OS. After all, one could start with any flavor of Embedded Linux, or like Apple did, a Mach/BSD Unix, and write their OWN mobile OS. Apple did. What's THEIR excuse?
But if Apple suddenly wanted to crush the rest of the Android market by releasing an Android-based phone, then, just like the other guys, THEY would have to embed Google's App Suite, too, or at least secure an Agreement with Google to exempt them from that requirement. But the Google App Suite is simply the "price" of having Google pay $$$$$$$$$$$ to develop and maintain Android.
Since any OEM is free to write their OS, then there IS no Monopoly, regardless of the size of Google's marketshare.
You really need to look up what that actually means ...
I've had a Samsung during the S5 generation and hated that I couldn't get rid of their crap apps and put Google apps on. I now have a Pixel XL, and it is much nicer without the Samsung junk. I guess I could have rooted the Samsung and put Google on, but why should I have to do that?
Google started forcing the manufacturers to be more standard because Android is not a monopoly - competition with Apple forced it. In terms of what matters, profit, not gross, Apple is so far out in front that Android could be considered as always fighting for survival. Apple is always a threat. Android badly needed a more unified front and Google has been answering that need.
At this point, bringing back the fragmentation would either kill the gains that Android has made so that Apple never has a true competitor or force Google to just go heavy into the phone business themselves and encourage the other Android suppliers to just go their own way. Neither of those outcomes would be good for the consumer.
And allow the other one (Apple) to continue monopolising and suing third service outfits unabated.
Surely the OEMs can still install their own browsers and stores and won't lose the ability to offer the user the ability to configure those at first start?
In case you haven't noticed, iOS has alternative browsers, and there are alternative iOS App Stores (F/OSS Repositories and .ipa Repositories) and independent websites galore.
But as usual, Slashtards have Willful Blindness when it comes to ANYTHING Apple.
Stating that something is wrong with your head - because you made a bad statement - is not an ad hominem attack no matter how you try to youtube (that's not a valid source) yourself out of it.
Then to boot, your fallacy is the Fallacy Fallacy.
Back to school for you, moron.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
All the EU needs to do to avoid that is stipulate Google must keep the Android Open Source Project (AOSP) repository going and up to date. Then manufacturers (or anyone else for that matter) can fork that and build their own Android-compatible OS (without Google Services).
So it's 100% feasible today to fork Android, and make a completely no-Google competing product that Google gets 0% of the revenue from. This is what Amazon does with FireOS.
Exactly!
And at least the Samsungs, LGs and HTC of the world are big enough to pull that off, if Amazon can contract out an OS, so can they, FFS!
Apple wrote their mobile OS FROM SCRATCH (as much from "scratch" as ANY OS is made, that is); so why can the rest of the Freeloaders?
This is exactly it. It's not the underlying Android OS, it's the Google Play Services -- the middleware that enables smartphone ecosystem functionality -- that's the key issue. Google's been moving more and more functionality into that, and then locks manufacturers down in the exact same way Microsoft used to do with various hardware manufacturers vis-a-vis Windows licenses.
Frankly, we would be a in a much healthier place if Android OS was strong and it was forced to allow a choice of various middleware systems. Don't like Google Services? Use something else. True freedom even if you're not compiling your own smartphone OS yourself.
To do this will require serious anti-trust work, DOJ oversight, demands that non-Google-Inc functions be placed in the OS layer, and a removal of restrictions on hardware makers by Google.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
apple hides this kind of stuff under R&D
Citation, Hater.
"I have a 32GB Android phone and Google apps consume less than 500MB of space"
You lying sack of shit.
Fact #1: GOOGLE PLAY SERVICES ALONE is 538 MB.
Fact #2: Chrome is 203 MB.
Fact #3: "Google" itself is 214 MB.
Fact #4: Google Maps is 181 MB.
With 4 facts we're more than double your '500MB' bullshit claim. All that took was sorting by fucking size in the app manager.
