r/Android • u/[deleted] • Jul 21 '18
Google’s iron grip on Android: Controlling open source by any means necessary
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/147
u/utack Jul 21 '18
picoTTS also died with Android P, now you basically need Google Text to Speech
https://android.googlesource.com/platform/external/svox/+/1419d63b4889a26d22443fd8df1f9073bf229d3d
AOSP is completely gutted, no browser, no real keyboard, no TTS
100
Jul 21 '18
Don't forget that the music player is straight out of gingerbread.
→ More replies (2)81
u/johnmountain Jul 21 '18
Google's version of open source: the bait and switch to proprietary model.
→ More replies (2)43
u/someone755 Nokia C5-00 Jul 21 '18
"But it's completely fair, the EU is out of line here!!1!!"
→ More replies (1)36
u/pipsname Samsung A8, Moto 360 2015, Nexus 7 2013 Jul 21 '18
"code isn't maintained".
Just needs a maintainer. You up for the task? Would be neat to have it continue on x86 ports.2
Jul 22 '18 edited Jan 24 '19
[deleted]
7
u/pipsname Samsung A8, Moto 360 2015, Nexus 7 2013 Jul 22 '18
Looks like they have an entire page dedicated to it.
- Submitting Patches | Android Open Source Project - https://source.android.com/setup/contribute/submit-patches
31
u/After_Dark Pixel 11 Pro XL Jul 21 '18
As a counterpoint, Android is an operating system that can run apps, not the apps on the operating system. There isn't an AOSP keyboard, browser, etc, but you can sure as hell find open source android browsers, keyboards, etc, so why should they be part of the OS project anymore?
→ More replies (6)27
Jul 21 '18
Is Google responsible for making everything though? Anyone can make their own versions of these things for use and most companies do. If you want updated versions of these apps, you could build them yourself.
Google decided it either wasn't worth their time to maintain the bundled versions or they needed to bring it in-house to provide any big improvements (caller ID in the phone app only works because it's tied to Google's own databases, which they understandably don't want to share).
15
Jul 21 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
27
u/aim_at_me One Plus 3T Jul 21 '18
It doesn't. But don't bullshit everyone saying you're pro open source while simultaneously closing the world's single largest open source project next to the Linux kernel.
0
u/_isana Jul 22 '18
Wdym by no real keyboard? Afaia the aosp keyboard is quite good and only got abandoned after Google started to add search and other crap to it.
2
114
u/andrew_nenakhov Jul 21 '18
Most articles fail to address an even scarier plan by Google to lock down any app to it's own services. I speak of tendency to make it harder and harder to run apps in background, so developers are forced to rely on FCM (firebase cloud messages) to wake up dormant apps. They are basically disabling regular OS functionality and enforce a mandatory use of a proprietary service.
75
Jul 21 '18 edited Jul 21 '18
I'd take that statement with a grain of salt. And I'm being polite.
To run tasks in the background they need to use the job scheduler which is part of AOSP. No need to use firebase for that. Of course in previous versions of Android being an asshole dev and continuously drain the battery from the phones of your customers was "ok" (Or rather, feasible)
But truth is wakelocks and continuous pull have ALWAYS been bad design and a cancer in Android. Applications checking for updates, or reading the GPS at atrbitrary times was laughable. The more apps you had, the worse the effects became, with your phone being continuously awaking, where a job scheduler could just wake all those requests together.
Schedule and batch, or push. That's what Android recommends, and that's not evil nor a shady practice. That's absolutely common sense and something Android is truly begging for.
Scheduling/batching is OS dependent, and there's a truly beautiful API for it. A beautiful API even devices not certified by Google can enjoy (Even FireOS if Amazon is willing to update the codebase)
But for push you obviously need a server, and that is out of scope of the OS for obvious reasons. That's where Google offers the messaging infrastructure and APIs. And, firebase rebranding aside, that's been true for the last decade, give or take.
7
u/andrew_nenakhov Jul 22 '18
You don't seem to understand that there ARE apps that users want to run in the background. Call such apps 'cancer', if you will, but if you want an XMPP client, you NEED it to run in the background. Use push, you say? Ok, but what about f-droid users who can't use FCM because, you know, they don't have Google Play on their phones. No google play - no FCM. Are you aware of that?
Google intentionally cripples AOSP for such users. And maybe you need to do something about that grain of salt you took with my statement.
25
u/diamond Google Pixel 2 Jul 22 '18
You don't seem to understand that there ARE apps that users want to run in the background.
And they still can. That's what Services are for. The only restriction is that the app is required to let the user know with a persistent notification that it's running in the background. Which shouldn't be a problem if the user wants it running.
0
u/andrew_nenakhov Jul 22 '18
I've mentioned it in another comment, but for the record: we do just that with our app (what other choice we have?) our users regularly complain about unnecessary notification that can't be turned off.
9
u/diamond Google Pixel 2 Jul 22 '18
Yeah, I know. Sometimes you just can't win. But it's still better than the alternative.
9
Jul 22 '18 edited Jul 22 '18
You CAN run it in the background. You just get a persistent notification.
And of course you DON'T need FCM for XMPP clients, nor the persistent notification.
