7 ms·

> And Google did nothing. They just let every smartphone company do what they want What would you have expected them to do? Vendors are free by licensing to fo

by derefr 4y ago

> And Google did nothing. They just let every smartphone company do what they want What would you have expected them to do? Vendors are free by licensing to fork AOSP and do what they will with it. Ain't nothing Google can say to change that; any more than they can say what people can do with forks of Chromium.

chii 4y ago
they could've made the android naming and trademark licensing be the gateway - you have to maintain a certain level of quality, or not add crapware, etc. If a manufacturer forks, and don't get the naming rights, they cannot use the logos, name or branding.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- derefr 4y ago
  Google already did this a long time ago (https://developer.android.com/distribute/marketing-tools/brand-guidelines https://developer.android.com/distribute/marketing-tools/bra...): > The "Android" name, the Android logo, the "Google Play" brand, and other Google trademarks, are property of Google LLC and not part of the assets available through the Android Open Source Project. But guess what? This didn't (and still doesn't) influence the device vendors one bit. Instead, the device vendors worked around this constraint in the most blunt way possible: by stripping the word "Android" out of the OS in every place it appears, replacing it with some other term. That's half of what these Android-forked OSes (e.g. Xiaomi's MIUI) are about in the first place — giving the OS its own branding distinct from "Android."
  - deadbeeves 4y ago
    Not the device vendors. Some device vendors did that. Some other device vendors would have preferred to use the Android branding and comply with Google's restrictions than to alienate the existing userbase. Can you really imagine Samsung selling SamsungOS phones? Once Android was established it was well within Google's possibilities to impose restrictions, but they instead chose to let the manufacturers do whatever they pleased.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      How many people knew or cared that Verizon “Droids” were Android phones back in the day?
      - deadbeeves 4y ago
        When are we talking about?
        scarface74 4y ago
        About a decade ago. But most of the 40% of people who use Android in the US aren’t looking for “Android phones” they are looking for cheap phones. The average selling price of an Android phone in the US is less than $300. The average Android buyer in the US is getting a less than optimal experience and don’t seem to care. They would buy any phone that could make phone calls, surf the web and watch YouTube and get on Facebook.
        paulryanrogers 4y ago
        It's amazing to me that $300 is the threshold of 'cheap' phones. Apple really has pushed up the baseline price for flagship devices.
        ulfw 4y ago
        It's a portable mini computer with different radios, nice screens, audio/video, cameras etc etc etc. How much cheaper to you think a proper smartphone could be?
        paulryanrogers 4y ago
        Did they get so much more capable since 2015?
        scarface74 4y ago
- saurik 4y ago
  They actually already have this, except not with naming and trademarks but holding back access to the closed-source first-party Google apps (which I believe includes Chrome, as the AOSP browser was deprecated), most notably Google Play (the Store and Services, which are required to get and then use many apps... hell: even Signal, of all things, requires Google Play Services still afaik). To get access to these apps requires passing a complicated compliance process which includes a comprehensive test suite that limits the kinds of changes you can make to your fork of Android. https://www.android.com/gms/ https://www.android.com/gms/
