5 ms·

I'd say that, in this day and age, preventing vendors from using Android forks counts as a form of locking customers out of competing operating systems. Even mo

I'd say that, in this day and age, preventing vendors from using Android forks counts as a form of locking customers out of competing operating systems. Even more so now that Android forks represent the only serious alternative available to any phone manufacturer who isn't based in Cupertino. Also, two wrongs don't make a right. Microsoft getting off way too easy does not mean that Google should get off easy, too.

swebs 8y ago
I meant locking out competing OSs is worse than bundling a browser with your OS. Both companies deserve the fine.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
beerlord 8y ago
Android already has a problem with fragmentation, which becomes a problem for customers when their phone becomes vulnerable due to a lack of security patches. There are lots of cheap Chinese Android phones simply filled with malware from the factory. If Google allowed phone makers to ship Android forks, this whole problem would become a lot worse. I think this Google policy is actually pro-consumer, and the EU is wrong on this point.
- codedokode 8y ago
  Those Chinese phone manufacturers often use Google Services without a license. So what Google does doesn't change anything for them. Also, Google's agreements do not prevent vendors from installing malware as long it is not competing with Google apps.
  - __m 8y ago
    Which ones?
- bad_user 8y ago
  You’re talking of the eternal tension between security and freedom. No, I don’t think that reducing choice and locking them in Google’s ecosystem is pro-consumer, even if done for the right reasons. Let’s remember that Android was welcomed by many of us as a free (as in freedom) alternative to iOS. If you want a locked-down, secure and polished OS, then Apple’s iOS is far better at this game. The only reason why Android is dominating the market right now is because it gave freedom to users and freedom to phone makers. And Google dialing that freedom down after becoming so popular is anti-competitive. It’s essentially a bait and switch, which is why I believe Google deserves that fine.
  - kajecounterhack 8y ago
    > It’s essentially a bait and switch, which is why I believe Google deserves that fine. Seems like you're projecting your own expectations onto what Google has really been selling all along. Google doesn't advertise Android as "free as in freedom." OEMs comply with their conditions. It's how it works.
    - bad_user 8y ago
      No, that was Android’s marketing from day 1 and as far as OEMs go, Google’s conditions have evolved, along with what they are shoving down on their users’ throats. And as far as “free as in freedom” goes, the US law agrees with me via “estoppel”.
      - kajecounterhack 8y ago
        Open doesn't mean the same thing as free. Estoppel does not help that "free as in freedom" was never true.
    - GeekyBear 8y ago
      >you're projecting your own expectations onto what Google has really been selling Andy Rubin in 2010 speaking on how open Android is: >the definition of open: "mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make" https://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429 https://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429
- lagadu 8y ago
  Are you actually arguing that giving less freedom to the consumer is for their own good? Am I just missing the sarcasm maybe?
  - candiodari 8y ago
    Lots of Apple users feel like the app store gives them a pretty strong case this is mostly true. I kind of agree with them, actually.
    - g-b-r 8y ago
      For both Apple and Google's phones it wouldn't be hard to allow users to securely add keys of other stores or indivual software makers without requiring one to root his phone (aka destroy the security). You'd just have to give several huge, clear warnings of what that means before allowing it. And, by the way, security? Come on, if they really cared about the security/privacy of their users the permissions' systems would not be made of those huge blankets that are more like websites' cookie banners than real useable security controls.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    That's pretty much the entire argument behind security, in computers or otherwise. Security features reduce yout ability to do what you want on your device. (And it's not just an abstract "what if I want to shoot my own foot off" issue. Consider e.g. sandboxing, which by its very nature kills interoperability. In a non-sandboxed environment, you can write code that forces two applications to interoperate, whether their authors like it or not. In a sandboxed environment, you're limited to what vendors allow you.)

swebs 8y ago

I meant locking out competing OSs is worse than bundling a browser with your OS. Both companies deserve the fine.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

beerlord 8y ago

Android already has a problem with fragmentation, which becomes a problem for customers when their phone becomes vulnerable due to a lack of security patches. There are lots of cheap Chinese Android phones simply filled with malware from the factory. If Google allowed phone makers to ship Android forks, this whole problem would become a lot worse. I think this Google policy is actually pro-consumer, and the EU is wrong on this point.

codedokode 8y ago
Those Chinese phone manufacturers often use Google Services without a license. So what Google does doesn't change anything for them. Also, Google's agreements do not prevent vendors from installing malware as long it is not competing with Google apps.
- __m 8y ago
  Which ones?
bad_user 8y ago
You’re talking of the eternal tension between security and freedom. No, I don’t think that reducing choice and locking them in Google’s ecosystem is pro-consumer, even if done for the right reasons. Let’s remember that Android was welcomed by many of us as a free (as in freedom) alternative to iOS. If you want a locked-down, secure and polished OS, then Apple’s iOS is far better at this game. The only reason why Android is dominating the market right now is because it gave freedom to users and freedom to phone makers. And Google dialing that freedom down after becoming so popular is anti-competitive. It’s essentially a bait and switch, which is why I believe Google deserves that fine.
- kajecounterhack 8y ago
  > It’s essentially a bait and switch, which is why I believe Google deserves that fine. Seems like you're projecting your own expectations onto what Google has really been selling all along. Google doesn't advertise Android as "free as in freedom." OEMs comply with their conditions. It's how it works.
  - bad_user 8y ago
    No, that was Android’s marketing from day 1 and as far as OEMs go, Google’s conditions have evolved, along with what they are shoving down on their users’ throats. And as far as “free as in freedom” goes, the US law agrees with me via “estoppel”.
    - kajecounterhack 8y ago
      Open doesn't mean the same thing as free. Estoppel does not help that "free as in freedom" was never true.
  - GeekyBear 8y ago
    >you're projecting your own expectations onto what Google has really been selling Andy Rubin in 2010 speaking on how open Android is: >the definition of open: "mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make" https://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429 https://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429
lagadu 8y ago
Are you actually arguing that giving less freedom to the consumer is for their own good? Am I just missing the sarcasm maybe?
- candiodari 8y ago
  Lots of Apple users feel like the app store gives them a pretty strong case this is mostly true. I kind of agree with them, actually.
  - g-b-r 8y ago
    For both Apple and Google's phones it wouldn't be hard to allow users to securely add keys of other stores or indivual software makers without requiring one to root his phone (aka destroy the security). You'd just have to give several huge, clear warnings of what that means before allowing it. And, by the way, security? Come on, if they really cared about the security/privacy of their users the permissions' systems would not be made of those huge blankets that are more like websites' cookie banners than real useable security controls.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  That's pretty much the entire argument behind security, in computers or otherwise. Security features reduce yout ability to do what you want on your device. (And it's not just an abstract "what if I want to shoot my own foot off" issue. Consider e.g. sandboxing, which by its very nature kills interoperability. In a non-sandboxed environment, you can write code that forces two applications to interoperate, whether their authors like it or not. In a sandboxed environment, you're limited to what vendors allow you.)