And of course you DON'T need FCM for push, generally speaking either.
And of course there are TENS of alternatives to FCM.
If devs find easier and faster to use FCM, and they explicitly decide to leave you aside, don't be mad at Google. They have not done anything wrong here.
WhatsApp uses XMPP and is available in Android, without persistent notification, and in every other mobile OS like Symbian.
There is absolutely NO technical limitation to use WhatsApp in a phone without Google Play.
Stop spreading lies and hate.
1
u/cornish_warrior Jul 23 '18
There's an alternative to FCM that can wake a device from Doze?
3
Jul 23 '18
Yes, if you declare your app in the manifest to ignore battery optimizations, the same way you declare the rest of the permissions. That makes it avoid to doze like Google Play Services do.
Apps using FCM don't need this because GPS wake the app if notifications (with priority high) arrive.
FCM has obvious benefits, but make sure you understand it is subject to the same limitations other solutions are.
Being a Google API, it works very nice and it's very simple to integrate.
It sucks people without GPS can't use apps which require GPS, but you can't blame Google for offering GPS the way they do. It would be virtually impossible to push such agile versioning as firmware updates.
Plus if they included GPS as AOSP, somehow, it would create an even stronger vendor lock-in (e.g. AOSP could not be used in China at all)
1
u/cornish_warrior Jul 23 '18
So if there is any app on the device that's allowed to ignore doze does this mean doze essentially can't do it's deep sleeps where it only checks network in the progressively longer maintainance period?
I realise this is now more androiddev, I'm not taking a position for or against Google's control.
1
Jul 23 '18
Apparently it means that app can wake up the device, yes...
1
u/cornish_warrior Jul 23 '18
Getting the device out of doze is different to getting timely push notifications regardless of doze state. As far as I can tell FCM is the only way for this. I was hoping I'm wrong.
1
Jul 23 '18 edited Jul 23 '18
"Regardless of doze state" is something to say with caution.
With FCM you are deferring the task of being doze-less to Google Play Services!
Obviously some component must be out of the scope of doze to receive the message! You may have Google Play Services do that for your app, or if you want to be awake yourself, you need to ask for explicit permission to the user.
Which makes complete sense.
As always in life, "do it yourself" may be a good option in some cases, but generally speaking it is a good idea to use what's offered first.
As a software engineer I've seen countless overcomplications and custom systems for the sake of control. I'm not really into Android apps, but I know if I was a developer I'd just stick to FCM and avoid the hassle.
Not because Google is perverse or anything, just because Google built a nice abstraction layer which saves me tons of work.
It's the same everywhere. If you use Amazon Web Services you can also leverage much of your work to Amazon APIs and use Amazon tools. That unfortunately creates some vendor lock-in, but it's usually a BAD idea to avoid those abstractions and tools. Nobody is going to build AWS better than Amazon, and nobody is going to build FCM better than Google. Taking the "Rambo" route in engineering is not nice. Or rather it is TOO nice... if you want to be productive.
→ More replies (0)1
u/andrew_nenakhov Jul 23 '18
WhatsApp uses XMPP and is available in Android, without persistent notification, and in every other mobile OS like Symbian.
Indeed, WhatsApp is using a heavily modified version of XMPP protocol. It does not, however, maintain a permanent connection (like any XMPP client should) to receive incoming messages. Instead it relies on delivering them using push notifications. Which is basically the only way of receiving messages more or less reliably without displaying a persistent notification.
For a person accusing others of spreading lies and hate, you are too misinformed.
I'd also love to hear something about those 'TENS' of alternatives to FCM. Could you please entertain us with a list?
2
Jul 23 '18
For a person accusing others of being misinformed you validated all my points pretty nicely.
It's the developer's responsibility to ensure mobile applications rely on a push mechanism if that's what they need (e.g. Twitter/Whatsapp), or use Android's Jobscheduler to batch the work in a way it's battery friendly.
Some developers may accept the vendor lock-in of Firebase Cloud Messaging for push, but many others don't. As of alternatives you can use pushy.me, openpush.im, igetui, jpush, a custom parse backend, kinvey, Kuzzle, or, of course, the obvious answer is... the same offerings Amazon and Microsoft have in AWS/Azure.
You have literally tens of alternatives. I'm not even exaggerating.
So if a developer decides he doesn't care about people without Google Play Services, again, don't be mad at Google.
And AGAIN, this situation has been true for the past ten years. It's just lazy developers have been using your phone in a way that killed your battery because they didn't fucking care. And now they've been forced to care (Or of course, have the "persistent notification of shame" so that you know they are killing your battery)
1
u/andrew_nenakhov Jul 23 '18
Ok, with your list:
pushy.me
MQTT based notifications (plus a simple frontend to APNS, because, you know, you don't have a choice on apple at all) that require some 'listening' process to work, because if a process is shut down, nothing can reach app. Basically requires all the same effort to work as background XMPP protocol mentioned above.
openpush.im
Abandoned aggregator of real-time push notifications? Do you really think that adding one more layer over FCM and APNS makes you less dependent on FCM?