  - easrng 4y ago
    Signal doesn't require Play Services but if it's included in the base image you need to have it installed even if it's disabled for Signal to work. Basically this: __________________ | GMS Preinstalled | Current |---------+--------| GMS Status | Yes | No | _____________|_________|________| | Installed | OK | OK | |-------------|---------+--------| | Disabled | OK | OK | |-------------|---------+--------| | Uninstalled | NOT OK | OK | +-------------+---------+--------+
    - ThePowerOfFuet 4y ago
      Why is that the case?
      - easrng 4y ago
        I don't know exactly but it seems to interpret GMS being part of the ROM but not installed as it being mid-upgrade IIRC.
  - blep_ 4y ago
    Most apps do not require Google Play Services. Many of them will show "X requires Google Play Services" warnings and then... continue working fine anyway. It's always the same wording, so I assume it's just a thing that the app-side libraries do when it tries to talk to the service and it isn't there.
lawgimenez 4y ago
Maybe regulate the apps pre-installed and each of the OEM's Android flavor? You have tried Sony Xperia before right? Their UI hardly resembles any Android. Samsung flavor was worse back then too.
- 29083011397778 4y ago
  They did that, and I'm not sure they could have gone much further in the way of restricting OEMs, considering they were told to knock that shit off by the EU [0]. Few people that I recall so much as batted an eye - even XDA in the earlier days was stuffed full of people wondering how long until Google came down harder on OEMs for better update support, and many people were in favour of Google using Google Play Services as a stick. [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/16/google-will-stop-bundling-its-apps-on-android-phones-in-response-to-eu-fine.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/16/google-will-stop-bundling-it...
laundermaf 4y ago
You’re missing a few key points here: - Google most certainly can restrict how its products are used, in fact they do. Licensing comes with rules. - Huawei is “free” to use AOSP, but can’t use Google’s APIs. See how far they got with that. No App Store and no Google APIs means a lot of apps won’t work. So you really need Google’s version unless you’re in China.
- roneythomas6 4y ago
  >Huawei is “free” to use AOSP, but can’t use Google’s APIs. See how far they got with that. No App Store and no Google APIs means a lot of apps won’t work. So you really need Google’s version unless you’re in China. I don't think that's the main reason why Huawei cannot make phones. Sure in International markets it's an issue. But Oppo, Vivo, Xiaomi and other phones sold in China also don't have Google Play and Play Services.
  - laundermaf 4y ago
    I covered that in the text you quoted: > unless you’re in China. You sell in China, you don’t need Google’s approval. Outside it you most certainly do.
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
  > No App Store and no Google APIs No Play Store; alternative app stores exist. This can work; consider Amazon's Android devices which only support Amazon as their store.
  - laundermaf 4y ago
    Amazon devices are sold because they’re cheap ebook readers. Huawei has only been blocked from dealing with the US, but as a result it’s been killed around the world after being one of the leading low-cost brands. Why? No Google. Take out the Play Store and Play APIs and now you’re just a random Chinese Android manufacturer.
    - 4y ago