Fact #5: You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Why isn't there an antitrust lawsuit against Apple whose App Store is 100^100 more closed/restricted than the Android ecosystem? I really don't understand why Google isn't allowed to dictate its own rules in regard to Android - if you don't like them, you're free to use the Android core sans Google Play and associated services. What the hell is going on?
And yet you would no doubt Champion if Apple was having this handed to them, even though they are not the dominant mobile Platform, wouldn't you?
Android is given out to OEMs more or less for free yet Android's development costs quite a lot of money. In its turn, you're right, Google demands that you use/prominently feature some of their services. Again, you may freely use core Android OS sans Google Play and associated services.
Tell me again about the "coercion" and how it relates to the fact that no one forces any OEM to use Android at all.
On this, we both agree.
"You are allowed to do anti-competitive things unless you are a monopoly."
Wrong.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
But the Android trademark is not free to use. To be able to call what you ship "Android" you have to agree to additional terms beyond the Apache license.
So, the fuck WHAT?
In case you haven't noticed, EVERY time you see a Logo on something; you can BET a License (a/k/a $$$) and other stipulations, was involved.
Look at the average BD/DVD Player. Mine has like 10 Logos silk-screened across the top front. Do you think those Logos didn't come with "Strings"? If so, you are naive beyond belief.
You are righ, but that is of littele confort to you ore anyone else that gets hit by an exploit known since 2105,I admit Apple gas not been perfect n this respect eiter, but the generaly have a better track record when it comes to updates that many manufacturors using Android. Are apples app store polecies to restrictive? Frankly I fon’t know enugh about it to offer an opinion
Sorry if I went ot here, that was not my intent
If I read you correctly, Apple doesn't provide any choice and Europe is OK with them, Google indeed provides choice with the only exception of mandating that their own apps must be installed, and Google is suddenly a monopoly? Also, who or what forces OEMs to install Android in the first place?
If Europe wants a third major OS/player in the mobile market then why don't they create one?
What you say is true; but it doesn't involve Apple. But I DO agree that Google isn't forcing Android on these OEMs, and IMHO, the EU should FOAD when it comes to a PRIVATE contract negotiated between two PRIVATE parties. If $OEM and Google are both happy, then the EU should just BUTT-OUT!
There is ABSOLUTELY no "Public Policy" issue here, either. The EU's citizenry is not being forced to buy an Android phone, no more than they are forced to buy an iOS phone.
The EU is the most HORRIBLE example of the "Nanny State" mentality on the planet. They aren't EXACTLY "Totalitarian"; but they are EXTREMELY Regulation-Happy and Litigious. And once they have spoken, there is very little that a Corporation, or even a GROUP of Companies, can do about it but whine.
Those numbers include cache and user data. But they're actually not far off: Play Store is 414MB and Chrome is 193MB. Still, it's a far cry from 'taking all of the space'.
Try asking your parents or grandparents how they'll install a new app, and when they say they'll use the Play Store (I'm assuming they're not saying they'll call you), say "Other than that." Make sure to snap a picture of the deer-in-headlights look you're gonna get.
Any Android phone that gets so much as RUMORED to not have access to the Play Store is not going to get sold at all.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
More people more interested in demonstrating their abusive vocabulary than discussing the subject.
Oh well.
I did. https://www.google.com/search?...
Again, you are not being forced to call it "android" if you use the android code base for your device. I fail to see how this is coercive, especially given the other major competitors don't share *anything* close to their source code.
Didn't Amazon pretty much make a business out of marketing their own essentially android devices w/o having to pony up the fees for the trademark? Heck, I ran a number of android apps from the "play store" on mine....
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Was it good that Microsoft ruled the PC platform for 20 years?
Yes, and it's a good thing they continue to do so. IT/web/PC market expansion was slow until the mid 1990s when Microsoft really started to dominate things. Turns out a common platform really helps industries grow by leaps and bounds. Otherwise you end up with a situation where you have to port your code to 7 different platforms, build 6 different adapter cards for different buses, etc. A common platform is a good thing for nearly any market. You can argue if Microsoft was "good or bad", but the concept of a common OS for 95% of all the world was most definitely a good thing.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
In case you haven't noticed, iOS has alternative browsers
False. They have alternative UIs for the pre-installed WebKit browser engine. Good luck using ANY web browser engine other than the one provided by Apple. Sure, you can put a pretty frame and UI around that engine - but you only get to use one engine - Apple's engine.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Given the current mindset in EU meetings, a billion could be better spent bargaining with member states to not enforce EU decisions.
