7 ms·

The net outcome of this decision will be that nobody will create significant open platforms of this type anymore, because once you are successful you will no lo

The net outcome of this decision will be that nobody will create significant open platforms of this type anymore, because once you are successful you will no longer be able to have any control over the experience. Someone will always be able to find a market that you are hurting. If you actually read the decision that's essentially their underlying complaint. They dress it up in terms about search market blah blah blah, but in the end it's really about whether Google is allowed to control the experience of Android phones that want to use the Google apps and app store or not. Android being open at all was already a fight inside Google, this decision will essentially make it impossible for anybody win that fight in the future. I can't see why anyone would risk making an open platform again. Success only has downsides versus Apple's model. I expect the next major player here will either sell the operating system or sell the phones, and keep the other stuff closed

LolNoGenerics 8y ago
So I can create an open platform and control how it is used? That doesn't make sense.
- DannyBee 8y ago
  Err, no, they controlled only the people who chose to use their apps or play store. That's still open, you can do whatever you want, it's just if you want their stuff, you play by their rules.
  - LolNoGenerics 8y ago
    That has nothing to do with open software.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - shanghaiaway 8y ago
    So it's not open.
    - stickfigure 8y ago
      It's not that complicated. The Google apps and the app store are not open. Everything else is.
      - genericid 8y ago
        Google has abandoned most AOSP apps. It has moved large parts of the API into Play Services. Android is not open, what is open is merely an incompatible fragment of an OS.
      - pas 8y ago
        Google Apps Agreement prohibits you from enjoying the openness of that everything else. And now the EU Commission thinks that this is an unfair (due to market share) agreement, because it prevents competition. (Which is trivially does, since no OEM can start making and marketing and selling a competitor.)
  - njoro 8y ago
    I think you are twisting the definitions pretty hard. Android isn't open for anyone who also wants access to the dominant app store. If you want that and sign that agreement you can no longer effectively enjoy the right you have under e.g. the GPL and distribute devices with modified versions of the code. As I understand this is legal under the GPL, but certainly very shady towards the developers who made the code available with the intention for it be used openly, rather than being leveraged by Google for their anti-competitive means. Also those practices is preventing other developers, who has as much right to the code under the license, from using those manufacturers. This is a clear attempt of trying to use their dominant position to control the market and shut out the competition from those manufacturers, not just controlling the manufacturers themselves which would be bad enough in the first place. And that is exactly why they are being and should be fined.
  - genericid 8y ago
    Windows is also open. You can do whatever you want, it's just if you want their stuff (except .NET and Powershell), you play by their rules.
codedokode 8y ago
I cannot agree. The main problem is that Google has proprietary Google Play Services and instead of just selling it Google sets additional terms that prevent competition, like preinstalling competitors' search engines, or competitors' software. It is difficult to earn large profits in a competing market; but this is benefecial for consumers and their interests should be put before Google's.
- DannyBee 8y ago
  I'm really unsure what your first sentence about the main problem is supposed to mean, it really doesn't make a lot of sense to me as written, so i'm having trouble responding. Would you mind rephrasing it a bit, and i'd be happy to try to respond? I can't see why anyone would ever not follow Apple's model. It effectively immunizes them from antitrust concerns due to low market share, but they still make an ungodly amount of money. What does Google's model buy them, precisely?
  - codedokode 8y ago
    I am sorry if I didn't write it clearly. What I wanted to say is that Google required phone manufacturers not to make agreements with Google's competitors (e.g. not to preinstall competitors's apps or search engine as default) as a condition for obtaining a license for Google Play Services or Google Play. And this is bad for competition in mobile software market and bad for consumers. Instead Google should just sell their software to manufacturers without such conditions. For example, several years ago a Russian software company, Yandex, wanted to make its own build of Android with Yandex browser and Yandex app store. But after they have talked to smartphone vendors, they learned that in order to obtain licenses for Google software the vendors have signed an agreement with Google forbidding them to make phones with alternative ROMs or replace Google software with competitors' software [1]. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/17/google-reaches-7-8-million-settlement-in-its-android-antitrust-case-in-russia/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/17/google-reaches-7-8-million...
    - DannyBee 8y ago
      Ah. So this goes to the question i ask: If Google had to do as you say (sell the software with no restrictions), why would google ever sell the software in the first place? Microsoft tried that and was fairly unsuccessful. Future folks would likely just choose the Apple model - don't sell the software at all.
paulie_a 8y ago
Im glad, the openness of Android led to incredibly terrible phones with all kinds of crapware, Samsung being the worst. I wish Google would have just sold the os to oems with tight restrictions.
sah2ed 8y ago
> Android being open at all was already a fight inside Google, this decision will essentially make it impossible for anybody win that fight in the future. I can't see why anyone would risk making an open platform again. It was a calculated risk that had a handsome payoff, if it worked, which is why it had to be open source, anything short of open source and Android would never have taken off like it did with several handset manufacturers via the OHA [0]. Remember, the context surrounding the need for Android to use an open source model at launch was that they were the underdog, iOS was still nascent but steadily gaining serious market share. The incumbents -- whom Google was hoping to disrupt using the OHA as a trojan horse was Nokia (they enjoyed 73% market share [1] with their Symbian "smartphone" OS) and Blackberry. Nokia would eventually start the process to make Symbian fully open source in 2008 [2], so they could compete better against the OHA [3], but the process didn't complete until 2010[4], which by then was already too late. IOW, making Android open source was a core part of Google's strategic play to gain market share, there is no point in crying uncle. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Handset_Alliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Handset_Alliance [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbian#Market_share_and_competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbian#Market_share_and_compe... [2] https://techcrunch.com/2008/06/24/symbian-goes-open-source-courtesy-of-nokia/ https://techcrunch.com/2008/06/24/symbian-goes-open-source-c... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbian_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbian_Foundation [4] https://www.wired.com/2010/02/symbian-operating-system-now-open-source-and-free/ https://www.wired.com/2010/02/symbian-operating-system-now-o...
