4 ms·

The difference between Android and Google Play Services/Google Apps Suite is, that the latter use Google servers and the former does not. If removing these app

The difference between Android and Google Play Services/Google Apps Suite is, that the latter use Google servers and the former does not. If removing these apps makes Android unusable for you, it means you are hooked on or locked-in to them. Asking for open-sourcing the client parts will not help you anyway, because the server parts are still running on Google servers and you won't be able to replace them.

wyager 9y ago
> Asking for open-sourcing the client parts will not help you anyway, because the server parts are still running on Google servers and you won't be able to replace them. Yes I could, if the average android phone would allow me to do so. You can't go to the store, buy a phone, and remove google play services. At the very least you have to root the phone, which isn't possible on most devices.
- vetinari 9y ago
  You can also not put in username and password for a Google account. Without authenticated account, Google Play Services won't work. What you can do, is to install apps or plugins for CalDAV/CardDAV-like services. The account system works with any generic account, not just with Google accounts; you can implement any service you want talking with any protocol you want. You don't need Google Play Services source for that. Removing apks for android installation is cannon for sparrows. Remember, /system is not only for running the system, but also for factory reset/recovery too.
tomp 9y ago
> Asking for open-sourcing the client parts will not help you anyway, because the server parts are still running on Google servers and you won't be able to replace them. It wouldn't be ideal, but a big improvement. Providing a clear API to Store, Maps, Mail, etc. would (1) allow developers to publish their own client for these services (that e.g. don't display ads, or don't track the user, or obfuscate/anonymise the information they send to the servers), and (2) allow competing backends to be developed and allow the users to choose between them without having to change the mobile OS.
- vetinari 9y ago
  So you want to use their back end with your front end, and remove their monetization? Why would they even entertain the thought of agreeing to something like that? The much better approach is bring your own backed. E.g. I'm using Sygic (because it is offline and the roaming fees were killing the online maps) and it works in the all places where the original Maps work. If I click in the Booking.com app to navigate to the hotel, for example, Sygic (and other alternate maps) work seamlessly in place of Google Maps. All that without having to use their back end. The APIs for doing that are already there since v1. In other words, (1) developers could publish for years alternative implementations, with any back end that allows that in it's TOS (though Google's doesn't) and (2) this was always possible.
  - tomp 9y ago
    I'm not saying they have to allow that, I'm just saying that's what it would take them to "neutralize" the threat of their business model for users (and become as trustworth as Apple).
    - vetinari 9y ago
      Unfortunately, this is the case of wanting to have a cake and eat it too. That's why I wrote that bringing alternate implementations is a better approach. That way you don't want something for nothing (use Google resources without any compensation; you don't pay them anything after all, but you do pay to Apple).
j_s 9y ago
> the server parts are still running on Google servers and you won't be able to replace them Not sure to what degree replacement is actually possible today, but microG is heading in that direction. https://microg.org/ https://microg.org/ - a free software clone of Google’s proprietary core libraries and applications · Google Play Services or Google Maps Android API (v2) · Google Cloud to Device Messaging · Google’s network location provider Further discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12864429 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12864429 (Nov 2016) and other comments https://hn.algolia.com/?query=microg.org&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?query=microg.org&sort=byDate&type=co...

wyager 9y ago

> Asking for open-sourcing the client parts will not help you anyway, because the server parts are still running on Google servers and you won't be able to replace them. Yes I could, if the average android phone would allow me to do so. You can't go to the store, buy a phone, and remove google play services. At the very least you have to root the phone, which isn't possible on most devices.

vetinari 9y ago
You can also not put in username and password for a Google account. Without authenticated account, Google Play Services won't work. What you can do, is to install apps or plugins for CalDAV/CardDAV-like services. The account system works with any generic account, not just with Google accounts; you can implement any service you want talking with any protocol you want. You don't need Google Play Services source for that. Removing apks for android installation is cannon for sparrows. Remember, /system is not only for running the system, but also for factory reset/recovery too.

tomp 9y ago

> Asking for open-sourcing the client parts will not help you anyway, because the server parts are still running on Google servers and you won't be able to replace them. It wouldn't be ideal, but a big improvement. Providing a clear API to Store, Maps, Mail, etc. would (1) allow developers to publish their own client for these services (that e.g. don't display ads, or don't track the user, or obfuscate/anonymise the information they send to the servers), and (2) allow competing backends to be developed and allow the users to choose between them without having to change the mobile OS.

vetinari 9y ago
So you want to use their back end with your front end, and remove their monetization? Why would they even entertain the thought of agreeing to something like that? The much better approach is bring your own backed. E.g. I'm using Sygic (because it is offline and the roaming fees were killing the online maps) and it works in the all places where the original Maps work. If I click in the Booking.com app to navigate to the hotel, for example, Sygic (and other alternate maps) work seamlessly in place of Google Maps. All that without having to use their back end. The APIs for doing that are already there since v1. In other words, (1) developers could publish for years alternative implementations, with any back end that allows that in it's TOS (though Google's doesn't) and (2) this was always possible.
- tomp 9y ago
  I'm not saying they have to allow that, I'm just saying that's what it would take them to "neutralize" the threat of their business model for users (and become as trustworth as Apple).
  - vetinari 9y ago
    Unfortunately, this is the case of wanting to have a cake and eat it too. That's why I wrote that bringing alternate implementations is a better approach. That way you don't want something for nothing (use Google resources without any compensation; you don't pay them anything after all, but you do pay to Apple).

j_s 9y ago

> the server parts are still running on Google servers and you won't be able to replace them Not sure to what degree replacement is actually possible today, but microG is heading in that direction. https://microg.org/ https://microg.org/ - a free software clone of Google’s proprietary core libraries and applications · Google Play Services or Google Maps Android API (v2) · Google Cloud to Device Messaging · Google’s network location provider Further discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12864429 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12864429 (Nov 2016) and other comments https://hn.algolia.com/?query=microg.org&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?query=microg.org&sort=byDate&type=co...