4 ms·
I'd agree but for one fact. OEMs have entered into these agreements freely. Amazon (and CyanogenMod&co) aren't the lucky outsiders, they're the ones proving the
by hrkristian 13y ago
I'd agree but for one fact. OEMs have entered into these agreements freely. Amazon (and CyanogenMod&co) aren't the lucky outsiders, they're the ones proving the openness of Android.
The inability to separate AOSP from Google's services irritates me. Google is leaving the door open for anyone to compete with them; use AOSP -a fully functional OS- and provide a better service than Google products offer, you won't owe Google a dime, and you'll be a serious competitor.
As far as I know, there's nothing stopping an independent OEM from releasing unlocked devices. An end user is free to install gapps on his own, and it's laughably easy to do.
- josephlord 13y ago> I'd agree but for one fact. OEMs have entered into these agreements freely. The OEMs aren't the (only?) victims of the anticompetitive behaviour. It reduces the market for services competing with the Google services (as they can't sell to anyone who is also a Google customer) and it affects their customers (end users and telcos) and the choices available to them. By "independent OEM" do you mean one who doesn't sign the contract?