- DannyBee 8y ago
  "It was a calculated risk that had a handsome payoff, if it worked, which is why it had to be open source, anything short of open source and Android would never have taken off like it did with several handset manufacturers via the OHA [0]." This is actually not why it was done (I was there :P), and didn't really factor very much into the calculation at all. So your perspective, while interesting, was not the one used. In fact, the business folks mostly thought it would be a downside (given all the FUD/etc around the time period). Your perspective is also interesting because Apple did not go this route and still were wildly successful. So i disagree it "had to be open source or it would not have taken off". I'd like to believe that (really!), but there is an existence proof that this was not true (Apple), and in the end, i just can't bring myself to think what you say is true. It was open because Andy thought it was best for the world (really. I realize how cliche that sounds, but if you've ever met the guy, you'd realize it was true. He gave pretty much not a shit about the business side of it, it's not what he enjoyed). As mentioned, the business folks argued that this model would just lead to a shitty experience (among other things) over time. (This was pre-iphone, so apple was not a consideration at the time). The compromise was "great, let's figure out how we can make sure that doesn't happen through branding guidelines/etc". Later, after Apple was successful, the business folks all said "look, this model was a mistake, look at Apple". You could still push back and say "we are doing fine". I don't see how, in the future, the business folks don't win every argument here. Apple's model is giving them all the money, with none of the downsides. This seems like a "business school case study" they would teach in the future.
bassman9000 8y ago
I can't see why anyone would risk making an open platform again. The Android growth phase has been incredibly lucrative for Google (and Microsoft, via patents). Have no doubt they'd try it again today. And the justice system in the EU is different than in the US. It doesn't mean the next one will be the same.
_bxg1 8y ago
As the adage goes, if a for-profit corporation gives something away for free, you're not the customer, you're the product. This applies to OEM's, in this case. The "product" is a Google-controlled mobile landscape; the OEM's aren't customers, they're a means to that end. These days I actually feel more comfortable when things aren't free. It means the company's motives aren't (completely) obfuscated.
- tanilama 8y ago
  I am not missing those days, where I need to pay 100 dollars for a piece of plastic called Windows.
blub 8y ago
Having worked for so many years at Google, you should be aware that your employer is forbidding Android manufacturers to also produce any non-certified Android-based devices. No Android logo, no app store, no GApps, still forbidden if that company happens to sell an unrelated Android device. So in fact it is not about "whether Google is allowed to control the experience of Android phones that want to use the Google apps and app store or not". Regarding open source, Android v1 was an underpowered and underfeatured newcomer in a market dominated by Symbian and Blackberry where Windows was at a few percent and iOS was making inroads. There's a very good chance that without it being open source it would have went precisely nowhere. Let's not rewrite history and make it look like Android was a clear winner from the beginning, back then even iPhone was pretty crap, and Android was that times two.
- utopcell 8y ago
  This argument doesn't make any sense. Android was developed via billions of dollars of investment by Google. Google has no obligation to provide a free OSS variant, other than for the parts that are GPL'ed. If all Google is offering is the complete Android experience (including the App store and all the Google apps,) and not any OSS variant, how are manufacturers limited exactly ? They can either use Android, that is being offered to them for free, or roll their own OS.
  - blub 8y ago
    Google has no obligation to provide the OSS version, but they can't really afford to close Android either, it would be a major PR blow and Samsung would basically immediately ship their own fork, perhaps with the Amazon store and a couple extra apps to replace the Google maps, Chrome, etc. Manufacturers are limited contractually. This is detailed in the EU press release linked to this thread. Alas, one still has to actually read it or alternatively have some knowledge about how Android is licensed.
- DannyBee 8y ago
  (The rest we are going to disagree on. I know the specifics of these agreements and advised on some of them, so i can't talk about them for rea) "There's a very good chance that without it being open source it would have went precisely nowhere. " Why? You say a lot of things, but none seem to related to why this is true. As far as i can tell, it is definitively not true. The app developers were happy to go where there was money, and the users certainly didn't care. Again, i'm a huge supporter of open source projects, i donate to the FSF, etc. I would love for it to be the case to say that Android was a success/failure because of open source. It's just i've seen exactly zero data that supports this notion, and a lot that doesn't. The real history rewrite here is the rewrite that Android didn't enable choice or competition. Before Android all of the systems you're talking about had user interfaces that were tightly controlled by the carriers right down to the Verizon internet browser. Your best case scenario would be apple winning. Your worst case scenario is you still have Verizon deciding what your phone user interface should be like.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
"nobody will create significant open platforms of this type anymore, because once you are successful you will no longer be able to have any control " 'open' and 'control' are hard to reconcile.
joepie91_ 8y ago
> The net outcome of this decision will be that nobody will create significant open platforms of this type anymore, Excellent development! These platforms weren't "open" in the first place, just pretending to be, so I don't see the problem.

