2 ms·

> 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 repl

by 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).

by tomp 9y ago

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).