5 ms·

Did Amazon even apply for a MADA with Google to use the Play Store and their apps? They can choose at any time to not make their fork incompatible with mainline

Did Amazon even apply for a MADA with Google to use the Play Store and their apps? They can choose at any time to not make their fork incompatible with mainline Android, and get access to the Play Store just like any other OEM. You seem to blame Google for Amazon wanting to have it both ways.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
The MADA is not a legal document, and it's not really possible for Amazon to comply with it.
- bitmapbrother 9y ago
  Why is that? All Amazon has to do is pass the CTS so that all Android apps can run on their devices and not just Amazon Android apps.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    As you're well aware, not only would Fire OS fail the CTS, it would be illegal to attempt to force Amazon Kindles to ship with Play Books in order to get access to other Google Apps. Which the MADA does indeed attempt.
    - bitmapbrother 9y ago
      Fire OS would fail the CTS because Amazon chooses not to use Google Play Services and instead use their replacements. I'm also confused as to your claims about illegality. What specifically would be illegal about Google asking Amazon to install their apps and services on their tablets so that they can pass the CTS? One more thing, when Amazon found out people were installing Google Play Services on their Fire Tablets they issued a software update to prevent that loophole.
    - Pyxl101 9y ago
      I don't think Google's contractual terms are illegal, though they certainly have a profound impact on any competition that uses Android or builds Android apps. See this article for a detailed analysis of Google's Mobile App Distribution Agreements (MADA): http://www.benedelman.org/news-021314/ http://www.benedelman.org/news-021314/ Furthermore, from my understanding, for any device to support streaming to Chromecast, it must have Google Play Services, which in turns means complying with MADA. The leaked MADA documents that the public has seen requires you to distribute all of Google's apps in a prominent position on your device, prevents you from forking Android - even on other, completely unrelated devices (prohibiting what Amazon did with Fire OS), requires you to give Google detailed sales information about your devices each month, and more. (Read the article I linked above, and/or review one of the linked MADAs (2).) So from what I've read about the MADA, supporting Chromecast streaming on Amazon devices would require a complete "takeover" of every Android-based device that Amazon sells, replacing FireOS with Google's Android, and forcing Amazon to bundle Google Play Services and all of Google's apps, and giving those apps the prominent position over Amazon's. The MADA would require this for all devices, even ones that wouldn't support Chromecast streaming. In a Recode interview (1), Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos implied that these business terms are the heart of the issue: > "We sell Roku, we sell Xbox, we sell Playstation. We're happy to sell competitive products on Amazon. When we sell those devices, we want our player — our Prime Video player — to be on the device, and we want it to be on the device with acceptable business terms. You can always get the player on the device. The question is, can you get it on there with acceptable business terms? And if you can't, then we don't want to sell it to our customers, because they're going to be buying it thinking they can watch Prime Video, and then they're going to be disappointed and return it." (1) https://www.recode.net/2016/5/31/11826394/amazon-apple-tv-google-chromecast https://www.recode.net/2016/5/31/11826394/amazon-apple-tv-go... (circa 1h:15m in video) (2) http://www.benedelman.org/docs/samsung-mada.pdf http://www.benedelman.org/docs/samsung-mada.pdf - see page labeled 6 of 14
      - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
        Well, it depends on whether or not you believe Google is operating any monopolies. The concept of 'tying' or 'bundling', where you require anyone wanting product A which is a monopoly, to also include product B, is illegal in both the US and most other jurisdictions. If any of the twenty or so mandatory apps the MADA requires constitutes a monopoly, then they are bundling in violation of US antitrust laws.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

The MADA is not a legal document, and it's not really possible for Amazon to comply with it.

bitmapbrother 9y ago
Why is that? All Amazon has to do is pass the CTS so that all Android apps can run on their devices and not just Amazon Android apps.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  As you're well aware, not only would Fire OS fail the CTS, it would be illegal to attempt to force Amazon Kindles to ship with Play Books in order to get access to other Google Apps. Which the MADA does indeed attempt.
  - bitmapbrother 9y ago
    Fire OS would fail the CTS because Amazon chooses not to use Google Play Services and instead use their replacements. I'm also confused as to your claims about illegality. What specifically would be illegal about Google asking Amazon to install their apps and services on their tablets so that they can pass the CTS? One more thing, when Amazon found out people were installing Google Play Services on their Fire Tablets they issued a software update to prevent that loophole.
  - Pyxl101 9y ago
    I don't think Google's contractual terms are illegal, though they certainly have a profound impact on any competition that uses Android or builds Android apps. See this article for a detailed analysis of Google's Mobile App Distribution Agreements (MADA): http://www.benedelman.org/news-021314/ http://www.benedelman.org/news-021314/ Furthermore, from my understanding, for any device to support streaming to Chromecast, it must have Google Play Services, which in turns means complying with MADA. The leaked MADA documents that the public has seen requires you to distribute all of Google's apps in a prominent position on your device, prevents you from forking Android - even on other, completely unrelated devices (prohibiting what Amazon did with Fire OS), requires you to give Google detailed sales information about your devices each month, and more. (Read the article I linked above, and/or review one of the linked MADAs (2).) So from what I've read about the MADA, supporting Chromecast streaming on Amazon devices would require a complete "takeover" of every Android-based device that Amazon sells, replacing FireOS with Google's Android, and forcing Amazon to bundle Google Play Services and all of Google's apps, and giving those apps the prominent position over Amazon's. The MADA would require this for all devices, even ones that wouldn't support Chromecast streaming. In a Recode interview (1), Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos implied that these business terms are the heart of the issue: > "We sell Roku, we sell Xbox, we sell Playstation. We're happy to sell competitive products on Amazon. When we sell those devices, we want our player — our Prime Video player — to be on the device, and we want it to be on the device with acceptable business terms. You can always get the player on the device. The question is, can you get it on there with acceptable business terms? And if you can't, then we don't want to sell it to our customers, because they're going to be buying it thinking they can watch Prime Video, and then they're going to be disappointed and return it." (1) https://www.recode.net/2016/5/31/11826394/amazon-apple-tv-google-chromecast https://www.recode.net/2016/5/31/11826394/amazon-apple-tv-go... (circa 1h:15m in video) (2) http://www.benedelman.org/docs/samsung-mada.pdf http://www.benedelman.org/docs/samsung-mada.pdf - see page labeled 6 of 14
    - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
      Well, it depends on whether or not you believe Google is operating any monopolies. The concept of 'tying' or 'bundling', where you require anyone wanting product A which is a monopoly, to also include product B, is illegal in both the US and most other jurisdictions. If any of the twenty or so mandatory apps the MADA requires constitutes a monopoly, then they are bundling in violation of US antitrust laws.