7 ms·

>The AOSP ecosystem has a healthy range of ROMs to choose from on many devices. But it's not true choice is it? It's just the same old same old with a differe

>The AOSP ecosystem has a healthy range of ROMs to choose from on many devices. But it's not true choice is it? It's just the same old same old with a different skin on top. Much the same as the similarly claimed 'choice' in Linux distros pretty much boils down to the same old same old collection of apps running on the same old same old collection of desktop environments. But with eleventy billion superficial skins layered on top, to choose from.

malfist 4y ago
Are you seriously trying to argue that all linux distros are the same except for their UI?
- n0tth3dro1ds 4y ago
  Yep. That’s pretty much the case. They are functionally the same for 99% of users.
- wiseowise 4y ago
  Are they not?
  - aembleton 4y ago
    No, the package management differs between distros
    - nottorp 4y ago
      As someone who makes a living partially by doing custom distros for arm custom boards (and apps on top of them)... no. There is no difference between linux distros. Same for Android flavors for that matter.
      - aembleton 4y ago
        If there are no differences between linux distros, why does anyone need a custom distro?
RNAlfons 4y ago
> But it's not true choice is it? Compared to what? Apple?
origin_path 4y ago
You can fork AOSP in arbitrary ways and have a pretty great OS. Most companies don't do this because they don't have any particular ideas about how to do Android's core differently - UI is one of the places where you can actually innovate and users will notice, so that's where the effort goes. But that's not Google's fault. They can't make Samsung have brilliant ideas about how to rearchitect the OS core.
- Normille 4y ago
  >But that's not Google's fault. They can't make Samsung have brilliant ideas about how to rearchitect the OS core. Of course not. But that's the point I'm trying to make. The illusion of choice. Out of all eleventy billion versions of Android you can get, who has actually produced something that is truly different, as opposed to just another skin on top of what everyone else has, or a slightly different layout of the same functionality everyone else has? Here's one example: text editing on mobile. I'm sure I'm not the only person who finds this excruciating. Especially things like selecting text / copy & pasting etc. And, it's 2022 and we still have no 'undo' function. But, every single variant of Android [and iOS] uses the same horribly flawed text editing functionality. Do any of the eleventy-billion 'alternative' versions of Android address any of this? Of course not. It's so much easier to throw a new skin on top of the same old crap than to actually innovate and make real changes.
  - origin_path 4y ago
    I agree, but again, that's not Android's fault. Android is necessary but not sufficient for innovation in mobile OS'. You still need people who are willing to take risks and come up with better ideas.
- Kbelicius 4y ago
  > But that's not Google's fault. They can't make Samsung have brilliant ideas about how to rearchitect the OS core. One of anticompetitive restrictions identified was: > ‘anti-fragmentation agreements’, under which the operating licences necessary for the pre-installation of the Google Search and Play Store apps could be obtained by mobile device manufacturers only if they undertook not to sell devices running versions of the Android operating system not approved by Google; So no, Samsung can't just fork AOSP.
wvenable 4y ago
I'm not clear on what you want? There are two mobile operating systems, do you want some company to make another one? What is stopping them?
- kube-system 4y ago
  Anticompetitive practices are stopping them. That’s the point of these fines. Google controls the predominant non-Chinese marketplace for apps that are compatible with android-based operating systems, and they use it as a hostage to force other device manufacturers to arbitrarily force other google products upon their uses, for the purpose of unfairly expanding their market dominance.
  - wvenable 4y ago
    Isn't that a whole other level though? Google is being asked to stop forcing distribution of their software so other Android software can compete. Either way, you're still going to have 2 operating systems: Android and iOS.
    - kube-system 4y ago
      It’s a bit of a self reinforcing loop, though. Top apps are all on Google Play because everyone using Android (on this side of the GFW) is all but forced to stay in Google’s ecosystem. The diversity of *nix based OSes are a testament to what could happen in the absence of monopolistic powers. If it weren’t for Google’s stranglehold, Android probably would already be #2 to a fork made by Samsung.
      - wvenable 4y ago
        > The diversity of *nix based OSes are a testament to what could happen in the absence of monopolistic powers. You mean how they all died and Linux became king? The market cannot support diversity of operating systems -- users will flock to where the applications are and developers flock to where the users are. Only a small number of choices are ever sustainable. If Android disappeared tomorrow and 10 operating systems were designed to replace it eventually there would be only 1 or 2 surviving. If Samsung forked Android it will still need to run Android apps and therefore be Android. That's pretty much exactly what they do now.