LolNoGenerics 8y ago

So I can create an open platform and control how it is used? That doesn't make sense.

DannyBee 8y ago
Err, no, they controlled only the people who chose to use their apps or play store. That's still open, you can do whatever you want, it's just if you want their stuff, you play by their rules.
- LolNoGenerics 8y ago
  That has nothing to do with open software.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- shanghaiaway 8y ago
  So it's not open.
  - stickfigure 8y ago
    It's not that complicated. The Google apps and the app store are not open. Everything else is.
    - genericid 8y ago
      Google has abandoned most AOSP apps. It has moved large parts of the API into Play Services. Android is not open, what is open is merely an incompatible fragment of an OS.
    - pas 8y ago
      Google Apps Agreement prohibits you from enjoying the openness of that everything else. And now the EU Commission thinks that this is an unfair (due to market share) agreement, because it prevents competition. (Which is trivially does, since no OEM can start making and marketing and selling a competitor.)
- njoro 8y ago
  I think you are twisting the definitions pretty hard. Android isn't open for anyone who also wants access to the dominant app store. If you want that and sign that agreement you can no longer effectively enjoy the right you have under e.g. the GPL and distribute devices with modified versions of the code. As I understand this is legal under the GPL, but certainly very shady towards the developers who made the code available with the intention for it be used openly, rather than being leveraged by Google for their anti-competitive means. Also those practices is preventing other developers, who has as much right to the code under the license, from using those manufacturers. This is a clear attempt of trying to use their dominant position to control the market and shut out the competition from those manufacturers, not just controlling the manufacturers themselves which would be bad enough in the first place. And that is exactly why they are being and should be fined.
- genericid 8y ago
  Windows is also open. You can do whatever you want, it's just if you want their stuff (except .NET and Powershell), you play by their rules.

codedokode 8y ago

I cannot agree. The main problem is that Google has proprietary Google Play Services and instead of just selling it Google sets additional terms that prevent competition, like preinstalling competitors' search engines, or competitors' software. It is difficult to earn large profits in a competing market; but this is benefecial for consumers and their interests should be put before Google's.

