6 ms·

> Google said it would sell a license for a package including its Google Play app store, Gmail, YouTube and Maps. Another license will be available for companie

> Google said it would sell a license for a package including its Google Play app store, Gmail, YouTube and Maps. Another license will be available for companies wanting to pre-install Google Search and the Chrome browser, allowing handset makers to partner with rival services. Still not decoupled enough for my taste. Manufacturers should be able to get only the Google Play store. They also don't say anything about decoupling and shrinking the hundreds of megabytes of mandatory Google Play services constantly tracking you. (for example: will you still be mandated to make all Location Services go through Google if you want Google Play on your phone?)

ocdtrekkie 8y ago
I suspect a manufacturer who licenses the Play/Gmail/YouTube/Maps bundle can pick and choose what they include, they just have to "buy" all of it. Bear in mind, the apps Google's trying to force install are primarily Search and Chrome, which Google says they'll offer a "financial incentive" for OEMs to include. So more than likely, they'll pay OEMs to install Chrome and Search, and OEMs can cover the cost of licensing the others with it. So a wash for companies still shipping all Google apps. But OEMs can choose not to include some of Google's other pack-ins, and say, Firefox and DuckDuckGo, or Microsoft with Bing and Edge could make a competing bid to be the preinstalled search and browser, to provide revenue with which the OEM could then buy the license for the Play Store. So this will probably be cost-neutral for phones packed with the status quo, but offers the chance for third parties to outbid Google on search and browser, or undercut Google's costs for their other apps, and OEMs will be able to leave Google's apps out of the image if they prefer to ship their own, like Samsung often does.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  "I suspect a manufacturer who licenses the Play/Gmail/YouTube/Maps bundle can pick and choose what they include, they just have to "buy" all of it. " That's still a huge issue. I shouldn't have to pay for Google Books if I don't want to include it on my device.
beaner 8y ago
> Manufacturers should be able to get only the Google Play store. Why? Google is a for-profit company that puts time and effort into developing the store. The play store may not actually be self-sustaining in terms of revenue. Perhaps it is paid for by things like Maps and YouTube. Shouldn't Google be able to specify the terms of use for its closed-source products? It seems sane that those terms might specify a package deal with other products. By mandating that companies should be able to only get the Play Store, you're asking that Google work for free for others, and that doesn't seem fair.
- AndersSandvik 8y ago
  The rules are different, like in this situation, for companies that are near to or in a monopoly situation. Last I checked Android had over 85% smartphone market share.
  - llampx 8y ago
    Not to mention a situation where a huge megacorp has basically driven every other smartphone OS out of the market by dumping[0] its software on the market and then insidiously making it less free and open with every release. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)
- snthd 8y ago
  Google play earned $6.2B in 2018Q3
  - Godel_unicode 8y ago
    And how much did it cost to develop and operate? Including traffic acquisition.
- s3r3nity 8y ago
  > Perhaps it is paid for by things like Maps and YouTube. This is why monopoly rules exist, and why it's not quite so simple. Leveraging strong market position in one market, say search/advertising, to undercut prices in a completely different market is clear-cut anti-competitive behavior. My retort to your argument would be: why even do hardware / Android at all? Because it's a distribution mechanism for _their_ services. If you leverage market dominance to expand that distribution network with fewer / no alternatives for consumers, that's like anti-trust 101.
briffle 8y ago
Right, like apple phones, the other major provider. Oh, wait...
- Tsubasachan 8y ago
  If Apple actually ever gains 80% of the market in the EU they will catch regulatory flak. Apple doesn't even allow sideloading. But I don't think Apple really wants the market. They will never make a phone under €800.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

ocdtrekkie 8y ago

I suspect a manufacturer who licenses the Play/Gmail/YouTube/Maps bundle can pick and choose what they include, they just have to "buy" all of it. Bear in mind, the apps Google's trying to force install are primarily Search and Chrome, which Google says they'll offer a "financial incentive" for OEMs to include. So more than likely, they'll pay OEMs to install Chrome and Search, and OEMs can cover the cost of licensing the others with it. So a wash for companies still shipping all Google apps. But OEMs can choose not to include some of Google's other pack-ins, and say, Firefox and DuckDuckGo, or Microsoft with Bing and Edge could make a competing bid to be the preinstalled search and browser, to provide revenue with which the OEM could then buy the license for the Play Store. So this will probably be cost-neutral for phones packed with the status quo, but offers the chance for third parties to outbid Google on search and browser, or undercut Google's costs for their other apps, and OEMs will be able to leave Google's apps out of the image if they prefer to ship their own, like Samsung often does.

s73v3r_ 8y ago
"I suspect a manufacturer who licenses the Play/Gmail/YouTube/Maps bundle can pick and choose what they include, they just have to "buy" all of it. " That's still a huge issue. I shouldn't have to pay for Google Books if I don't want to include it on my device.

beaner 8y ago

> Manufacturers should be able to get only the Google Play store. Why? Google is a for-profit company that puts time and effort into developing the store. The play store may not actually be self-sustaining in terms of revenue. Perhaps it is paid for by things like Maps and YouTube. Shouldn't Google be able to specify the terms of use for its closed-source products? It seems sane that those terms might specify a package deal with other products. By mandating that companies should be able to only get the Play Store, you're asking that Google work for free for others, and that doesn't seem fair.

AndersSandvik 8y ago
The rules are different, like in this situation, for companies that are near to or in a monopoly situation. Last I checked Android had over 85% smartphone market share.
- llampx 8y ago
  Not to mention a situation where a huge megacorp has basically driven every other smartphone OS out of the market by dumping[0] its software on the market and then insidiously making it less free and open with every release. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)
snthd 8y ago
Google play earned $6.2B in 2018Q3
- Godel_unicode 8y ago
  And how much did it cost to develop and operate? Including traffic acquisition.
s3r3nity 8y ago
> Perhaps it is paid for by things like Maps and YouTube. This is why monopoly rules exist, and why it's not quite so simple. Leveraging strong market position in one market, say search/advertising, to undercut prices in a completely different market is clear-cut anti-competitive behavior. My retort to your argument would be: why even do hardware / Android at all? Because it's a distribution mechanism for _their_ services. If you leverage market dominance to expand that distribution network with fewer / no alternatives for consumers, that's like anti-trust 101.

briffle 8y ago

Right, like apple phones, the other major provider. Oh, wait...

Tsubasachan 8y ago
If Apple actually ever gains 80% of the market in the EU they will catch regulatory flak. Apple doesn't even allow sideloading. But I don't think Apple really wants the market. They will never make a phone under €800.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]