6 ms·

The best possible outcome I could see from something like this is the opening up of the Play Store ecosystem to third party Android forks. The contention is ov

by zanny 11y ago

The best possible outcome I could see from something like this is the opening up of the Play Store ecosystem to third party Android forks. The contention is over Google licensing Android branding and its proprietary apps running on top of the AOSP and requiring them all be shipped together. The problem isn't the OS itself, it is the Play Store hegemony and the fact you cannot reasonably ship an Android phone without it - nobody would buy it. But the store is a proprietary and effectively closed app ecosystem completely under Google's control, thus the issue of monopoly exploitation. At least, I hope. If they are seriously considering the whole OS as a trust issue that is insane. Anyone can fork or reuse the component parts below the Google app layer with the Apache 2 license. There are even projects like http://www.shashlik.io/ http://www.shashlik.io/ to run Android apps natively on other systems. The only part of the Android ecosystem that in any way really violates user freedoms (besides the proprietary POS blobs every phone manufacturer shoves into a forked Linux kernel with oodles of GPL violations) is the Google apps themselves, but you can always pull a Cyanogenmod and ship a phone without those apps installed.

wnevets 11y ago
>. The problem isn't the OS itself, it is the Play Store hegemony and the fact you cannot reasonably ship an Android phone without it - nobody would buy it. isn't this what amazon does?
- pjc50 11y ago
  And as a result they have terrible sales: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/26/amazon-fire-phone-sales-data https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/26/amazon-fi...
  - wnevets 11y ago
    Is that really because of the amazon store? >There were many interesting anomalies in the launch of the Fire Phone. The $200 price tag for a 32GB version on an AT&T contract – the same price range as the iPhone 5S or Samsung GS5 Their tables are doing much better. http://www.geekwire.com/2016/50-fire-tablet-vaults-amazon-into-3rd-place-behind-only-apple-and-samsung-but-it-wont-last/ http://www.geekwire.com/2016/50-fire-tablet-vaults-amazon-in...
    - ocdtrekkie 11y ago
      Their tablets are primarily sold as e-Readers. The app store isn't a primary need, and they don't really directly compete with Android tablets, even though they're similar.
  - takno 11y ago
    Amazon's android fork is desperately bad irrespective of their app store. If you aren't primarily using the device to consume Amazon content it is essentially useless
- kyrra 11y ago
  While the Fire Phone may not have done well, all the Amazon Fire products are Android based. This includes the Fire Phone, Fire Tablets, and Fire TV.
  - scholia 11y ago
    > all the Amazon Fire products are Android based They are based on AOSP, but Amazon is expressly forbidden from using the Android name, and it can't use the Play store, so it's not really in the Android (TM) market.
    - wnevets 11y ago
      >but Amazon is expressly forbidden from using the Android name source?
      - scholia 11y ago
        While the documentation itself is available to you under the Apache 2.0 license, note that proprietary trademarks and brand features are not included in that license. Google's trademarks and other brand features (including the Android stylized typeface logo) are not included in the license. https://source.android.com/license.html https://source.android.com/license.html Android is a proprietary trademark wholly owned by Google. See also: Leverage over manufacturers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_%28operating_system%29#Leverage_over_manufacturers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_%28operating_system%29...
        wnevets 11y ago
