5 ms·

The article is correct, you're mistaken. While AOSP is licensed under Apache 2.0, in order to bundle the Play Store and associated Google services you have to a

The article is correct, you're mistaken. While AOSP is licensed under Apache 2.0, in order to bundle the Play Store and associated Google services you have to agree to MADA[0]. No major manufacturer, except Amazon, ships an AOSP variant without Google's Services. Arguably many of Android's core APIs now flow through Play Store Services (e.g. Location Services). [0] PDF warning: http://www.benedelman.org/docs/htc-mada.pdf http://www.benedelman.org/docs/htc-mada.pdf

bdcs 8y ago
>No major manufacturer, except Amazon, ships an AOSP variant without Google's Services. In Europe and the US. Worldwide, the majority do (cf. Xiaomi)
- rahimnathwani 8y ago
  IIRC, it's only the phones Xiaomi sells in China that come without Google Services. I might be wrong.
  - solarkraft 8y ago
    I believe you're correct. China has almost no Google presence.
    - llampx 8y ago
      Its related to the laws and regulations there. Once Google makes nice with the Xiao Jinping, the same OHA restrictions will apply to Xiaomi, Huawei etc.
  - Tsubasachan 8y ago
    If you buy a Xiaomi phone in Europe it comes with the global ROM which has all the Google stuff.
jjeaff 8y ago
The play store is not the same thing as the Android operating system.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  The NYT article didn't say it was. They said: > By obligating handset makers to load the free apps along with the Android operating system "Along with." It was enforced bundling. The person above mistakenly claimed the article was wrong due to Android's license which is both a misreading of the NYT's story and also wrong in the larger sense.
rahimnathwani 8y ago
"The article is correct, you're mistaken." No, I'm not. "in order to bundle the Play Store and associated Google services you have to agree to MADA" But "the Play Store and associated Google services" aren't part of Android. So you can ship Android devices without them. "No major manufacturer, except Amazon, ships an AOSP variant without Google's Services." Yup. Amazon shows that you can ship Android devices without the Play Store and Google services.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  You are because you misread the section of the article you quoted: > By obligating handset makers to load the free apps along with the Android operating system The NYC article said google was compelling handset makers to bundle free apps ALONG WITH the Android OS, they didn't say that Android OS's license required said bundling. Google obligated handset makers via the MADA linked above. If you want the Play Store, Play Services, and all of Android's APIs to work, you have to agree to MADA which means bundling Google's apps with the Android OS.
  - rahimnathwani 8y ago
    "Google obligated handset makers via the MADA linked above." Handset makers obligated _themselves_ by (voluntarily) signing up to the MADA.
    - Someone1234 8y ago
      When you get into antitrust scales of size nothing is voluntary, that's the whole crux of this issue. If you wanted your handset to sell you had to play nice with Google and do what Google told you. Handset makers didn't really have much of a choice, they weren't big enough to compete directly with Google.
      - tssva 8y ago
        Samsung is a huge multinational conglomerate with hundreds of billions of revenue and tens of billion in yearly profits. They also sell over 20% of all smartphones switching position back and forth with Apple for leading market share. I find it hard to believe that they were too small in comparison with Google to compete with their own mobile OS and app market.
adrianmonk 8y ago
It's a very confusing way for the NYT to phrase it. Bundling has two senses, one "physical" (Android OS and Google apps are part of the same disk image) and one business (like bundled pricing). We're talking about economic tying[1], and they suddenly switched the physical definition of bundling. The reader would be justified in expecting them to use the word bundling in its business sense. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)

bdcs 8y ago

>No major manufacturer, except Amazon, ships an AOSP variant without Google's Services. In Europe and the US. Worldwide, the majority do (cf. Xiaomi)

rahimnathwani 8y ago
IIRC, it's only the phones Xiaomi sells in China that come without Google Services. I might be wrong.
- solarkraft 8y ago
  I believe you're correct. China has almost no Google presence.
  - llampx 8y ago
    Its related to the laws and regulations there. Once Google makes nice with the Xiao Jinping, the same OHA restrictions will apply to Xiaomi, Huawei etc.
- Tsubasachan 8y ago
  If you buy a Xiaomi phone in Europe it comes with the global ROM which has all the Google stuff.

jjeaff 8y ago

The play store is not the same thing as the Android operating system.

Someone1234 8y ago
The NYT article didn't say it was. They said: > By obligating handset makers to load the free apps along with the Android operating system "Along with." It was enforced bundling. The person above mistakenly claimed the article was wrong due to Android's license which is both a misreading of the NYT's story and also wrong in the larger sense.

rahimnathwani 8y ago

"The article is correct, you're mistaken." No, I'm not. "in order to bundle the Play Store and associated Google services you have to agree to MADA" But "the Play Store and associated Google services" aren't part of Android. So you can ship Android devices without them. "No major manufacturer, except Amazon, ships an AOSP variant without Google's Services." Yup. Amazon shows that you can ship Android devices without the Play Store and Google services.

Someone1234 8y ago
You are because you misread the section of the article you quoted: > By obligating handset makers to load the free apps along with the Android operating system The NYC article said google was compelling handset makers to bundle free apps ALONG WITH the Android OS, they didn't say that Android OS's license required said bundling. Google obligated handset makers via the MADA linked above. If you want the Play Store, Play Services, and all of Android's APIs to work, you have to agree to MADA which means bundling Google's apps with the Android OS.
- rahimnathwani 8y ago
  "Google obligated handset makers via the MADA linked above." Handset makers obligated _themselves_ by (voluntarily) signing up to the MADA.
  - Someone1234 8y ago
    When you get into antitrust scales of size nothing is voluntary, that's the whole crux of this issue. If you wanted your handset to sell you had to play nice with Google and do what Google told you. Handset makers didn't really have much of a choice, they weren't big enough to compete directly with Google.
    - tssva 8y ago
      Samsung is a huge multinational conglomerate with hundreds of billions of revenue and tens of billion in yearly profits. They also sell over 20% of all smartphones switching position back and forth with Apple for leading market share. I find it hard to believe that they were too small in comparison with Google to compete with their own mobile OS and app market.

adrianmonk 8y ago

It's a very confusing way for the NYT to phrase it. Bundling has two senses, one "physical" (Android OS and Google apps are part of the same disk image) and one business (like bundled pricing). We're talking about economic tying[1], and they suddenly switched the physical definition of bundling. The reader would be justified in expecting them to use the word bundling in its business sense. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)