7 ms·

What a nice PR reply Pichal is delivering here. There might be 1'300 brands and 24'000 devices, but all are bound to the Google conditions. This is not choice.

What a nice PR reply Pichal is delivering here. There might be 1'300 brands and 24'000 devices, but all are bound to the Google conditions. This is not choice. Phone makers may be free to also pre-install competing apps alongside Googles, but they are not free to not install Googles app. This is not choice. I'm using a Jolla phone. Its producer (afaik) is not allowed to support the Play Store without accepting the far reaching (now deemed illegal) conditions of Google. A severe hindrance of my choice. What is this sentence about the rule "sends a troubling signal in favor of proprietary systems over open platforms"? The Google Play Services is closed source and required for quite some Android apps, is it? Of course you intend to appeal. But from my point of view you deserve every cent of the fine!

hydandata 8y ago
Also: - Just like on WP, you cannot set some things to open in other browsers. - No extension support, because they know perfectly well what many people would install first, an add blocker.
- Infinitesimus 8y ago
  To be fair, you can install FF, disable chrome and everything should work since WebView is now unbundled
  - beenBoutIT 8y ago
    You can install Chromium for Android and get everything except Flash working.
kajecounterhack 8y ago
> There might be 1'300 brands and 24'000 devices, but all are bound to the Google conditions. This is not choice. Building and maintaining android costs money. It's your opinion that "following Google's conditions" is onerous, and "not choice." Clearly the situation is that the android business model is supported by Google's terms. The alternative is something maintained by whom? > The Google Play Services is closed source and required for quite some Android apps, is it? As someone who worked in abuse: if you provide an app store that doesn't have governance, it'll be full of spyware/malware and finding the app you actually want, well good luck. So yeah, the app store service is run by Google and it wouldn't make any sense for that to be open source. The overall angry attitude that "this all should be free software and that there are unpure components is wrong" -- is kind of shameful. If you care so much then go build a free software alternative. And if you're mad about walled gardens then get mad at Apple. Google's trying for a middle ground to provide consumers more choice than iOS vs free-software-that-nobody-maintains-or-isn't-safe. Yelling at people to make everything free isn't a solution.
- ballenf 8y ago
  > Building and maintaining android costs money. ... Clearly the situation is that the android business model is supported by Google's terms. The alternative is something maintained by whom? It's not the EU's responsibility to come up with a new business model for Android that isn't illegal. Just because the business model they chose is illegal doesn't mean that we have throw out the baby with the bathwater. > As someone who worked in abuse: if you provide an app store that doesn't have governance, it'll be full of spyware/malware and finding the app you actually want, well good luck. So yeah, the app store service is run by Google and it wouldn't make any sense for that to be open source. I think you're conflating two separate issues. Google Play services include much more than just the Play Store and could very well be open source or at least have publicly accessible APIs licensed on non-anticompetitive terms. The Play Store can keep out malware without requiring phone makers to swear undivided loyalty and submission to Google.
  - Karishma1234 8y ago
    > It's not the EU's responsibility to come up with a new business model for Android that isn't illegal. Actually it is. A regulatory body is supposed to give maximum freedom to business to help them come up with cheaper and better products while not violating other people's rights. EU is equivalent of the white cop shooting an unarmed black kid and then have audacity to call himself the defender of law and justice. But Google is simply pointing out that the people who will end up paying the $5B fine is not Google shareholders by the EU users. As a person who owns Google shares I think Google must modify their playstore policies to charge EU android users and extra fee to pay for this $5B fine.
    - russdpale 8y ago
      A regulatory body is supposed to give maximum freedom to business to help them come up with cheaper and better products Uh, what? No. Just no.
    - lovich 8y ago
      >A regulatory body is supposed to give maximum freedom to business to help them come up with cheaper and better products while not violating other people's rights. Where did you manage to come up with that definition of regulatory bodies? Their job is to regulate actors under their jurisdiction based on goals set for them by their respective legislature. They don't all have an overarching goal of improving businesses. Some are(were) explicitly opposed to business interests like the EPA
VikingCoder 8y ago
You are free to not use Android. That is choice. Everything else that follows is based off of your choice to use Android. There are consequences to your choices. You don't have a line-item veto, after the fact, on contract terms. If you want Google to stop open sourcing Android, this is how you do it. Then you will lose the choice to have Android at all, unless Google is the provider, possibly with Samsung or Jolla as the OEM.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- r00fus 8y ago
  So take it or leave it eh? And what about Google choosing an anti-competitive (i.e. Illegal) business model?
  - VikingCoder 8y ago
    They are far, far more open than iOS. You can actually replace the built-in apps.
    - ionised 8y ago
      You didn't answer his question.
      - VikingCoder 8y ago
        I'm attacking the assertion that the business model should be illegal. The law is currently written that a competitor, who gets twice as much revenue in their app store, and has far stricter controls, is not in trouble. That's moronic.
        face_mcgace 8y ago
        Still didn’t answer their question.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
StudentStuff 8y ago
“If phone makers and mobile network operators couldn’t include our apps on their wide range of devices, it would upset the balance of the Android ecosystem,” Its as though Pichai thinks people actually want all of Google's shovelware on their devices. Why does Google try and sneakily update and re-enable their low quality Newsstand, Games and other apps that I literally do not want on my phone? Unbundling is the right move, even the Play Store should not be in the ROM itself, as when it gets updated you have no way to free the space that is used by the older version of the Play APK. That is what infuriates me about bundled shovelware like <vendor specific apps>, Facebook, <carrier apps>, when those get updated or disabled, you still don't get to delete the original APK file. Your never getting that room on your storage back!
- kajecounterhack 8y ago
  Is losing 10, even 100mb something to get "infuriated" about when phones have 32-128gb now, and 100mb is like 1 video you took? It's not like this is Windows system tray software where your precious ram is being eaten up. It's disk space dude. (Also being able to factory reset the phone is worth losing 100mb imo.)
  - StudentStuff 8y ago
    I want my storage, and advertising for memory on device these days is fraudulent. How many of the supposed 32GB of flash is actually available once you boot your phone up? Generally 7GB to 11GB is eaten by Android and shovelware right off the bat, I'd call it fraud if something is sold to me with the expectation of 34% more storage space than what I actually end up with.
    - kajecounterhack 8y ago
      It's not fraudulent; your expectations are out of line. If you flash some other OS onto your device, you'll have (32gb - whatever the size of your OS is). So to market the device as having 32gb, then having the OS take up some space, is completely accurate. The _specs_ do not indicate how much actual free space you have. This is the nature of electronic devices that have memory but require software to work.
eevilspock 8y ago
Android was never free. It has cost all of us a lot in terms of freedom and privacy.
- HillaryBriss 8y ago
  ... and time spent by developers trying to make their apps work right across all devices (or even on a single device)
  - JimmyAustin 8y ago
    There isn't a platform on earth where developers don't have to worry about their app working on all devices.
FollowSteph3 8y ago
They have the choice to build their own OS. The reason they don’t is clear, it’s too expensive. Google instead of charging money requires certain licensing conditions. If they truly want full control they could build it themselves but obviously they’re prefer google’s licensing model.
- lovich 8y ago
  That's the current local optimum for phone manufacturers. The anti trust regulations exist, in part, to help prevent companies from forcing a local optimum that ensures no one ever tried something different, and thus forces the industries to keep improving. If the OS was so good on it's own then google would not need these licensing terms to maintain market share.

