8 ms·

Google’s iron grip on Android: Controlling open source by any means necessary

90 points by 0xbxd 8y ago

sqdbps 8y ago
It's never enough is it? Google could develop an open source project, relinquish all control and not even try to make money from the thing and people would still find fault and malice in it. Whatever is open source about Android is good enough to produce the Fire devices and the bulk of the Chinese smartphone market. But never mind all that the fine wasn't about which parts of Android are open source, the fine was predetermined, they just worked backwards and they didn't even come up with convincing reasons because many people are already convinced that tech firms are too big and Google is evil. The fine is a result of the mandate to the EU commision to penalise and hamstring US tech companies.
TwoNineA 8y ago
Clickbait, sensationalist. Counterpoint: Amazon FireOS.
- close04 8y ago
  Counterpoint: Because of FireOS (not a "Google approved" Android fork) Amazon is no longer allowed to license any Google apps. As hinted by them missing from the OHA members list: http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/oha_members.html http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/oha_members.html How many phone companies can afford to do this? Imagine a different scenario with a company you may not have a strong positive bias towards: Microsoft. Imagine all the OEM agreements are: "if you want to sell laptops with Windows you must agree to never sell laptops with other OSes". Or "if your software runs on any competing OS you are no longer allowed access to some proprietary and critical Windows API". What many people refuse to understand is one simple fact: what Google did is illegal. And it's only their personal pro-Google bias that makes them ignore and excuse the behavior. Or even to claim that the law should change for them. The fact that so few people were outraged when Microsoft landed in the same hot water is irrefutable proof of this.
  - cageface 8y ago
    The same people that dismiss Android as excessively fragmented will also cheer the recent decision to punish them for trying to reign in that fragmentation. The mobile market is healthy right now, with meaningful choice and competition that has benefitted consumers on both leading platforms. Hopefully that will still be the case after this recent misguided attack by the EC. There was no meaningful competition in the OS space when Microsoft was fined.
    - gurkendoktor 8y ago
      Do you think the mobile market would be less healthy without the OHA that the article criticizes; say, if Asus were allowed to build Fire Tablets for Amazon without risking its own Android phone business?
      - cageface 8y ago
        This is the one count against Google that I'm somewhat sympathetic with. To say they can't be allowed to put restrictions on access to the app store and play services on a particular model is ridiculous though.
        close04 8y ago
        When you basically own the market you are active in the rules change for any company. Because with that kind of power you can easily force out any competition and then switch into neutral and coast. And normally I had to endlessly argue with people about why competition is good. But now you have an excellent example in AMD vs. Intel where after years of stagnation and no price drop in sight Intel was persuaded into offering more cores at lower price by the simple fact that they suddenly had competition.
        cageface 8y ago
        So what competition are you expecting to emerge as a result of this? Making a successful mobile operating system at this point is very very difficult. Even Microsoft couldn’t do it. If you handicap Android all you’re going to have left is iOS and cheap phones loaded with carrier crap. The whole situation reminds me of progressives in the US that keep voting for people like Nader and Sanders and effectively make conservatives win. Life very rarely offers us our ideal options.
DannyBee 8y ago
"Google was terrified that Apple would end up ruling the mobile space. So, to help in the fight against the iPhone at a time when Google had no mobile foothold whatsoever, Android was launched as an open source project." This is not a quote from anyone because it's false. Andy started Android well before anyone knew iPhone existed (years). I say existed only because I don't know offhand when Apple started iPhone internally, so i can't say for sure he started it before Apple did, but i suspect that's true as well. Andy left Danger in 2003 to go start to create Android. The first iPhone was not released until mid-2007. Google was terrified, but it was terrified the carriers would end up owning the mobile space, because they already were. Andy also didn't open source Android to "get a foothold in something". He's literally said his reasons before. Given how poorly researched just this simple paragraph is (it literally can't be true), it would take a lot of time to point out how bad the rest is too.
- everydaypanos 8y ago
  How could Google be terrified of something which as you say was already happening? I am also pretty sure that Andy’s actions have absolutely no relevance here. I think that this first sentence is actually super true and maybe even captivating to read the rest.. Google CEO I think has admitted publicly that Google’s mobile-phone efforts at first were just by a simple fear of Apple :)
- Mister_Snuggles 8y ago