Can you use a browser engine other than WebKit? Can you use OK Google as the default voice assistant?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Fuck no.
There's one just one Windows which is developed solely by Microsoft.
Then, there's Android which you can perfectly use without Google services and which is free to download, modify and compile.
Something is really messed up in your head.
With this reasoning, 90s Microsoft could have evaded anti trust actions by licensing Windows to Acer, Gateway, Dell, HP, etc., each bolting on their own UI, services, bundled software etc. To get a Microsoft Certified sticker they only have to comply with certain demands... Any one of them could have bundled NetScape, hid the IE shortcut, and disaster averted right?
Yes, the end user can hide the icon, on any platform.
That's not what this is about. It's about you can't buy or sell a new phone with the app store installed unless it also has other apps installed.
Google requires that any phones shipped with its app store also ship with several of Google's apps, and icons for a few more, which aren't actually installed.
Apple requires any phone using its app store to come with 37 Apple apps pre-installed.
Google is giving Android away for free. I guess google could offer two versions of Android. A paid one, and a free, search supported one.
Yes... but were you forced to use Google for that?
If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
I'm guessing that battle took place long before you were born.
Then, there's Android which you can perfectly use without Google services and which is free to download, modify and compile.
However if, as a manufacturer, you want to sell a phone with the Play Store preinstalled you have to also bundle all of Google's other apps and make them the default.
The fact that Android is based on open source is irrelevant as 99.9% of people who buy Android are only interested in the content on the proprietary Play Store.
??? Android has the biggest share in gross dollars and quantity but Apple has the profit because more than half of their sales price per unit is profit.
Android does not come close to dominating the smartphone market in the way that Windows dominates the PC market.
"I have a 32GB Android phone and Google apps consume less than 500MB of space"
You lying sack of shit.
Fact #1: GOOGLE PLAY SERVICES ALONE is 538 MB.
Fact #2: Chrome is 203 MB.
Fact #3: "Google" itself is 214 MB.
Fact #4: Google Maps is 181 MB.
With 4 facts we're more than double your '500MB' bullshit claim. All that took was sorting by fucking size in the app manager.
Fact #5: You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
Actually you assumed something. He could be right.
He never said what version of Android.
The entire Android OS and Apps would fit in 500Mb if you take an early enough version, the question is what is the earliest version a 32Gb phone gets shipped with (assuming some cheap chinese no name brand).
Never assume you have all the facts.
How much of that is actual Google app and how much of that is actually Samsung or HTC crap? Unless you have one of Google's phones, chances are, most of that space is not taken up by vanilla Android apps but by the crap your phone wanted installed to spy on you (or push their stuff).
That would only work if Google builds its own hardware.
To have Google stop providing an entire operating system for free? To have them start charging you $ to use *any* of the apps?
Sounds good to me. I'd gladly pay for the one app that I use, and free up a few GB of useless crap. And if Google wants to charge a reasonable price for the OS, that's fine too.
And once they have spoken, there is very little that a Corporation, or even a GROUP of Companies, can do about it but whine.
As a consumer, I appreciate their efforts to keep the playing field level. Also, as a consumer, I have no need for Google to grow even bigger.
