3 ms·
>I actually can't produce this document. Google's contracts with OEMs are strictly confidential. Thanks man... I hear they also keep martians at Roswell. >Goo
by 01Michael10 10y ago
>I actually can't produce this document. Google's contracts with OEMs are strictly confidential.
Thanks man... I hear they also keep martians at Roswell.
>Google gets to approve or veto every Android device every OEM sells.
100% Wrong... The only thing an OEM really needs to do is include certain Google apps and have them presented in a certain way to use Play services.
- ocdtrekkie 10y agoSorry, but the facts don't lie, even the linked contracts from back in 2011 gave Google veto powers over all device releases. You really have no idea how much control Google has over OEMs. Documents are linked above, please read them.
- Oletros 10y agoIf you have read the NASA the you can quite the point where forbids the release of AOSP devices
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago"The company shall not take any actions that may cause or result in the fragmentation of Android." under 2.2 "Unless otherwise approved by Google in writing Company will preload all Google Applications approved in the applicable Territory or Territories on each device." under 3.4
- Oletros 10y agoNone of those quotes forbids AOSP devices. AOSP passes the compatibility test and the second quote applies to devices with Google Services
- 01Michael10 10y agoIt's 2016 so you know and that is still NOT true...
- ocdtrekkie 10y agoYeah, five years later we still don't have a newer example of this deal, because Google is so secretive about how they control OEMs. They're under investigation for the behavior pretty much worldwide right now, but if you want to keep your head buried in the sand in the face of documents entered into official evidence in a court of law because it doesn't suit your narrative, go right ahead. "Company shall not Launch any Device incorporating the Google Applications until it has obtained Google's approval as set forth in (a), (b), and (c) below.", see section 4.3
- 01Michael10 10y agoI can't take it, this is what you have said... OEMs can't release an open source only Android distribution. WRONG Google must approve any OEM Android phone. WRONG Samsung can't produce a forked version of AOSP. WRONG Your only proof about any of this is quoting a clause about Google apps? LOL Yes, OEMs can only use Play services if they include certain Google apps and they need to be presented in a certain way. I already said that many comments ago. The agreement stops say Samsung from using Google Maps but naming the icon Dumbfuck Maps. Google only approves the implementation of their apps NOT the phone. Dude, go home. You don't know what you are talking about.
- ocdtrekkie 10y agoYou screaming "WRONG" in all caps doesn't mean you're right. Especially when you have zero facts to back up your claims.
- kentonv 10y agoLook this is really very simple. You can ship a phone running AOSP without any further agreement with Google. You cannot ship an "Android" phone. "Android" is a trademark of Google and you can only use it with permission. Moreover, you cannot ship a phone that includes the Play Store or Google apps, nor one compatible with the increasing array of apps that require Play Services, unless you make an agreement with Google. If you take away the name and ecosystem, you've lost the vast majority of the value of Android. Users will see your phone as if it is running its own, incompatible operating system. Why would they buy this? Why not buy a Windows phone instead? Case in point: Amazon tried making a phone based on AOSP -- the Fire phone. They made their own apps, their own app store, etc. It was a flop. They gave up. If Amazon can't make it work, why would anyone else expect they can? So, to realistically sell an Android phone, you have to make an agreement with Google. And that's how they keep control.