  That quote isn't attributed to anyone in the article. I took it to be the author's opinion. According to Wikipedia, the first iPhone was released on June 29, 2007 and Android had its initial release on Septebmer 23, 2008 with the first hardware (the HTC Dream) released on October 20, 2008. It seems to me that the iPhone beat Android to market by a year and a bit.
- modi15 8y ago
  Doesnt really matter what Andy intended - when Google bought it this is what they had in mind and it has been driven consistent with this policy. Google is absolutely at fault here and EU is the first of what should be many more cases against them.
- 8y ago
baybal2 8y ago
A lot of Chinese no name phones come with 2.* era Android exactly because of that. Google provides no workable lawsuit threat free userspace apps for later versions of android. I think they just began to feel what a big impediment it will be for them in the future. 2.* android is what IE6 was to Windows. A lot of app authors still intentionally target 2.* era APIs because they clientele lives in countries where "Chindroid" is dominant.
vatueil 8y ago
Could we add "(2013)" to the HN title? Article is a re-post from 5 years ago. Original discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6582494 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6582494
HillaryBriss 8y ago
Before I read this article, I was unaware of the struggles of Skyhook vis a vis Google's own geolocation service. Google really, really, really disliked the idea of an OEM installing Skyhook and setting it as the default location service on their devices. Ultimately, Skyhook sued and won a settlement from Google. IMHO, pretty ugly behavior from Google. https://www.engadget.com/2011/05/10/internal-emails-reveal-googles-desperation-over-skyhooks-andro/ https://www.engadget.com/2011/05/10/internal-emails-reveal-g... https://www.geek.com/mobile/google-emails-reveal-anti-competitive-moves-against-skyhook-1376609/ https://www.geek.com/mobile/google-emails-reveal-anti-compet... More interestingly Google internally recognized that Skyhook's ability to locate the user's device may have been superior when Google's Steve Lee wrote, in an internal Google email: Skyhook's accuracy is better than ours http://www.businessinsider.com/google-skyhook-emails-2011-5#heres-the-email-that-started-it-all-subject-line-can-you-explain-whyhow-this-happened-googles-vic-gundotra-links-to-our-post-about-motorola-ditching-googles-location-service-for-skyhooks-and-wants-to-know-why-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/google-skyhook-emails-2011-5#...
exabrial 8y ago
I find this sort of delusionary. Look what China has done with Android
myrandomcomment 8y ago
Funny story. I loved smart phones. From the first Palm with cell access to the Treo 270 and 650. I bought the first iPhone and then spent tons of time in IRC working out with a large group how to unlock it as my company paid for T-mobile, not ATT. I loved my iPhone and had a few. At some point I bought a Galaxy Note. I loved the HW, but hated the OS. Did the whole custom ROM etc, but it was just never as clean as IOS. About this time I was at a small party at a friends who used to work at Google. There was the normal crowd of techies from most of the major players in the valley. I was talking to a few friends about how much I disliked the Android experience. There was this guy there that I did not know. He starts asking tons of question zeroing in on why I disliked Android, which came down to the lack of interface guidelines between apps and the like. This Q&A went on for like 30 minutes. At the end I asked him, “why do you care so much?” He said “Sorry, we have not been introduced, I am Andy and I run Android at Google.” The thing that impressed me very much was the depth and detail of the question and his understanding of what my issue was. He said at the end “you are right, we can do better”. Nice guy.
throw2016 8y ago
The entire ecosystem of Google and Arm are not open in any way, it's a one sided relationship and this kind of fake open source makes a mockery of the open source movement and the extraordinary value Google, Facebook and rest of the ecosystem have got from open source. The apologists and hand wavers do a disservice to good faith discussion on open source and are more interested in moats, which is a legitimate objective but then build your own moat. Don't posture about being open. That's just corrupt. Here is a quick test of value. Will Linux be affected in the slightest if Google dropped Android and moved to Fuschia today? It will not even be noticed. Same with Google's use of Linux in the rest of their infrastructure. Will Linux be affected in the slightest if Google stops using Linux? Again no. So Google is actually benefiting hugely from Linux and adding little to no value back. Open source licenses need to learn from this to prevent their abuse. Even better a new clause which forbids the use of open source for surveillance and stalking is sorely needed. Or if this is the result people will simply not be motivated to contribute.
kemonocode 8y ago
Project Fuchsia is clearly their attempt at rectifying the mess they had with Android. No pesky GPLv2 licensing with the Linux kernel getting in the way, no ambiguity with Oracle... an OS completely owned by them. Sure, it _might_ be OSS as well, but in the end, they'll be the ones to call the shots, and sure enough they won't include any of the secret sauce. Hopefully also for good by forcing providers and manufacturers to give some reasonable support to their phones and not be lazy with security patches, or better yet, completely lifting that kind of "responsibilities" off them.