hydandata 8y ago

Also: - Just like on WP, you cannot set some things to open in other browsers. - No extension support, because they know perfectly well what many people would install first, an add blocker.

Infinitesimus 8y ago
To be fair, you can install FF, disable chrome and everything should work since WebView is now unbundled
- beenBoutIT 8y ago
  You can install Chromium for Android and get everything except Flash working.

kajecounterhack 8y ago

> There might be 1'300 brands and 24'000 devices, but all are bound to the Google conditions. This is not choice. Building and maintaining android costs money. It's your opinion that "following Google's conditions" is onerous, and "not choice." Clearly the situation is that the android business model is supported by Google's terms. The alternative is something maintained by whom? > The Google Play Services is closed source and required for quite some Android apps, is it? As someone who worked in abuse: if you provide an app store that doesn't have governance, it'll be full of spyware/malware and finding the app you actually want, well good luck. So yeah, the app store service is run by Google and it wouldn't make any sense for that to be open source. The overall angry attitude that "this all should be free software and that there are unpure components is wrong" -- is kind of shameful. If you care so much then go build a free software alternative. And if you're mad about walled gardens then get mad at Apple. Google's trying for a middle ground to provide consumers more choice than iOS vs free-software-that-nobody-maintains-or-isn't-safe. Yelling at people to make everything free isn't a solution.