The practice of OS forced bundling and the practice of using one's OS to force lower competition in other non-OS market in favor of one's product is exactely what brought microsoft in hot water. If Android was not an OS sold/licensed/used by other carrier, but only by google like iphone they would be safe. But it isn't and as a monopoly on OS sold to phone carrier, they are not allowed to use that monopoly to enforce their own non-OS app like "maps", or use their OS to gain and force their "map" app over competitive "map" app. This is the SAME SHIT microsoft was stomped upon. And yes there was an apple equivalent at the time the OS Mac were using. Exact same situation god dammit. I am getting old and crotchety to see people of younger generation know-it-all falling into the same trap.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
>Try asking your parents or grandparents how they'll install a new app, and when they say they'll use the Play Store (I'm assuming they're not saying they'll call you), say "Other than that." Make sure to snap a picture of the deer-in-headlights look you're gonna get. That's because Play Store is pre-installed and it's the default. If a manufacturer pre-installs another store, and calls it "Store of Apps", make the icon similar, and the interface as simple, i promise you that his parents and 99.9 of parents wouldn't notice that this isn't Google's. >Any Android phone that gets so much as RUMORED to not have access to the Play Store is not going to get sold at all. This I agree with this.
This would massively reduce the number of devices going to landfill*, and would provide a market for 3rd party OSes.
However, it is clear that Google's behaviour (as in "yer cant have our playstore unless you kiss our butt") is illegal in Europe, and the only question over the potential fine is "does Europe have a big enough bank to hold the loot".
* and by implication, make the phone market follow the PC market where people don't keep replacing perfectly good devices with "new" but worse machines. (2015 PCs had similar specs to 2010 machines, except the screens and keyboards were mostly worse, and the DVD drive was removed - and people wonder why the PC market is in decline?).
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Here in Europe, Android has at least 70% of the market. Most of the iPhones I see have broken screens and flat batteries. You can buy 3 perfectly good Android phones (eg Samsung A* and J* models) for the price of an iPhone. Or 6 rather less appealing models.
And non-iPhone phones are often dual SIM, so you can have different lines for business and pleasure, or use different networks for domestic and overseas calls - given the difference between 3p per minute and 130p per minute, a lot of people find this an attractive feature.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
That is precisely what the EU is asking for.
As it is, if you have the Playstore, you MUST have a load of bloatware too, and Google places a load of other restrictions on the supplier - because "nice phone company you have there, shame if anything should happen to it".
Presumably Google is run by a close relative of Tony Soprano.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
MS original "virus protection" was worthless. In any case, if Windows had anything resembling security, there would not be such a massive problem with malware.
There were a lot of OSes. MS used the reverse "its not done till Lotus won't run" strategies to ensure their own applications would not run on third party OSes (still do), and massive advertising spend to keep competitors out. For years, about half the market thought Windows and MS Office were the same thing - many still do (ask hospital staff or factory floor workers).
Windows still has a majority of users, but nobody cares any more because MS is arm wrestling certain big providers of specialist business software not to release Linux versions, and astroturfing numerous blogs with stories about how people won't pay for Linux software, or can easily hack it because Linux is so "open" that bits of software fall out the bottom of it.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
We are quite happy to have our governments fine Google for raping our privacy and stuffing our phones with bloatware, thanks very much. You can have your school massacres.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
And once they have spoken, there is very little that a Corporation, or even a GROUP of Companies, can do about it but whine.
As a consumer, I appreciate their efforts to keep the playing field level. Also, as a consumer, I have no need for Google to grow even bigger.
When they are truly working to protect the public, then that level of activism is admirable. But too often, they, get caught up in some cause du jour, often at the behest of an overzealous or overambitious small group. And, like the U.S. Congress when it gets like that, then that same zealous mindset can wreak havoc in world markets, and end up actually harming the populace.
What the EU COULD do, is force manufacturers to:
This would massively reduce the number of devices going to landfill*, and would provide a market for 3rd party OSes.
However, it is clear that Google's behaviour (as in "yer cant have our playstore unless you kiss our butt") is illegal in Europe, and the only question over the potential fine is "does Europe have a big enough bank to hold the loot".
* and by implication, make the phone market follow the PC market where people don't keep replacing perfectly good devices with "new" but worse machines. (2015 PCs had similar specs to 2010 machines, except the screens and keyboards were mostly worse, and the DVD drive was removed - and people wonder why the PC market is in decline?).
IMHO, your proposals would likely result in a .00001% reduction in landfilled devices. The vast majority of the populace, even those enlightened souls posting on this site, discard/trade in their old smartphones because they WANT to upgrade. That is the nature of MOST people, sorry.
