4 ms·

Only if apps don't matter to that target user base. Most people will probably not want to go without Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Pandora, Netflix, etc., and

by chaz 12y ago

Only if apps don't matter to that target user base. Most people will probably not want to go without Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Pandora, Netflix, etc., and devs won't build for a small user base (just ask Microsoft or Blackberry). A Google-stripped Android phone would at least be able to run Android apps.

makomk 12y ago
How many of those apps actually run without Google integration, though, and how many will continue to in the future? Google's moving more and more core functionality into their proprietary components.
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  Google is moving more and more core functionality into their proprietary services. A different more open operating system is quite irrelevant if google services are needed for the phone to be...you know...useful.
  - DCKing 12y ago
    The 240000+ applications in the Amazon App Store that work without Play Services show that this is not a problem. Both Microsoft's Nokia X line and Amazon's Fire Phone are useful phones running Android without Play Services. Those are just examples in the west - many devices sold in China run Android without any Google stuff on them.
    - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
      Right, but is Bing really better than google? And I really wish windows phone had a better google maps client. Services matter more than apps, especially of their aren't any good app replacements.
    - dublinben 12y ago
      Amazon, Nokia, and the rest have largely had to build replacements for Google's services in order for their devices to work. As much as we might wish it weren't the case, pure AOSP without someone's proprietary baggage just doesn't work.
      - DCKing 12y ago
        Pure AOSP doesn't provide cloud services. That's right. Developers need to think of the libraries they're using, whether they are Google's, Amazon's or Microsoft's. In the end, I think it's a good thing that AOSP doesn't have a dependency on some cloud service, be it Google's or someone else's. The unfortunate downside is that developers might forget that the cloud service they want is not available.
        seanmcdirmid 12y ago
        I would say that the kernel/UI you are running on your phone aren't as interesting as or provide significant value compared to the services used on the phone. If the OSS crowd wants to make a play for open phones, they have to address the service problem or they are just doing free work to support Google/Microsoft/Amazon, etc...
- mike_hearn 12y ago
  Functionality isn't normally being moved there, it's being added and apps take advantage of that. If you look at the dividing line between proprietary and open source stuff coming out of Google, the usual deciding factor is whether it relies on their (proprietary) server side components to operate. Google is all about the cloud so a lot of useful stuff does rely on that. In Play services we see things like Maps (needs the servers), Wallet and in-app billing (needs the servers), G+ (needs the servers), multiplayer gaming (you get the idea), GDrive, ads, cloud messaging etc. There's one or two things in there that maybe don't rely on the cloud (I don't know enough about Cast to say) but that's mostly it. So if you find all your apps are relying on Google Play Services what it really means is that the bar has simply been raised, and now people expect apps that deeply integrate with services provided by huge, expensive datacenters. Ideally Play Services would be a shim that different providers could satisfy. It isn't, but Android has lots of support for building such things like intent resolution, so if a realistic competitor emerged and developers cared enough to support it, the OS would certainly help them.
- chaz 12y ago
  To add to the other comments, proprietary Google OS integrations are unlikely if the app exists on iOS where such things don't exist but have similar features. A proprietary Google web service integration is a potential reason to build a substitute app + service, not to build a substitute OS.

by chaz 12y ago

makomk 12y ago

How many of those apps actually run without Google integration, though, and how many will continue to in the future? Google's moving more and more core functionality into their proprietary components.

seanmcdirmid 12y ago
Google is moving more and more core functionality into their proprietary services. A different more open operating system is quite irrelevant if google services are needed for the phone to be...you know...useful.
- DCKing 12y ago
  The 240000+ applications in the Amazon App Store that work without Play Services show that this is not a problem. Both Microsoft's Nokia X line and Amazon's Fire Phone are useful phones running Android without Play Services. Those are just examples in the west - many devices sold in China run Android without any Google stuff on them.
  - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
    Right, but is Bing really better than google? And I really wish windows phone had a better google maps client. Services matter more than apps, especially of their aren't any good app replacements.
  - dublinben 12y ago
    Amazon, Nokia, and the rest have largely had to build replacements for Google's services in order for their devices to work. As much as we might wish it weren't the case, pure AOSP without someone's proprietary baggage just doesn't work.
    - DCKing 12y ago
      Pure AOSP doesn't provide cloud services. That's right. Developers need to think of the libraries they're using, whether they are Google's, Amazon's or Microsoft's. In the end, I think it's a good thing that AOSP doesn't have a dependency on some cloud service, be it Google's or someone else's. The unfortunate downside is that developers might forget that the cloud service they want is not available.
      - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
        I would say that the kernel/UI you are running on your phone aren't as interesting as or provide significant value compared to the services used on the phone. If the OSS crowd wants to make a play for open phones, they have to address the service problem or they are just doing free work to support Google/Microsoft/Amazon, etc...
mike_hearn 12y ago
Functionality isn't normally being moved there, it's being added and apps take advantage of that. If you look at the dividing line between proprietary and open source stuff coming out of Google, the usual deciding factor is whether it relies on their (proprietary) server side components to operate. Google is all about the cloud so a lot of useful stuff does rely on that. In Play services we see things like Maps (needs the servers), Wallet and in-app billing (needs the servers), G+ (needs the servers), multiplayer gaming (you get the idea), GDrive, ads, cloud messaging etc. There's one or two things in there that maybe don't rely on the cloud (I don't know enough about Cast to say) but that's mostly it. So if you find all your apps are relying on Google Play Services what it really means is that the bar has simply been raised, and now people expect apps that deeply integrate with services provided by huge, expensive datacenters. Ideally Play Services would be a shim that different providers could satisfy. It isn't, but Android has lots of support for building such things like intent resolution, so if a realistic competitor emerged and developers cared enough to support it, the OS would certainly help them.
chaz 12y ago
To add to the other comments, proprietary Google OS integrations are unlikely if the app exists on iOS where such things don't exist but have similar features. A proprietary Google web service integration is a potential reason to build a substitute app + service, not to build a substitute OS.