4 ms·

>This fight started with Google This is simply incorrect. You put out some facts about licensing Google apps but you apply this completely subjective line in f

by Sargos 9y ago

>This fight started with Google This is simply incorrect. You put out some facts about licensing Google apps but you apply this completely subjective line in front of it which makes it sound like Google actively did something. These licensing terms have been around for years and every company you can think of has agreed to the terms. They aren't that onerous. This whole mess is entirely in Amazon's court. They made all of the decisions and made all of the moves. It's their call to do everything themselves and want to own every piece of the system. They weren't forced to. They want to.

Dylan16807 9y ago
> They aren't that onerous. Yes they are. Installing 20 google apps and placing them extremely prominently, forced google widgets, google has to be the only search, the only voice... Google is putting these very strict rules on anyone that wants to use the play store, and being actively misleading about it because "android" is still "open". If they want the benefits of being "open" then they should walk the walk and let all android devices use these free android apps.
- kllrnohj 9y ago
  > Installing 20 google apps and placing them extremely prominently, forced google widgets, google has to be the only search, the only voice... OK you clearly haven't read the licensing terms since most of this is bullshit. The preinstalled apps don't have to be "extremely prominently" placed, and there is no forced google as the only voice. Most of this you could trivially find out by just picking up a Samsung S8 which its own voice search (Bixby), and a home screen where the only Google app is Play Store. Even still they can (and do) then shove the other Google apps into its own Google folder in the app launcher.
- notyourwork 9y ago
  Android is open unless Google says otherwise.
- obmelvin 9y ago
  I've yet to see (which I acknowledge doesn't mean that it doesn't exist) any compelling argument that this is actually harmful to the users or anything of that line. All I see is tech people talking about hypothetical competition or the EU effectively trying to create protectionist policies in the name of anti-trust. Personally, I have no issue with Google's licensing. Why shouldn't they be able to ship their software how they want? At the end of the day most users don't care. I love FOSS when it comes to my own development and I couldn't imagine being a developer without access to so many FOSS libraries. However, I don't give a crap if my phone is fully open source and neither do vast majority of the other billion+ Android users

by Sargos 9y ago

Dylan16807 9y ago

> They aren't that onerous. Yes they are. Installing 20 google apps and placing them extremely prominently, forced google widgets, google has to be the only search, the only voice... Google is putting these very strict rules on anyone that wants to use the play store, and being actively misleading about it because "android" is still "open". If they want the benefits of being "open" then they should walk the walk and let all android devices use these free android apps.

kllrnohj 9y ago
> Installing 20 google apps and placing them extremely prominently, forced google widgets, google has to be the only search, the only voice... OK you clearly haven't read the licensing terms since most of this is bullshit. The preinstalled apps don't have to be "extremely prominently" placed, and there is no forced google as the only voice. Most of this you could trivially find out by just picking up a Samsung S8 which its own voice search (Bixby), and a home screen where the only Google app is Play Store. Even still they can (and do) then shove the other Google apps into its own Google folder in the app launcher.
notyourwork 9y ago
Android is open unless Google says otherwise.
obmelvin 9y ago
I've yet to see (which I acknowledge doesn't mean that it doesn't exist) any compelling argument that this is actually harmful to the users or anything of that line. All I see is tech people talking about hypothetical competition or the EU effectively trying to create protectionist policies in the name of anti-trust. Personally, I have no issue with Google's licensing. Why shouldn't they be able to ship their software how they want? At the end of the day most users don't care. I love FOSS when it comes to my own development and I couldn't imagine being a developer without access to so many FOSS libraries. However, I don't give a crap if my phone is fully open source and neither do vast majority of the other billion+ Android users