You cannot force a company to give up IP such as datasheets for baseband and proprietary ICs. And when you are talking about something without ANY real distribution, like Apple's SoCs, there honestly likely isn't even a "Datashert", per se, even for INTERNAL use. There are block diagrams and lists of Registers necessary for the low-level software Devs. to use, but nothing so formal or complete as a true Datasheet. If I were a betting-droid, I would wager a fair amount of Credits on that being the case.
Landfill reduction is FAR better served by programs such as Apple's recycling robots, which can recover a significant percentage (IIRC, around 80-90%) of the materials used in discarded/traded-in iPhones and other Apple devices. In fact, Apple stated that they have a goal by 2025 that their devices will be made almost exclusively with recycled materials.
As for people writing their own OSes: Yeah, that ain't gonna happen. You may think it would; but it won't, sorry.
lol, superb reply!
Wish I had mod points!
I'm personally shocked people aren't happy about this anti-trust lawsuit against Google - it's a long time coming, so about bloody time!
Google is the biggest spyware in the world, and people are happy to be raped and used by them... but if Facebook do it, they're beaten down by governments, the media, and even nerds?!
there's Android which you can perfectly use without Google services and which is free to download, modify and compile.
Which is as about as relevant to the average consumer as saying 'well you can always study Computer Science for a couple of years and program your own Mobile OS...'
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Was it good that Microsoft ruled the PC platform for 20 years?
Yes, and it's a good thing they continue to do so. IT/web/PC market expansion was slow until the mid 1990s when Microsoft really started to dominate things. Turns out a common platform really helps industries grow by leaps and bounds. Otherwise you end up with a situation where you have to port your code to 7 different platforms, build 6 different adapter cards for different buses, etc. A common platform is a good thing for nearly any market. You can argue if Microsoft was "good or bad", but the concept of a common OS for 95% of all the world was most definitely a good thing.
Bravest thing I've ever seen anyone post on Slashdot.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
But Apple is 10 times worse.
For whom and how? Apple are a small player in the Smartphone business with 20% of the market share compared to closer to 80% of Google. So they don't have a monopoly. Apple don't sell iOS to third parties and don't use their market power to contractually oblige anyone to do anything with iOS so there's no antitrust misuse.
This is not about *you*. This is about Samsung, HTC, et al and their dealings with Google. Not all monopoly / anti-trust rulings are about consumers. In fact, most of them are not, and as far as Samsung is concerned Apple bundling doesn't affect them in the slightest.
Don't use Android then. Also, Google doesn't lock anyone from providing their own software.
Sounds good. What's all those alternatives that have similar kinds of market success? Tell me about all those alternative app stores that make non Google supported Android so functional since we all know its about the apps.
You may realise that these decisions have a very very serious impact on your profitability and the reason they do so is because of the market power of the dominant player. Welcome to the world of antitrust laws.
Then, there's Android which you can perfectly use without Google services and which is free to download, modify and compile.
No one cares about Android. The smartphone market isn't about the operating system, it's about the ecosystem. The monopoly here isn't about Android as much as it is about the Appstore.
Something is really messed up in your head.
There's an app for that. But it's only available if you have official Google supported Android.
On what facts are you basing your assumption that the person you're replying to is American? Was it their complete lack of understanding of what socialism is, or the general disconnect from reality?
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
Enlighten me please.
The existence of obligations aren't a problem providing they don't lead directly to vendor lockout. My laptop has a brand new Windows 10 sticker on it, conforms to all the requirements of the Windows 10 hardware certification program, and ... I run Linux on it. Not some major workaround, or jumping through hoops, I just installed Linux. There are even models available from the vendor with Linux pre-installed.
See the difference?
Nope, I have the same problem as GP on a Nexus 5. Google maps alone (before I downgraded it) took almost 500 MB. It's also become incredibly slow, requiring on the order of a minute between launching the app and it starting to show directions.
