8 ms·

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I am still a big fan of Android´s openess (at least compared to the walled garden that is iOS) and I think it

by jpdus 8y ago

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I am still a big fan of Android´s openess (at least compared to the walled garden that is iOS) and I think it should the right of every company or developer to NOT use a closed platform to distribute its app. However on the other hand, this move by Epic sets a dangerous precedent: Factually, Google get´s economically punished for being more open than Apple. This does not feel right for me. From a business point-of-view (when sideloading becomes more common) the "right" move for Google would be to fork AOSP, make new Android versions as closed as iOS (while still distributed for free) and prevent any sideloading. No sane CEO who is measured by increasing shareholder value could justify stayig open if this jeopardizes the revenues without providing major benefits. I, as a user, think this is a sad and alarming development. However, apparently most comments and media do not share this opinion? Are there any reasons why Google deserves no revenues while Apple get´s 30%? When there are none, this situation can't be sustainable from an economic point of view.

stale2002 8y ago
No. Neither of the companies "deserve" anything. If I bought a phone, it is my phone, and I am free to do what I want with it, including installing software that these companies don't approve of.
potta_coffee 8y ago
I currently tolerate Google apps on my phone because Android is just open _enough_ for me to get by. If Google were to put walls around Android in this way, I'd never use anything Google ever again.
- youseecomrade 8y ago
  I can't find the article but I remember reading how Google is closing the platform more and more. That's the reason why many people are forced to use MicroG since things are routed through Google Play Services. So in many ways you already "need" Google in your phone for certain apps to work correctly. There's also a rant from CopperheadOS' twitter about how Google make things worse and worse for ROM developers. I would love to see an updated article about this whole subject.
  - UncleMeat 8y ago
    The alternative is an un-updatable phone that is full of security holes. Remember the good old days when somebody would find a uxss in webview and we'd all just shrug our shoulders at the 80% of users who'd never see the fix because the oems wouldn't ever push updates to people?
RandomException 8y ago
There are already multiple separate app stores for Android and not just the Google Play. This is nothing new for Google to be honest. And if they were to make Android a closed system, what would make me buy an Android phone instead of an iOS phone anymore? Openness is one of the biggest selling points for Android.
- scarface74 8y ago
  People don’t buy Android because it’s “open” - they buy it because it’s cheap. If people cared about open, the “Year of Linux on the Desktop” would have already happened.
  - RandomException 8y ago
    Android is cheap and it's widely used because it's open. If manufacturers weren't able to customize it to their needs, we would still be living in a world with separate OSes for every single manufacturer. This is important especially in Asia where the market is completely different from western market. In Asia it's also very important to be able to live without Google proprietary software in Android because for example in China it's currently blocked. They are using Baidu for all the things we are using Google services for. Year of Linux on the Desktop is hard to see since corporate users are so tightly coupled with MS ecosystem. If Microsoft could build at least equivalent mobile OS as Android or iOS, they would get pretty much all corporate customers to themselves and it would most definitely affect private customers as well. Oh, and Windows has gotten a lot better in the last 10 years so there's really no need for a basic user to change over to Linux.