90 points by 0xbxd 8y ago

It's never enough is it? Google could develop an open source project, relinquish all control and not even try to make money from the thing and people would still find fault and malice in it. Whatever is open source about Android is good enough to produce the Fire devices and the bulk of the Chinese smartphone market. But never mind all that the fine wasn't about which parts of Android are open source, the fine was predetermined, they just worked backwards and they didn't even come up with convincing reasons because many people are already convinced that tech firms are too big and Google is evil. The fine is a result of the mandate to the EU commision to penalise and hamstring US tech companies.

TwoNineA 8y ago

Clickbait, sensationalist. Counterpoint: Amazon FireOS.

close04 8y ago
Counterpoint: Because of FireOS (not a "Google approved" Android fork) Amazon is no longer allowed to license any Google apps. As hinted by them missing from the OHA members list: http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/oha_members.html http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/oha_members.html How many phone companies can afford to do this? Imagine a different scenario with a company you may not have a strong positive bias towards: Microsoft. Imagine all the OEM agreements are: "if you want to sell laptops with Windows you must agree to never sell laptops with other OSes". Or "if your software runs on any competing OS you are no longer allowed access to some proprietary and critical Windows API". What many people refuse to understand is one simple fact: what Google did is illegal. And it's only their personal pro-Google bias that makes them ignore and excuse the behavior. Or even to claim that the law should change for them. The fact that so few people were outraged when Microsoft landed in the same hot water is irrefutable proof of this.
- cageface 8y ago
  The same people that dismiss Android as excessively fragmented will also cheer the recent decision to punish them for trying to reign in that fragmentation. The mobile market is healthy right now, with meaningful choice and competition that has benefitted consumers on both leading platforms. Hopefully that will still be the case after this recent misguided attack by the EC. There was no meaningful competition in the OS space when Microsoft was fined.
  - gurkendoktor 8y ago
    Do you think the mobile market would be less healthy without the OHA that the article criticizes; say, if Asus were allowed to build Fire Tablets for Amazon without risking its own Android phone business?
    - cageface 8y ago
      This is the one count against Google that I'm somewhat sympathetic with. To say they can't be allowed to put restrictions on access to the app store and play services on a particular model is ridiculous though.
      - close04 8y ago
        When you basically own the market you are active in the rules change for any company. Because with that kind of power you can easily force out any competition and then switch into neutral and coast. And normally I had to endlessly argue with people about why competition is good. But now you have an excellent example in AMD vs. Intel where after years of stagnation and no price drop in sight Intel was persuaded into offering more cores at lower price by the simple fact that they suddenly had competition.
        cageface 8y ago
        So what competition are you expecting to emerge as a result of this? Making a successful mobile operating system at this point is very very difficult. Even Microsoft couldn’t do it. If you handicap Android all you’re going to have left is iOS and cheap phones loaded with carrier crap. The whole situation reminds me of progressives in the US that keep voting for people like Nader and Sanders and effectively make conservatives win. Life very rarely offers us our ideal options.

DannyBee 8y ago

"Google was terrified that Apple would end up ruling the mobile space. So, to help in the fight against the iPhone at a time when Google had no mobile foothold whatsoever, Android was launched as an open source project." This is not a quote from anyone because it's false. Andy started Android well before anyone knew iPhone existed (years). I say existed only because I don't know offhand when Apple started iPhone internally, so i can't say for sure he started it before Apple did, but i suspect that's true as well. Andy left Danger in 2003 to go start to create Android. The first iPhone was not released until mid-2007. Google was terrified, but it was terrified the carriers would end up owning the mobile space, because they already were. Andy also didn't open source Android to "get a foothold in something". He's literally said his reasons before. Given how poorly researched just this simple paragraph is (it literally can't be true), it would take a lot of time to point out how bad the rest is too.

everydaypanos 8y ago
How could Google be terrified of something which as you say was already happening? I am also pretty sure that Andy’s actions have absolutely no relevance here. I think that this first sentence is actually super true and maybe even captivating to read the rest.. Google CEO I think has admitted publicly that Google’s mobile-phone efforts at first were just by a simple fear of Apple :)
Mister_Snuggles 8y ago
That quote isn't attributed to anyone in the article. I took it to be the author's opinion. According to Wikipedia, the first iPhone was released on June 29, 2007 and Android had its initial release on Septebmer 23, 2008 with the first hardware (the HTC Dream) released on October 20, 2008. It seems to me that the iPhone beat Android to market by a year and a bit.
modi15 8y ago
Doesnt really matter what Andy intended - when Google bought it this is what they had in mind and it has been driven consistent with this policy. Google is absolutely at fault here and EU is the first of what should be many more cases against them.
8y ago

baybal2 8y ago

A lot of Chinese no name phones come with 2.* era Android exactly because of that. Google provides no workable lawsuit threat free userspace apps for later versions of android. I think they just began to feel what a big impediment it will be for them in the future. 2.* android is what IE6 was to Windows. A lot of app authors still intentionally target 2.* era APIs because they clientele lives in countries where "Chindroid" is dominant.