DannyBee 8y ago
I'm really unsure what your first sentence about the main problem is supposed to mean, it really doesn't make a lot of sense to me as written, so i'm having trouble responding. Would you mind rephrasing it a bit, and i'd be happy to try to respond? I can't see why anyone would ever not follow Apple's model. It effectively immunizes them from antitrust concerns due to low market share, but they still make an ungodly amount of money. What does Google's model buy them, precisely?
- codedokode 8y ago
  I am sorry if I didn't write it clearly. What I wanted to say is that Google required phone manufacturers not to make agreements with Google's competitors (e.g. not to preinstall competitors's apps or search engine as default) as a condition for obtaining a license for Google Play Services or Google Play. And this is bad for competition in mobile software market and bad for consumers. Instead Google should just sell their software to manufacturers without such conditions. For example, several years ago a Russian software company, Yandex, wanted to make its own build of Android with Yandex browser and Yandex app store. But after they have talked to smartphone vendors, they learned that in order to obtain licenses for Google software the vendors have signed an agreement with Google forbidding them to make phones with alternative ROMs or replace Google software with competitors' software [1]. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/17/google-reaches-7-8-million-settlement-in-its-android-antitrust-case-in-russia/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/17/google-reaches-7-8-million...
  - DannyBee 8y ago
    Ah. So this goes to the question i ask: If Google had to do as you say (sell the software with no restrictions), why would google ever sell the software in the first place? Microsoft tried that and was fairly unsuccessful. Future folks would likely just choose the Apple model - don't sell the software at all.

paulie_a 8y ago

Im glad, the openness of Android led to incredibly terrible phones with all kinds of crapware, Samsung being the worst. I wish Google would have just sold the os to oems with tight restrictions.

sah2ed 8y ago

> Android being open at all was already a fight inside Google, this decision will essentially make it impossible for anybody win that fight in the future. I can't see why anyone would risk making an open platform again. It was a calculated risk that had a handsome payoff, if it worked, which is why it had to be open source, anything short of open source and Android would never have taken off like it did with several handset manufacturers via the OHA [0]. Remember, the context surrounding the need for Android to use an open source model at launch was that they were the underdog, iOS was still nascent but steadily gaining serious market share. The incumbents -- whom Google was hoping to disrupt using the OHA as a trojan horse was Nokia (they enjoyed 73% market share [1] with their Symbian "smartphone" OS) and Blackberry. Nokia would eventually start the process to make Symbian fully open source in 2008 [2], so they could compete better against the OHA [3], but the process didn't complete until 2010[4], which by then was already too late. IOW, making Android open source was a core part of Google's strategic play to gain market share, there is no point in crying uncle. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Handset_Alliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Handset_Alliance [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbian#Market_share_and_competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbian#Market_share_and_compe... [2] https://techcrunch.com/2008/06/24/symbian-goes-open-source-courtesy-of-nokia/ https://techcrunch.com/2008/06/24/symbian-goes-open-source-c... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbian_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbian_Foundation [4] https://www.wired.com/2010/02/symbian-operating-system-now-open-source-and-free/ https://www.wired.com/2010/02/symbian-operating-system-now-o...