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      Android is cheap and it's widely used because it's open. If manufacturers weren't able to customize it to their needs, we would still be living in a world with separate OSes for every single manufacturer. That’s not what happened with PCs. DOS/Windows was never open but when OEMs wanted an OS, they chose Windows. By 1990, every manufacturer of computers besides Apple who tried to make thier own operating system was dead. Before Android or iOS, there were dozens of Windows Mobile phones. Most Manufacturers were not capable of making thier own OS. If Microsoft could build at least equivalent mobile OS as Android or iOS, they would get pretty much all corporate customers to themselves and it would most definitely affect private customers as well. They could and they did make a good mobile OS. By the time it was released it was too late. Android had already won over all of the OEMs and developers didn’t want to develop for it. Also, with the iPhone, the trend of the “consumerization of IT” started. Blackberry owned the corporate world before the iPhone. But between both Apple adding features that made it a decent corporate alternative and executives bringing thier iPhones to work and demanding from the IT department that they make it work, Apple basically took over the corporate mobile market.
draw_down 8y ago
As Socrates once said, "deserve got nuthin' to do with it." Your comment really boils down to the notion that the more "open" platform "should" get more money. Both scare-quoted words are thinking about- Google plays up the open idea only when it suits them rather than as a matter of principle. And as far as "should", I'm not sure what is to be done there- teachers should make more money, politicians shouldn't lie, and so on. But, the world does work in those ways, sadly, and "should" isn't helping. At any rate, isn't the point of open things supposed to be that they are better, not that they make more money? The better-ness should be the end in itself, no? And isn't it supposed to have virtuous effects because more people buy the open thing because the open thing is better? Well, if anyone in the Android camp is interested in re-examining those assumptions I would be all ears. But, somehow I suspect that won't be happening too soon
Pissompons 8y ago
> From a business point-of-view (when sideloading becomes more common) the "right" move for Google would be to fork AOSP, make new Android versions as closed as iOS (while still distributed for free) and prevent any sideloading. No sane CEO who is measured by increasing shareholder value could justify stayig open if this jeopardizes the revenues without providing major benefits. The problem here is that while Google controls the software, it doesn't control the hardware. All the real power is in the hands of the OEMs. If Google wanted to close Android, they'd need to either: - Leverage/convince all the OEMs into adopting the closed fork - Watch as they lose control completely when someone else makes a dominant fork - Watch the Android ecosystem crumble as everyone throws out their own fork I don't think this would work because the OEMs have no incentive to do it. They don't get any cut of the Play Store profits so they have no interest in its success. To the contrary, Samsung at least has its own store. Plus, Android's openness is one of the things differentiating it from Apple. If they closed it down, they have the compromised privacy of a Google device with the closed platform of an Apple device. Apple's closedness then ceases to be a problem and they can differentiate with their privacy-friendliness.
- scarface74 8y ago
  - Leverage/convince all the OEMs into adopting the closed fork You mean like they already force OEMs to use thier closed source apps and force them not to make any phones that are use Android forks?
MarkMc 8y ago
> the "right" move for Google would be to fork AOSP, make new Android versions as closed as iOS I wonder whether Google's new operating system 'Fuschia' serves this purpose...
oliwarner 8y ago
A better direction might be making side-loading safer. Rather than forcing people to whitelist all APKs, adding signatures, doing organisational verification. Stuff that Google Play does, just split out from the marketing and download service.
- UncleMeat 8y ago
  The problem is that a tremendous amount of sideloading happens offline. This makes it very hard for anybody to make it safe.
  - oliwarner 8y ago
    I don't recognise that market. Why are these people able to get APKs without a network connection? Either way, I would imagine that the sort of market we're talking about here —Fortnite, an online-only game— would probably have a network connection available. And even then, signature chains would still work for strong signing the APK, even if it were installed offline.
scarface74 8y ago
From a business point-of-view (when sideloading becomes more common) the "right" move for Google would be to fork AOSP, make new Android versions as closed as iOS (while still distributed for free) and prevent any sideloading. You haven’t been paying attention... Google has been abandoning AOSP for years and making closed source equivalents.