malfist 4y ago

Are you seriously trying to argue that all linux distros are the same except for their UI?

n0tth3dro1ds 4y ago
Yep. That’s pretty much the case. They are functionally the same for 99% of users.
wiseowise 4y ago
Are they not?
- aembleton 4y ago
  No, the package management differs between distros
  - nottorp 4y ago
    As someone who makes a living partially by doing custom distros for arm custom boards (and apps on top of them)... no. There is no difference between linux distros. Same for Android flavors for that matter.
    - aembleton 4y ago
      If there are no differences between linux distros, why does anyone need a custom distro?

RNAlfons 4y ago

> But it's not true choice is it? Compared to what? Apple?

origin_path 4y ago

You can fork AOSP in arbitrary ways and have a pretty great OS. Most companies don't do this because they don't have any particular ideas about how to do Android's core differently - UI is one of the places where you can actually innovate and users will notice, so that's where the effort goes. But that's not Google's fault. They can't make Samsung have brilliant ideas about how to rearchitect the OS core.

Normille 4y ago
>But that's not Google's fault. They can't make Samsung have brilliant ideas about how to rearchitect the OS core. Of course not. But that's the point I'm trying to make. The illusion of choice. Out of all eleventy billion versions of Android you can get, who has actually produced something that is truly different, as opposed to just another skin on top of what everyone else has, or a slightly different layout of the same functionality everyone else has? Here's one example: text editing on mobile. I'm sure I'm not the only person who finds this excruciating. Especially things like selecting text / copy & pasting etc. And, it's 2022 and we still have no 'undo' function. But, every single variant of Android [and iOS] uses the same horribly flawed text editing functionality. Do any of the eleventy-billion 'alternative' versions of Android address any of this? Of course not. It's so much easier to throw a new skin on top of the same old crap than to actually innovate and make real changes.
- origin_path 4y ago
  I agree, but again, that's not Android's fault. Android is necessary but not sufficient for innovation in mobile OS'. You still need people who are willing to take risks and come up with better ideas.
Kbelicius 4y ago
> But that's not Google's fault. They can't make Samsung have brilliant ideas about how to rearchitect the OS core. One of anticompetitive restrictions identified was: > ‘anti-fragmentation agreements’, under which the operating licences necessary for the pre-installation of the Google Search and Play Store apps could be obtained by mobile device manufacturers only if they undertook not to sell devices running versions of the Android operating system not approved by Google; So no, Samsung can't just fork AOSP.

wvenable 4y ago

I'm not clear on what you want? There are two mobile operating systems, do you want some company to make another one? What is stopping them?

kube-system 4y ago
Anticompetitive practices are stopping them. That’s the point of these fines. Google controls the predominant non-Chinese marketplace for apps that are compatible with android-based operating systems, and they use it as a hostage to force other device manufacturers to arbitrarily force other google products upon their uses, for the purpose of unfairly expanding their market dominance.
- wvenable 4y ago
  Isn't that a whole other level though? Google is being asked to stop forcing distribution of their software so other Android software can compete. Either way, you're still going to have 2 operating systems: Android and iOS.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    It’s a bit of a self reinforcing loop, though. Top apps are all on Google Play because everyone using Android (on this side of the GFW) is all but forced to stay in Google’s ecosystem. The diversity of *nix based OSes are a testament to what could happen in the absence of monopolistic powers. If it weren’t for Google’s stranglehold, Android probably would already be #2 to a fork made by Samsung.
    - wvenable 4y ago
      > The diversity of *nix based OSes are a testament to what could happen in the absence of monopolistic powers. You mean how they all died and Linux became king? The market cannot support diversity of operating systems -- users will flock to where the applications are and developers flock to where the users are. Only a small number of choices are ever sustainable. If Android disappeared tomorrow and 10 operating systems were designed to replace it eventually there would be only 1 or 2 surviving. If Samsung forked Android it will still need to run Android apps and therefore be Android. That's pretty much exactly what they do now.