4 ms·

> 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.

> 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
    - simula67 8y ago
      Should these goals be constrained at all ? For example, can a regulatory body ban sales of all cigarettes because the son of the chairperson of the body died of lung cancer ? Why not appoint heads of regulatory bodies as kings ?
naasking 8y ago
> So yeah, the app store service is run by Google and it wouldn't make any sense for that to be open source. I don't see why you're equating "governance" with "open source". You can have either one without the other. And governance driven by a open community is also possible. Also, the spyware you describe is only possible because of the security model employed. It's also possible to completely secure a platform so as to make these sorts of problems a thing of the past.
antpls 8y ago
> If you care so much then go build a free software alternative. In theory, maybe. But wouldn't Google current policies and monopoly disallow the execution? For example, maybe it is not possible to replace only half of the services with open source alternatives, because Google policies with the phone manufacturers are "install all our apps and services with no alternative, or install none of our services". And Google engineered so many developer API on top of their services that they built a dependence to their services for everyone in the Android ecosystem. I don't know if I'm right, but I can see how this could be more complicated than a simple technical argument "hey, just make your own alternatives".
chappi42 8y ago
> 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. Android has a huge market dominance and Google looses some scope in their terms. I do think for competitors "following Google's conditions" is "not choice", e.g. you have to have the Play Store or you loose bitterly. Most/many good apps are only available through the Play Store. A choice for me would be when a competitor has access to Play Store (of course with a fair compensation) without enabling Google at the same time to install many other unwanted/data grabbing apps/services. > Yelling at people to make everything free isn't a solution. Regarding closed source you misunderstood or I didn't write well. I was not angrily critizising (or yelling even) that Google Play Services is closed source, I wanted to express that one major part of Android is _already_ closed source when Pichai said "sends a troubling signal in favor of proprietary systems over open platforms". -- (Besides, what good is open platforms when services come with heavy strings attached and, sometimes, are taken away in a blink because some algorithm decided...).

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
  - simula67 8y ago
    Should these goals be constrained at all ? For example, can a regulatory body ban sales of all cigarettes because the son of the chairperson of the body died of lung cancer ? Why not appoint heads of regulatory bodies as kings ?

naasking 8y ago

> So yeah, the app store service is run by Google and it wouldn't make any sense for that to be open source. I don't see why you're equating "governance" with "open source". You can have either one without the other. And governance driven by a open community is also possible. Also, the spyware you describe is only possible because of the security model employed. It's also possible to completely secure a platform so as to make these sorts of problems a thing of the past.

antpls 8y ago

> If you care so much then go build a free software alternative. In theory, maybe. But wouldn't Google current policies and monopoly disallow the execution? For example, maybe it is not possible to replace only half of the services with open source alternatives, because Google policies with the phone manufacturers are "install all our apps and services with no alternative, or install none of our services". And Google engineered so many developer API on top of their services that they built a dependence to their services for everyone in the Android ecosystem. I don't know if I'm right, but I can see how this could be more complicated than a simple technical argument "hey, just make your own alternatives".

chappi42 8y ago

> 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. Android has a huge market dominance and Google looses some scope in their terms. I do think for competitors "following Google's conditions" is "not choice", e.g. you have to have the Play Store or you loose bitterly. Most/many good apps are only available through the Play Store. A choice for me would be when a competitor has access to Play Store (of course with a fair compensation) without enabling Google at the same time to install many other unwanted/data grabbing apps/services. > Yelling at people to make everything free isn't a solution. Regarding closed source you misunderstood or I didn't write well. I was not angrily critizising (or yelling even) that Google Play Services is closed source, I wanted to express that one major part of Android is _already_ closed source when Pichai said "sends a troubling signal in favor of proprietary systems over open platforms". -- (Besides, what good is open platforms when services come with heavy strings attached and, sometimes, are taken away in a blink because some algorithm decided...).