Because Apple isn't in a monopolistic position. Apple has quite a small marketshare, but Google have an effective monopoly (and an actual monopoly for non-premium devices). It's not about whether Apple is doing anything better or worse, it's about whether Google has an effective monopoly or not. If the situation were reversed (iOS being on 90% of devices), then the EU would be going after Apple.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Do you know what the Fallacy fallacy is? Basically, people don't lose a debate when they use a fallacy. Correctly pointing out a fallacy merely renders that particular statement meaningless, it doesn't even prove that the statement is wrong because fallacious arguments can have true conclusions.
For example:
That's an ad hominem fallacy in an argument, however the conclusion of the argument is true. Ted Nugent has not painted the White House green. That's because citing a fallacy doesn't prove someone or soemthing is wrong, it only shows that the fallacious argument is invalid.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Yeds, and the EU also told them what to do with their browser monopoly.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Apple is completely closed and controlled by Apple and won't even let other companies use their software or create hardware for their platform and somehow you think Google is locking other companies out?
No, Google isn't locking other companies out, however, it is using the dominance of Android to give advantages to the Play Store, Google Maps and Chrome.
Would you rather Google become a closed ecosystem and ban other manufacturers from using their software?
No.
Your argument makes no sense. You are basically saying that because Google is more open it has to be even more open while Apple is completely closed so that's ok.
Yes, that's the way the law looks at it. See the legal issue isn't who is more or less open, it's about using market power to compel the behaviour of other companies. Because Google made Android available to other phone companies, and it is now pretty much the only phone operating system for most of the world's smart phones, they now have a duty to provide a level playing field for applications that run on Android. They can't use their market power in Android to give themselves advantages in other markets (such as application stores, mapping software, and browser software). Ironically, this is a problem caused by Android's success, which is actually likely partially tied to Google's policy of favouring those very same applications.
Apple isn't subject to the same issues because it's all Apple. They aren't forcing any other phone vendors to use the Apple store, Apple map software, or Safari because the don't let anyone else make iPhones. Also iPhones don't have market power because they represent about 15% of the smart phone market. Pretty much the rest is Android giving them close to 85% of the all smart phones and giving Android close to 100% domination of the smart phone OS marketplace (where Apple doesn't compete at all because no one can buy iOS for their non-Apple smart phone at any price)
I have an Android phone and I like Google as a company, but they are misusing their power here, and they should stop doing that. I think Google Play, the Play Store, and Google Maps are all good enough to compete without needing any advantages built into Android, and if competitors rise to challenge them that should actually end up being good for all of us, as competition tends to drive innovation.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Google is the biggest spyware in the world, and people are happy to be raped and used by them...
Careful there big boy, it's not rape when it's consensual. Many people are happy to trade usage information and view ads for free services. You are free to try and convince them that the trade is inequitable, but you can't decide that for them.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
reasonable
What do you think is reasonable for the continued development and maintenance of an entire operating system plus the most complex Android apps and services that run on Android? $20 a month?
Regardless of what you think you want, the answer is almost no one prefers this over an advertising supported model, which is why we have we have a majority ad supported online world. One thing I'm sure of is that Google likes money. If they could make more money by charging outright for Android and Google apps, they'd do it.
Except in China. Phones with no Google Play access are common there because most Google services are blocked from most of the population by the Great Firewall, making a non-Google phone a viable product. The Chinese phones made for export have Google services but there are many domestic-only models that do not.
There is also no meaningful way to replace the web browser. Sure, you can install Chrome or Firefox... but they are bastard versions that use Apple's HTML rendering and Javascript engines. They are really just a reskinning of an old version of Safari - not even the current version, since the services that come with the OS are usually behind. Apple has rigged the game by guaranteeing that any alternative browser will be inferior to their own in the most important ways.
S mode in Windows 10 has a similar restriction that forces developers to use components of Edge. But there aren't enough people using S mode to matter. Chromebooks don't have any way to install an alternative browser at all, aside from using the subsystems for running Android apps or Linux applications.
No, you lying sack of shit. On my phone the facts are:
Fact #1: Google Play Services 73.67 MB + 6.09 MB cache.
Fact #2: I don't have chrome installed but when I had, it was about 150MB including cache (from memory, could be wrong).