by jpdus 8y ago

stale2002 8y ago

No. Neither of the companies "deserve" anything. If I bought a phone, it is my phone, and I am free to do what I want with it, including installing software that these companies don't approve of.

potta_coffee 8y ago

I currently tolerate Google apps on my phone because Android is just open _enough_ for me to get by. If Google were to put walls around Android in this way, I'd never use anything Google ever again.

youseecomrade 8y ago
I can't find the article but I remember reading how Google is closing the platform more and more. That's the reason why many people are forced to use MicroG since things are routed through Google Play Services. So in many ways you already "need" Google in your phone for certain apps to work correctly. There's also a rant from CopperheadOS' twitter about how Google make things worse and worse for ROM developers. I would love to see an updated article about this whole subject.
- UncleMeat 8y ago
  The alternative is an un-updatable phone that is full of security holes. Remember the good old days when somebody would find a uxss in webview and we'd all just shrug our shoulders at the 80% of users who'd never see the fix because the oems wouldn't ever push updates to people?

RandomException 8y ago

There are already multiple separate app stores for Android and not just the Google Play. This is nothing new for Google to be honest. And if they were to make Android a closed system, what would make me buy an Android phone instead of an iOS phone anymore? Openness is one of the biggest selling points for Android.

scarface74 8y ago
People don’t buy Android because it’s “open” - they buy it because it’s cheap. If people cared about open, the “Year of Linux on the Desktop” would have already happened.
- RandomException 8y ago
  Android is cheap and it's widely used because it's open. If manufacturers weren't able to customize it to their needs, we would still be living in a world with separate OSes for every single manufacturer. This is important especially in Asia where the market is completely different from western market. In Asia it's also very important to be able to live without Google proprietary software in Android because for example in China it's currently blocked. They are using Baidu for all the things we are using Google services for. Year of Linux on the Desktop is hard to see since corporate users are so tightly coupled with MS ecosystem. If Microsoft could build at least equivalent mobile OS as Android or iOS, they would get pretty much all corporate customers to themselves and it would most definitely affect private customers as well. Oh, and Windows has gotten a lot better in the last 10 years so there's really no need for a basic user to change over to Linux.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    Android is cheap and it's widely used because it's open. If manufacturers weren't able to customize it to their needs, we would still be living in a world with separate OSes for every single manufacturer. That’s not what happened with PCs. DOS/Windows was never open but when OEMs wanted an OS, they chose Windows. By 1990, every manufacturer of computers besides Apple who tried to make thier own operating system was dead. Before Android or iOS, there were dozens of Windows Mobile phones. Most Manufacturers were not capable of making thier own OS. If Microsoft could build at least equivalent mobile OS as Android or iOS, they would get pretty much all corporate customers to themselves and it would most definitely affect private customers as well. They could and they did make a good mobile OS. By the time it was released it was too late. Android had already won over all of the OEMs and developers didn’t want to develop for it. Also, with the iPhone, the trend of the “consumerization of IT” started. Blackberry owned the corporate world before the iPhone. But between both Apple adding features that made it a decent corporate alternative and executives bringing thier iPhones to work and demanding from the IT department that they make it work, Apple basically took over the corporate mobile market.

draw_down 8y ago

As Socrates once said, "deserve got nuthin' to do with it." Your comment really boils down to the notion that the more "open" platform "should" get more money. Both scare-quoted words are thinking about- Google plays up the open idea only when it suits them rather than as a matter of principle. And as far as "should", I'm not sure what is to be done there- teachers should make more money, politicians shouldn't lie, and so on. But, the world does work in those ways, sadly, and "should" isn't helping. At any rate, isn't the point of open things supposed to be that they are better, not that they make more money? The better-ness should be the end in itself, no? And isn't it supposed to have virtuous effects because more people buy the open thing because the open thing is better? Well, if anyone in the Android camp is interested in re-examining those assumptions I would be all ears. But, somehow I suspect that won't be happening too soon

Pissompons 8y ago

> From a business point-of-view (when sideloading becomes more common) the "right" move for Google would be to fork AOSP, make new Android versions as closed as iOS (while still distributed for free) and prevent any sideloading. No sane CEO who is measured by increasing shareholder value could justify stayig open if this jeopardizes the revenues without providing major benefits. The problem here is that while Google controls the software, it doesn't control the hardware. All the real power is in the hands of the OEMs. If Google wanted to close Android, they'd need to either: - Leverage/convince all the OEMs into adopting the closed fork - Watch as they lose control completely when someone else makes a dominant fork - Watch the Android ecosystem crumble as everyone throws out their own fork I don't think this would work because the OEMs have no incentive to do it. They don't get any cut of the Play Store profits so they have no interest in its success. To the contrary, Samsung at least has its own store. Plus, Android's openness is one of the things differentiating it from Apple. If they closed it down, they have the compromised privacy of a Google device with the closed platform of an Apple device. Apple's closedness then ceases to be a problem and they can differentiate with their privacy-friendliness.

scarface74 8y ago
- Leverage/convince all the OEMs into adopting the closed fork You mean like they already force OEMs to use thier closed source apps and force them not to make any phones that are use Android forks?

MarkMc 8y ago

> the "right" move for Google would be to fork AOSP, make new Android versions as closed as iOS I wonder whether Google's new operating system 'Fuschia' serves this purpose...

oliwarner 8y ago

A better direction might be making side-loading safer. Rather than forcing people to whitelist all APKs, adding signatures, doing organisational verification. Stuff that Google Play does, just split out from the marketing and download service.

UncleMeat 8y ago
The problem is that a tremendous amount of sideloading happens offline. This makes it very hard for anybody to make it safe.
- oliwarner 8y ago
  I don't recognise that market. Why are these people able to get APKs without a network connection? Either way, I would imagine that the sort of market we're talking about here —Fortnite, an online-only game— would probably have a network connection available. And even then, signature chains would still work for strong signing the APK, even if it were installed offline.

scarface74 8y ago

From a business point-of-view (when sideloading becomes more common) the "right" move for Google would be to fork AOSP, make new Android versions as closed as iOS (while still distributed for free) and prevent any sideloading. You haven’t been paying attention... Google has been abandoning AOSP for years and making closed source equivalents.