        maybe I'm dumb but I'm missing the part where Android is a proprietary trademark.
        cdibona 11y ago
        The term Android is not trademarked. Even the bugdroid is released under a cc-attrib license. Funnily, the term 'droid' is trademarked and licensed by lucasfilm/disney mostly.
- dgacmu 11y ago
  Xiaomi is a better example. They're doing surprisingly well -- wikipedia says 70.8m units sold in China, and they run their own app store. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiaomi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiaomi
jboydyhacker 11y ago
Google /Android already has an issue with App Quality relative to ios Apps- that would make it tougher to produce a quality product.
kuschku 11y ago
> but you can always pull a Cyanogenmod and ship a phone without those apps installed. That’s exactly what you can’t. Google only allows you to ship Google Apps on one of your devices if you ship it on all. Which is the most important part the EC complains about.
- euyyn 11y ago
  Can't you just have two subcompanies, one that ships devices with Google apps and one that ships them without? Contracts signed by one of them shouldn't be able to bind the other, no?
  - justJanne 11y ago
    In theory, yes, in practice, Google can terminate the contract whenever they want – so they just would terminate the contract with the first company, regardless if the second company is actually the same legal entity.
bad_user 11y ago
> But the store is a proprietary and effectively closed app ecosystem completely under Google's control, thus the issue of monopoly exploitation. Having a monopoly isn't illegal. Using that monopoly to gain an advantage in newer markets is. And the problem with this argument is that you're getting this backwards: when Android 1.0 shipped, Google already had a foothold with Search, Gmail and Maps. The whole purpose of Android was for Google to have a mobile platform to not get locked out of the mobile market. They aren't making money from licensing it and Android wouldn't exist if they couldn't use it for distribution of their apps and services. And the same conditions applied then, as in you want the Android Marketplace (now Google Play) then you have to also ship Google's apps, with HTC Dream (the very first Android phone) shipping with Search, Gmail, Talk, Maps, YouTube, Calendar and Contacts. Did they miss anything important in version 1.0? > The only part of the Android ecosystem that in any way really violates user freedoms The "violations" on user freedoms that you're thinking of are subjective issues, not lawful ones. Android is the only mobile OS that allows for Firefox and for third-party app stores without jailbreaking it. Which means that users have the freedom to install and use any alternative they want, a freedom that's not available for the other mainstream mobile operating systems.
- kuschku 11y ago
  The violations are that SAMSUNG can not ship devices with Kindle-Android. You can only ship non-Google-droid devices if none of your devices use the Play Store, and you can only ship Play Store devices if none of your devices are non-Google-droid devices. That’s what the EU complains about, and that’s what is worthy of several billion in punishment.
  - bad_user 11y ago
    The article has this to say: "EU antitrust regulators said that by requiring mobile phone manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and the Google Chrome browser to get access to other Google apps, the U.S. company was harming consumers by stifling competition." I don't see Samsung and Kindle-Android mentioned. Also, assuming these are contractual obligations that Samsung agreed to, how can it be illegal? Don't they have people that read contracts? Or is this an issue of having your cake and eating it too? > worthy several billion in punishment That's stretching it. Why are they guilty and why should the fine be so big?