vatueil 8y ago

Could we add "(2013)" to the HN title? Article is a re-post from 5 years ago. Original discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6582494 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6582494

HillaryBriss 8y ago

Before I read this article, I was unaware of the struggles of Skyhook vis a vis Google's own geolocation service. Google really, really, really disliked the idea of an OEM installing Skyhook and setting it as the default location service on their devices. Ultimately, Skyhook sued and won a settlement from Google. IMHO, pretty ugly behavior from Google. https://www.engadget.com/2011/05/10/internal-emails-reveal-googles-desperation-over-skyhooks-andro/ https://www.engadget.com/2011/05/10/internal-emails-reveal-g... https://www.geek.com/mobile/google-emails-reveal-anti-competitive-moves-against-skyhook-1376609/ https://www.geek.com/mobile/google-emails-reveal-anti-compet... More interestingly Google internally recognized that Skyhook's ability to locate the user's device may have been superior when Google's Steve Lee wrote, in an internal Google email: Skyhook's accuracy is better than ours http://www.businessinsider.com/google-skyhook-emails-2011-5#heres-the-email-that-started-it-all-subject-line-can-you-explain-whyhow-this-happened-googles-vic-gundotra-links-to-our-post-about-motorola-ditching-googles-location-service-for-skyhooks-and-wants-to-know-why-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/google-skyhook-emails-2011-5#...

exabrial 8y ago

I find this sort of delusionary. Look what China has done with Android

myrandomcomment 8y ago

Funny story. I loved smart phones. From the first Palm with cell access to the Treo 270 and 650. I bought the first iPhone and then spent tons of time in IRC working out with a large group how to unlock it as my company paid for T-mobile, not ATT. I loved my iPhone and had a few. At some point I bought a Galaxy Note. I loved the HW, but hated the OS. Did the whole custom ROM etc, but it was just never as clean as IOS. About this time I was at a small party at a friends who used to work at Google. There was the normal crowd of techies from most of the major players in the valley. I was talking to a few friends about how much I disliked the Android experience. There was this guy there that I did not know. He starts asking tons of question zeroing in on why I disliked Android, which came down to the lack of interface guidelines between apps and the like. This Q&A went on for like 30 minutes. At the end I asked him, “why do you care so much?” He said “Sorry, we have not been introduced, I am Andy and I run Android at Google.” The thing that impressed me very much was the depth and detail of the question and his understanding of what my issue was. He said at the end “you are right, we can do better”. Nice guy.

throw2016 8y ago

The entire ecosystem of Google and Arm are not open in any way, it's a one sided relationship and this kind of fake open source makes a mockery of the open source movement and the extraordinary value Google, Facebook and rest of the ecosystem have got from open source. The apologists and hand wavers do a disservice to good faith discussion on open source and are more interested in moats, which is a legitimate objective but then build your own moat. Don't posture about being open. That's just corrupt. Here is a quick test of value. Will Linux be affected in the slightest if Google dropped Android and moved to Fuschia today? It will not even be noticed. Same with Google's use of Linux in the rest of their infrastructure. Will Linux be affected in the slightest if Google stops using Linux? Again no. So Google is actually benefiting hugely from Linux and adding little to no value back. Open source licenses need to learn from this to prevent their abuse. Even better a new clause which forbids the use of open source for surveillance and stalking is sorely needed. Or if this is the result people will simply not be motivated to contribute.

kemonocode 8y ago

Project Fuchsia is clearly their attempt at rectifying the mess they had with Android. No pesky GPLv2 licensing with the Linux kernel getting in the way, no ambiguity with Oracle... an OS completely owned by them. Sure, it _might_ be OSS as well, but in the end, they'll be the ones to call the shots, and sure enough they won't include any of the secret sauce. Hopefully also for good by forcing providers and manufacturers to give some reasonable support to their phones and not be lazy with security patches, or better yet, completely lifting that kind of "responsibilities" off them.