ballenf 8y ago
> Building and maintaining android costs money. ... Clearly the situation is that the android business model is supported by Google's terms. The alternative is something maintained by whom? It's not the EU's responsibility to come up with a new business model for Android that isn't illegal. Just because the business model they chose is illegal doesn't mean that we have throw out the baby with the bathwater. > As someone who worked in abuse: if you provide an app store that doesn't have governance, it'll be full of spyware/malware and finding the app you actually want, well good luck. So yeah, the app store service is run by Google and it wouldn't make any sense for that to be open source. I think you're conflating two separate issues. Google Play services include much more than just the Play Store and could very well be open source or at least have publicly accessible APIs licensed on non-anticompetitive terms. The Play Store can keep out malware without requiring phone makers to swear undivided loyalty and submission to Google.
- Karishma1234 8y ago
  > It's not the EU's responsibility to come up with a new business model for Android that isn't illegal. Actually it is. A regulatory body is supposed to give maximum freedom to business to help them come up with cheaper and better products while not violating other people's rights. EU is equivalent of the white cop shooting an unarmed black kid and then have audacity to call himself the defender of law and justice. But Google is simply pointing out that the people who will end up paying the $5B fine is not Google shareholders by the EU users. As a person who owns Google shares I think Google must modify their playstore policies to charge EU android users and extra fee to pay for this $5B fine.
  - russdpale 8y ago
    A regulatory body is supposed to give maximum freedom to business to help them come up with cheaper and better products Uh, what? No. Just no.
  - lovich 8y ago
    >A regulatory body is supposed to give maximum freedom to business to help them come up with cheaper and better products while not violating other people's rights. Where did you manage to come up with that definition of regulatory bodies? Their job is to regulate actors under their jurisdiction based on goals set for them by their respective legislature. They don't all have an overarching goal of improving businesses. Some are(were) explicitly opposed to business interests like the EPA

VikingCoder 8y ago

You are free to not use Android. That is choice. Everything else that follows is based off of your choice to use Android. There are consequences to your choices. You don't have a line-item veto, after the fact, on contract terms. If you want Google to stop open sourcing Android, this is how you do it. Then you will lose the choice to have Android at all, unless Google is the provider, possibly with Samsung or Jolla as the OEM.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
r00fus 8y ago
So take it or leave it eh? And what about Google choosing an anti-competitive (i.e. Illegal) business model?
- VikingCoder 8y ago
  They are far, far more open than iOS. You can actually replace the built-in apps.
  - ionised 8y ago
    You didn't answer his question.
    - VikingCoder 8y ago
      I'm attacking the assertion that the business model should be illegal. The law is currently written that a competitor, who gets twice as much revenue in their app store, and has far stricter controls, is not in trouble. That's moronic.
      - face_mcgace 8y ago
        Still didn’t answer their question.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

StudentStuff 8y ago

“If phone makers and mobile network operators couldn’t include our apps on their wide range of devices, it would upset the balance of the Android ecosystem,” Its as though Pichai thinks people actually want all of Google's shovelware on their devices. Why does Google try and sneakily update and re-enable their low quality Newsstand, Games and other apps that I literally do not want on my phone? Unbundling is the right move, even the Play Store should not be in the ROM itself, as when it gets updated you have no way to free the space that is used by the older version of the Play APK. That is what infuriates me about bundled shovelware like <vendor specific apps>, Facebook, <carrier apps>, when those get updated or disabled, you still don't get to delete the original APK file. Your never getting that room on your storage back!

kajecounterhack 8y ago
Is losing 10, even 100mb something to get "infuriated" about when phones have 32-128gb now, and 100mb is like 1 video you took? It's not like this is Windows system tray software where your precious ram is being eaten up. It's disk space dude. (Also being able to factory reset the phone is worth losing 100mb imo.)
- StudentStuff 8y ago
  I want my storage, and advertising for memory on device these days is fraudulent. How many of the supposed 32GB of flash is actually available once you boot your phone up? Generally 7GB to 11GB is eaten by Android and shovelware right off the bat, I'd call it fraud if something is sold to me with the expectation of 34% more storage space than what I actually end up with.
  - kajecounterhack 8y ago
    It's not fraudulent; your expectations are out of line. If you flash some other OS onto your device, you'll have (32gb - whatever the size of your OS is). So to market the device as having 32gb, then having the OS take up some space, is completely accurate. The _specs_ do not indicate how much actual free space you have. This is the nature of electronic devices that have memory but require software to work.

eevilspock 8y ago

Android was never free. It has cost all of us a lot in terms of freedom and privacy.

HillaryBriss 8y ago
... and time spent by developers trying to make their apps work right across all devices (or even on a single device)
- JimmyAustin 8y ago
  There isn't a platform on earth where developers don't have to worry about their app working on all devices.

FollowSteph3 8y ago

They have the choice to build their own OS. The reason they don’t is clear, it’s too expensive. Google instead of charging money requires certain licensing conditions. If they truly want full control they could build it themselves but obviously they’re prefer google’s licensing model.

lovich 8y ago
That's the current local optimum for phone manufacturers. The anti trust regulations exist, in part, to help prevent companies from forcing a local optimum that ensures no one ever tried something different, and thus forces the industries to keep improving. If the OS was so good on it's own then google would not need these licensing terms to maintain market share.