by zanny 11y ago

wnevets 11y ago

>. The problem isn't the OS itself, it is the Play Store hegemony and the fact you cannot reasonably ship an Android phone without it - nobody would buy it. isn't this what amazon does?

pjc50 11y ago
And as a result they have terrible sales: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/26/amazon-fire-phone-sales-data https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/26/amazon-fi...
- wnevets 11y ago
  Is that really because of the amazon store? >There were many interesting anomalies in the launch of the Fire Phone. The $200 price tag for a 32GB version on an AT&T contract – the same price range as the iPhone 5S or Samsung GS5 Their tables are doing much better. http://www.geekwire.com/2016/50-fire-tablet-vaults-amazon-into-3rd-place-behind-only-apple-and-samsung-but-it-wont-last/ http://www.geekwire.com/2016/50-fire-tablet-vaults-amazon-in...
  - ocdtrekkie 11y ago
    Their tablets are primarily sold as e-Readers. The app store isn't a primary need, and they don't really directly compete with Android tablets, even though they're similar.
- takno 11y ago
  Amazon's android fork is desperately bad irrespective of their app store. If you aren't primarily using the device to consume Amazon content it is essentially useless
kyrra 11y ago
While the Fire Phone may not have done well, all the Amazon Fire products are Android based. This includes the Fire Phone, Fire Tablets, and Fire TV.
- scholia 11y ago
  > all the Amazon Fire products are Android based They are based on AOSP, but Amazon is expressly forbidden from using the Android name, and it can't use the Play store, so it's not really in the Android (TM) market.
  - wnevets 11y ago
    >but Amazon is expressly forbidden from using the Android name source?
    - scholia 11y ago
      While the documentation itself is available to you under the Apache 2.0 license, note that proprietary trademarks and brand features are not included in that license. Google's trademarks and other brand features (including the Android stylized typeface logo) are not included in the license. https://source.android.com/license.html https://source.android.com/license.html Android is a proprietary trademark wholly owned by Google. See also: Leverage over manufacturers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_%28operating_system%29#Leverage_over_manufacturers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_%28operating_system%29...
      - wnevets 11y ago
        maybe I'm dumb but I'm missing the part where Android is a proprietary trademark.
        cdibona 11y ago
        The term Android is not trademarked. Even the bugdroid is released under a cc-attrib license. Funnily, the term 'droid' is trademarked and licensed by lucasfilm/disney mostly.
dgacmu 11y ago
Xiaomi is a better example. They're doing surprisingly well -- wikipedia says 70.8m units sold in China, and they run their own app store. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiaomi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiaomi

jboydyhacker 11y ago

Google /Android already has an issue with App Quality relative to ios Apps- that would make it tougher to produce a quality product.

kuschku 11y ago

> but you can always pull a Cyanogenmod and ship a phone without those apps installed. That’s exactly what you can’t. Google only allows you to ship Google Apps on one of your devices if you ship it on all. Which is the most important part the EC complains about.

euyyn 11y ago
Can't you just have two subcompanies, one that ships devices with Google apps and one that ships them without? Contracts signed by one of them shouldn't be able to bind the other, no?
- justJanne 11y ago
  In theory, yes, in practice, Google can terminate the contract whenever they want – so they just would terminate the contract with the first company, regardless if the second company is actually the same legal entity.

bad_user 11y ago

> But the store is a proprietary and effectively closed app ecosystem completely under Google's control, thus the issue of monopoly exploitation. Having a monopoly isn't illegal. Using that monopoly to gain an advantage in newer markets is. And the problem with this argument is that you're getting this backwards: when Android 1.0 shipped, Google already had a foothold with Search, Gmail and Maps. The whole purpose of Android was for Google to have a mobile platform to not get locked out of the mobile market. They aren't making money from licensing it and Android wouldn't exist if they couldn't use it for distribution of their apps and services. And the same conditions applied then, as in you want the Android Marketplace (now Google Play) then you have to also ship Google's apps, with HTC Dream (the very first Android phone) shipping with Search, Gmail, Talk, Maps, YouTube, Calendar and Contacts. Did they miss anything important in version 1.0? > The only part of the Android ecosystem that in any way really violates user freedoms The "violations" on user freedoms that you're thinking of are subjective issues, not lawful ones. Android is the only mobile OS that allows for Firefox and for third-party app stores without jailbreaking it. Which means that users have the freedom to install and use any alternative they want, a freedom that's not available for the other mainstream mobile operating systems.

kuschku 11y ago
The violations are that SAMSUNG can not ship devices with Kindle-Android. You can only ship non-Google-droid devices if none of your devices use the Play Store, and you can only ship Play Store devices if none of your devices are non-Google-droid devices. That’s what the EU complains about, and that’s what is worthy of several billion in punishment.
- bad_user 11y ago
  The article has this to say: "EU antitrust regulators said that by requiring mobile phone manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and the Google Chrome browser to get access to other Google apps, the U.S. company was harming consumers by stifling competition." I don't see Samsung and Kindle-Android mentioned. Also, assuming these are contractual obligations that Samsung agreed to, how can it be illegal? Don't they have people that read contracts? Or is this an issue of having your cake and eating it too? > worthy several billion in punishment That's stretching it. Why are they guilty and why should the fine be so big?