3 ms·
First, that analogy is wrong. Android manufacturers have sold many devices running other operating systems, both free and proprietary. Second, pre-emptively acc
by vatueil 8y ago
First, that analogy is wrong. Android manufacturers have sold many devices running other operating systems, both free and proprietary. Second, pre-emptively accusing anyone who disagrees with you of pro-Google bias is fallacious.
There are no complaints about "Windows fragmentation", on the other hand, because you can't fork Windows at all. Or any other major OS, such as macOS or iOS.
GPL components such as the Linux kernel must be open sourced, but other parts of Android could have been made proprietary. Carriers and manufacturers only cared that Android was free-as-in-beer, not free-as-in-speech. The flip side of complaints that Android's development isn't community driven enough is that it's hard to turn around and claim Android owes its success to the open source community either.
- close04 8y agoFirst: your understanding of my analogy is wrong. The moment you fork Android you are no longer allowed to license Google apps which everyone knows is "the money maker". As such the analogy where "the moment you compete you can no longer access the core money maker" (in my analogy - Windows) is perfectly valid. Second: The point isn't that you disagree with me, it's that you disagree with the outcome of an official investigation under EU law that found that Google's practices are illegal. So I have that to support my opinion. Feel free to bring something stronger to support yours. You can't say it's not bias but then bring nothing to support that claim. ;) P.S. >There are no complaints about "Windows fragmentation" Android fragmentation is Google's own doing and is in no way solved by blocking OEMs from forking it. The forks are not Android, they are the likes of Fire OS and Aliyun OS. As such would never count under "Android fragmentation".