Fact #3: "Google" is 30.37 MB. Don't know what it is really...
Fact #4: Google Maps is 92.11 with 3.10 Data and Cache 732 kB. No offline maps since I use OsmAnd for that.
I'm running Lineage OS 14.1 so Android 7.1.2 with some GApps.
Fact #5: You are jumping to conclusions. Are you sure you're not confusing bits with bytes?
The EU governments don't get it.
Google, Wiki and the Internet in general can just forget the EU.
EU citizens will tunnel out of the EU through VPN and other holes.
Meanwhile EU businesses will suffer and fail.
European countries have done this sort of thing before.
The result has always been a brain drain that hurt Europe.
Keep making stupid mistakes, EU. We don't mind.
And you can run your own version of android with your own app store (eg like amazon do)...
Google bundle their apps separately from android, if you want to bundle google's apps you have to follow their rules - the fact that these apps are for android is incidental, google could make a suite of apps for windows or ios and impose the same demands on anyone wanting to bundle them with devices.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
You *could* create your own mobile os relatively easily...
But you'd be fighting an uphill battle to displace an entrenched platform, as the existing platform has all the mindshare, marketing and third party support.
Microsoft with their billions couldn't make a dent in the mobile market with windows phone...
Linux can't make a dent in the desktop market despite being free and having many technical advantages.
Users are locked in, and breaking that lock is extremely difficult.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Common standards are a good thing, providing those standards are open. Being locked in is never a good thing.
We have common standards for most things where there are many suppliers competing to offer compatible products. Televisions, cars etc. Allowing a single for-profit entity to have control over a market is never a good thing.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Apple only exist at the high end of the market competing with flagship phones from samsung and the like, they don't offer any products to compete with the cheap lowend android phones.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
While it's reasonable to expect a working browser (and other such apps) out of the box, you should also be able to fully remove and replace the default one, or choose a distribution which doesn't have it. You shouldn't be forced to keep 2 browsers (or anything else) installed because you don't like the supplied one.
But this problem is not with android...
OEMs are free to provide android on their devices, they can remove any of the default apps or replace them with apps of their own choosing.
Separately from android, google make a bundle of their own applications which can be installed on android. If you want to distribute these applications then you must distribute them all, and comply with various other restrictions.
This case is about application software, not about the android os itself.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
You *could* create your own mobile os relatively easily...
But you'd be fighting an uphill battle to displace an entrenched platform, as the existing platform has all the mindshare, marketing and third party support.
Microsoft with their billions couldn't make a dent in the mobile market with windows phone...
Linux can't make a dent in the desktop market despite being free and having many technical advantages.
Users are locked in, and breaking that lock is extremely difficult.
Nonsense.
People switch heir Mobile platforms in BOTH directions ALL the time.
I didn't go off subject - as you can see, that was my first post in this particular thread, so, uh, yea, try again when you have actual reading comprehension.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Not a version that would currently be operating anywhere except a 3rd world country. Even my old single-core 512MB RAM Gingerbread, on a base refresh, the installed/updated set of Google-included crap is over 2GB on the 4GB internal flash.
Don't need to assume shit when I already checked that. Sorry, try again!
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Ah, Lineage, the piece of junk that doesn't work on half the hardware I've tried flashing it to.
Meanwhile, I can still drop CyanogenMod on my fucking NOOK COLOR and it runs faster than an iPhone 4S.
Come back when you use a real Droid distro.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Because Apple manufactures ite own phone.
In case of Android, Google gives OS with restrictions to manufacturers leading to unfair practices.
What is it with all this faulty reason? Google gives OS with restrictions to manufacturers. Apple restricts manufacturers from even using their OS.
How exactly is Google's less restrictive model somehow more unfair? Would you rather they also not allow third party manufacturers?
Users are locked in, and breaking that lock is extremely difficult.
Nonsense.
People switch heir Mobile platforms in BOTH directions ALL the time.