by derefr 4y ago

chii 4y ago

they could've made the android naming and trademark licensing be the gateway - you have to maintain a certain level of quality, or not add crapware, etc. If a manufacturer forks, and don't get the naming rights, they cannot use the logos, name or branding.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
derefr 4y ago
Google already did this a long time ago (https://developer.android.com/distribute/marketing-tools/brand-guidelines https://developer.android.com/distribute/marketing-tools/bra...): > The "Android" name, the Android logo, the "Google Play" brand, and other Google trademarks, are property of Google LLC and not part of the assets available through the Android Open Source Project. But guess what? This didn't (and still doesn't) influence the device vendors one bit. Instead, the device vendors worked around this constraint in the most blunt way possible: by stripping the word "Android" out of the OS in every place it appears, replacing it with some other term. That's half of what these Android-forked OSes (e.g. Xiaomi's MIUI) are about in the first place — giving the OS its own branding distinct from "Android."
- deadbeeves 4y ago
  Not the device vendors. Some device vendors did that. Some other device vendors would have preferred to use the Android branding and comply with Google's restrictions than to alienate the existing userbase. Can you really imagine Samsung selling SamsungOS phones? Once Android was established it was well within Google's possibilities to impose restrictions, but they instead chose to let the manufacturers do whatever they pleased.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    How many people knew or cared that Verizon “Droids” were Android phones back in the day?
    - deadbeeves 4y ago
      When are we talking about?
      - scarface74 4y ago
        About a decade ago. But most of the 40% of people who use Android in the US aren’t looking for “Android phones” they are looking for cheap phones. The average selling price of an Android phone in the US is less than $300. The average Android buyer in the US is getting a less than optimal experience and don’t seem to care. They would buy any phone that could make phone calls, surf the web and watch YouTube and get on Facebook.
        paulryanrogers 4y ago
        It's amazing to me that $300 is the threshold of 'cheap' phones. Apple really has pushed up the baseline price for flagship devices.
        ulfw 4y ago
        It's a portable mini computer with different radios, nice screens, audio/video, cameras etc etc etc. How much cheaper to you think a proper smartphone could be?
        paulryanrogers 4y ago
        Did they get so much more capable since 2015?
        scarface74 4y ago
saurik 4y ago
They actually already have this, except not with naming and trademarks but holding back access to the closed-source first-party Google apps (which I believe includes Chrome, as the AOSP browser was deprecated), most notably Google Play (the Store and Services, which are required to get and then use many apps... hell: even Signal, of all things, requires Google Play Services still afaik). To get access to these apps requires passing a complicated compliance process which includes a comprehensive test suite that limits the kinds of changes you can make to your fork of Android. https://www.android.com/gms/ https://www.android.com/gms/
- easrng 4y ago
  Signal doesn't require Play Services but if it's included in the base image you need to have it installed even if it's disabled for Signal to work. Basically this: __________________ | GMS Preinstalled | Current |---------+--------| GMS Status | Yes | No | _____________|_________|________| | Installed | OK | OK | |-------------|---------+--------| | Disabled | OK | OK | |-------------|---------+--------| | Uninstalled | NOT OK | OK | +-------------+---------+--------+
  - ThePowerOfFuet 4y ago
    Why is that the case?
    - easrng 4y ago
      I don't know exactly but it seems to interpret GMS being part of the ROM but not installed as it being mid-upgrade IIRC.
- blep_ 4y ago
  Most apps do not require Google Play Services. Many of them will show "X requires Google Play Services" warnings and then... continue working fine anyway. It's always the same wording, so I assume it's just a thing that the app-side libraries do when it tries to talk to the service and it isn't there.

lawgimenez 4y ago

Maybe regulate the apps pre-installed and each of the OEM's Android flavor? You have tried Sony Xperia before right? Their UI hardly resembles any Android. Samsung flavor was worse back then too.

29083011397778 4y ago
They did that, and I'm not sure they could have gone much further in the way of restricting OEMs, considering they were told to knock that shit off by the EU [0]. Few people that I recall so much as batted an eye - even XDA in the earlier days was stuffed full of people wondering how long until Google came down harder on OEMs for better update support, and many people were in favour of Google using Google Play Services as a stick. [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/16/google-will-stop-bundling-its-apps-on-android-phones-in-response-to-eu-fine.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/16/google-will-stop-bundling-it...

laundermaf 4y ago

You’re missing a few key points here: - Google most certainly can restrict how its products are used, in fact they do. Licensing comes with rules. - Huawei is “free” to use AOSP, but can’t use Google’s APIs. See how far they got with that. No App Store and no Google APIs means a lot of apps won’t work. So you really need Google’s version unless you’re in China.

roneythomas6 4y ago
>Huawei is “free” to use AOSP, but can’t use Google’s APIs. See how far they got with that. No App Store and no Google APIs means a lot of apps won’t work. So you really need Google’s version unless you’re in China. I don't think that's the main reason why Huawei cannot make phones. Sure in International markets it's an issue. But Oppo, Vivo, Xiaomi and other phones sold in China also don't have Google Play and Play Services.
- laundermaf 4y ago
  I covered that in the text you quoted: > unless you’re in China. You sell in China, you don’t need Google’s approval. Outside it you most certainly do.
yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
> No App Store and no Google APIs No Play Store; alternative app stores exist. This can work; consider Amazon's Android devices which only support Amazon as their store.
- laundermaf 4y ago
  Amazon devices are sold because they’re cheap ebook readers. Huawei has only been blocked from dealing with the US, but as a result it’s been killed around the world after being one of the leading low-cost brands. Why? No Google. Take out the Play Store and Play APIs and now you’re just a random Chinese Android manufacturer.
  - 4y ago