DannyBee 8y ago
"It was a calculated risk that had a handsome payoff, if it worked, which is why it had to be open source, anything short of open source and Android would never have taken off like it did with several handset manufacturers via the OHA [0]." This is actually not why it was done (I was there :P), and didn't really factor very much into the calculation at all. So your perspective, while interesting, was not the one used. In fact, the business folks mostly thought it would be a downside (given all the FUD/etc around the time period). Your perspective is also interesting because Apple did not go this route and still were wildly successful. So i disagree it "had to be open source or it would not have taken off". I'd like to believe that (really!), but there is an existence proof that this was not true (Apple), and in the end, i just can't bring myself to think what you say is true. It was open because Andy thought it was best for the world (really. I realize how cliche that sounds, but if you've ever met the guy, you'd realize it was true. He gave pretty much not a shit about the business side of it, it's not what he enjoyed). As mentioned, the business folks argued that this model would just lead to a shitty experience (among other things) over time. (This was pre-iphone, so apple was not a consideration at the time). The compromise was "great, let's figure out how we can make sure that doesn't happen through branding guidelines/etc". Later, after Apple was successful, the business folks all said "look, this model was a mistake, look at Apple". You could still push back and say "we are doing fine". I don't see how, in the future, the business folks don't win every argument here. Apple's model is giving them all the money, with none of the downsides. This seems like a "business school case study" they would teach in the future.

bassman9000 8y ago

I can't see why anyone would risk making an open platform again. The Android growth phase has been incredibly lucrative for Google (and Microsoft, via patents). Have no doubt they'd try it again today. And the justice system in the EU is different than in the US. It doesn't mean the next one will be the same.

_bxg1 8y ago

As the adage goes, if a for-profit corporation gives something away for free, you're not the customer, you're the product. This applies to OEM's, in this case. The "product" is a Google-controlled mobile landscape; the OEM's aren't customers, they're a means to that end. These days I actually feel more comfortable when things aren't free. It means the company's motives aren't (completely) obfuscated.

tanilama 8y ago
I am not missing those days, where I need to pay 100 dollars for a piece of plastic called Windows.

blub 8y ago

Having worked for so many years at Google, you should be aware that your employer is forbidding Android manufacturers to also produce any non-certified Android-based devices. No Android logo, no app store, no GApps, still forbidden if that company happens to sell an unrelated Android device. So in fact it is not about "whether Google is allowed to control the experience of Android phones that want to use the Google apps and app store or not". Regarding open source, Android v1 was an underpowered and underfeatured newcomer in a market dominated by Symbian and Blackberry where Windows was at a few percent and iOS was making inroads. There's a very good chance that without it being open source it would have went precisely nowhere. Let's not rewrite history and make it look like Android was a clear winner from the beginning, back then even iPhone was pretty crap, and Android was that times two.

utopcell 8y ago
This argument doesn't make any sense. Android was developed via billions of dollars of investment by Google. Google has no obligation to provide a free OSS variant, other than for the parts that are GPL'ed. If all Google is offering is the complete Android experience (including the App store and all the Google apps,) and not any OSS variant, how are manufacturers limited exactly ? They can either use Android, that is being offered to them for free, or roll their own OS.
- blub 8y ago
  Google has no obligation to provide the OSS version, but they can't really afford to close Android either, it would be a major PR blow and Samsung would basically immediately ship their own fork, perhaps with the Amazon store and a couple extra apps to replace the Google maps, Chrome, etc. Manufacturers are limited contractually. This is detailed in the EU press release linked to this thread. Alas, one still has to actually read it or alternatively have some knowledge about how Android is licensed.
DannyBee 8y ago
(The rest we are going to disagree on. I know the specifics of these agreements and advised on some of them, so i can't talk about them for rea) "There's a very good chance that without it being open source it would have went precisely nowhere. " Why? You say a lot of things, but none seem to related to why this is true. As far as i can tell, it is definitively not true. The app developers were happy to go where there was money, and the users certainly didn't care. Again, i'm a huge supporter of open source projects, i donate to the FSF, etc. I would love for it to be the case to say that Android was a success/failure because of open source. It's just i've seen exactly zero data that supports this notion, and a lot that doesn't. The real history rewrite here is the rewrite that Android didn't enable choice or competition. Before Android all of the systems you're talking about had user interfaces that were tightly controlled by the carriers right down to the Verizon internet browser. Your best case scenario would be apple winning. Your worst case scenario is you still have Verizon deciding what your phone user interface should be like.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

"nobody will create significant open platforms of this type anymore, because once you are successful you will no longer be able to have any control " 'open' and 'control' are hard to reconcile.

joepie91_ 8y ago

> The net outcome of this decision will be that nobody will create significant open platforms of this type anymore, Excellent development! These platforms weren't "open" in the first place, just pretending to be, so I don't see the problem.