Both as in only two. The lock is all the apps on the 2 major app stores. That being said, there is really a third one. Amazon is doing pretty well. Amazon did it by being sourcecode/binary compatible with android. It is much easier to get developers on your platform if they don't have to write a whole new app to support it. You need to either go the route of Microsoft and create a cross platform development system or make your new OS really really easy for developers to port their existing apps to. Most developers are not going to have a problem supporting a third OS even with very few users as long as it is still cost effective.
and as far as Samsung is concerned Apple bundling doesn't affect them in the slightest.
Of course it does. Apple commands huge profit margins because it is the only alternative to Android. Samsung can't get near those profit margins because it has to compete with all the other manufacturers. If samsung could license and build an IOS phone then not only would samsung have an expanded market but Apple would no longer have a monopoly on IOS and would lose their huge profit margins. Apple's market share suffers a little because it can't offer the huge selection of hardware that Android's large number of manufacturers do but it makes up for it by being the only other shop in town. It's like a town with 25 motel 6s and 1 holiday inn. The holiday inn is going to get a certain number of people almost regardless of price because there are going to be people who don't like motel 6. As long a the town is restricted to only 2 chains, the owner of the holiday inn would be stupid to let someone else build a holiday inn and compete with them.
Because Apple isn't in a monopolistic position. Apple has quite a small marketshare, but Google have an effective monopoly (and an actual monopoly for non-premium devices). It's not about whether Apple is doing anything better or worse, it's about whether Google has an effective monopoly or not. If the situation were reversed (iOS being on 90% of devices), then the EU would be going after Apple.
The correct term is duopoly. Apple could double their market share tomorrow if they opened IOS to third party manufacturers but it would hurt their profit margins. Apple is doing just fine. As an article posted a few days ago, Apple has managed to make the iphone a luxury item and can command a premium. Just like any other luxury brand, it has no desire to flood the market with cheap versions of itself even if doing so could give it 50% market share.
Of course it does. Apple commands huge profit margins because it is the only alternative to Android. Samsung can't get near those profit margins because it has to compete with all the other manufacturers.
A cool story which has nothing to do with antitrust. Anti-trust is based on market dominance being used for unfair advantage. Apple doesn't have that dominance.
Apple doesn't have a monopoly on iOS. You don't have a monopoly on a product, you have a monopoly in a market of which Apple has neither one in Smarphones, nor in App stores. Don't missuse the word and it all becomes clear.
Today's logical fallacy was brought to you by the letters w, h, a (twice), t (twice), b, o, u, i, s, and m.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Really interesting post to read! However, allow me to disagree *slightly*. I dont believe the issue lies in Lineage itself (as your wording seemingly suggest). I believe the issue lies in the media you used to burn the Lineage image to. Unless you use high quality DVD-R/+R discs, you're likely to get a corrupted image. Perhaps you'd find your install would work more reliably with better media. Nonetheless, I appreciate the insightful comment!
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Users are locked in, and breaking that lock is extremely difficult.
Nonsense.
People switch heir Mobile platforms in BOTH directions ALL the time.
Both as in only two. The lock is all the apps on the 2 major app stores. That being said, there is really a third one. Amazon is doing pretty well. Amazon did it by being sourcecode/binary compatible with android. It is much easier to get developers on your platform if they don't have to write a whole new app to support it. You need to either go the route of Microsoft and create a cross platform development system or make your new OS really really easy for developers to port their existing apps to. Most developers are not going to have a problem supporting a third OS even with very few users as long as it is still cost effective.
There WERE at LEAST FOUR simultaneous platforms even a year or so ago. Two of them just blew it.
But you are conflating Platforms with App Stores. So, your post is meaningless.
Try again.
But you are conflating Platforms with App Stores. So, your post is meaningless.
Try again.
That's because the number of supported apps is what creates all the lock in.
People don't even care that much about backwards compatibility as can be see the huge number of people jumping back and forth between Apple and Android.
What they do care about is if the apps they use or something similar is available on the new phone.
If you created a completely new OS and launched it day one with the same number of apps as android and ios then plenty of people would be willing to try it.
But it doesn't matter how good the phone is if it doesn't support angry birds, facebook, fortnite, and all the other apps people want.