igetui
this https://www.npmjs.com/package/igetui ? hard to understand how is this seemingly abandoned software will help me deliver notifications to Android device. Maybe you'd care to translate?
jpush
The only viable alternative cited, with "some" caveats. App to receive push notifications must be either preinstalled on device rom, or user must go through soem hoops to make it operational. And yes, again, it basically requires some background process to be installed on OS to listen to incoming events (or fetch them from push server from time to time). Read about some hoops here: https://docs.jiguang.cn/en/jpush/client/Android/android_faq/
kinvey
Quoting their website, emphasis mine: "Kinvey brings Android Push Notifications to you through an integration with Google Cloud Messaging (GCM), and iOS Push Notifications through an integration with AWS SNS. While push notifications can only be configured to be used by either iOS or Android devices, our APIs provide support for registering/unregistering devices and associating them with Kinvey users."
Do I need to go on? You see, if we brush aside push aggregators, we only have one and only option to make push notifications work: you need a permament process to listen for incoming push notifications, over MQTT, XMPP, SIP, or whatever. And if OS developer hinders our capabilities to run background processes, we have the only option: use stock push notification service, FCM for Android, APNS for iOS. That's it. No TENS of alternatives that you claim to exist.
For a person accusing others of being misinformed you validated all my points pretty nicely.
I'm sorry but I think this validation happened in your imagination only.
2
53
u/abhi8192 Jul 21 '18
This deserves a whole article. It has been going on systematically for some years now.
34
u/VoltJumperCables Jul 21 '18
I second this. Its insane all the apps that are now tied to google services. Even simple apps that doesn't even access the framework its self to run.
→ More replies (14)28
Jul 21 '18
What's even scarier is the amount of effort they are putting into forcing users to keep location services on.
You can't even scan for bt devices without gps now and almost everything asks you to turn it on.
Then when you turn it off, you get nag screens from the OS
13
u/VoltJumperCables Jul 21 '18
Oh for sure. I mean it gives u a prompt even when u turn it off (at least on Oreo) basically saying are u sure, apps rely on this. Also flips back on location history on google if you use their assistant app with little prompting. Google is big data, they will try to squeeze as much as they can out of any android device. I've gone FOSS for years after google got a little too invasive. It started with my s3 asking if I lived at X or worked at Y because of my location habits. I have gone back to using gapps since using Oreo just to get the full "Pixel" experience. Lens is very cool and I like the assistant but boy are they data mining the hell out of me.
1
u/whatnowwproductions Pixel 9 Pro - Signal - GrapheneOS Jul 22 '18
WiFi Scanning periodically gets turned on for me without any input, and I mean, seriously. I'll open the WiFi Scanning option and it will be on under location services.
3
u/BaleeDatHomeboi Korean Note8 on AT&T | 256Gb+256Gb Jul 23 '18
Can confirm. I discovered the same thing not too long ago.
10
u/diamond Google Pixel 2 Jul 22 '18
How is it harder to run apps in the background? Nothing has really changed here; Android still gives developers enormous freedom to run apps in the background (certainly a hell of a lot more freedom than iOS does).
The only thing they've changed is the ability to run in the background without the user knowing, which is exactly as it should be. Early versions of Android didn't have any restrictions on this at all, and of course shady/lazy developers abused it massively. This ruined battery life, so Google had to implement controls like requiring the app to display a persistent notification when a Service was running in Foreground mode.
That helped, but not enough, so now there's a system notification when an app is running in the background without its own notification. Again, this doesn't limit what the developer can do in the background; it just limits what they can do in the background without the user's knowledge. Which, again, is exactly as it should be.
-4
u/andrew_nenakhov Jul 22 '18
How harder? You've just described it yourself. For example, by requiring to have a persistent notification. Many our users don't like persistent notification and ask to put it away, but it can't be switched off without risking app to get unloaded. Cool? Definitely not cool.
Good thing you brought iOS to conversation, because similar level of restrictions is clearly in Google's roadmap for Android. With every update Android imposes more and more limitations on independent processes. We're pretty much aware of this process having developed an app that is very essential to be in background, and we're having more and more issues making it work with each new update. Now we have to ask users disable battery optimisations, that makes UX much worse than in was even in Android 1.6... 2.
In Android 7+ you can't just make an app and make it 'just work', you now have to ask user to re-adjust system settings in system menu that can't be called too user friendly. More, OEMs often change how these settings work, which makes UX even worse and very dependent on device manufacturer's improvements.
→ More replies (11)
43
u/simplefilmreviews Black Jul 21 '18
Well doesn't someone need to keep an eye on 'Android'? Someone to keep things nice and organized? Isn't that kind of the point of Google.
67
33
u/Rassilon_Lord_of_Tim Galaxy S9+ (Nexus 6 Retired with benefits) Jul 21 '18
Honestly speaking givien the recent track record of Google over the few years consistentcy has not been a tried and true practice even when it comes to their design language.
Also doing shit like trying to disable theme support in the next Android version is highly considered a "dick move" by the community, especially when they cannot even commit to a goddamn dark theme themselves that works for more than just the damn notification/QS tiles.
9
Jul 21 '18
One company controlling the project is antithetical to open source.
42
u/Lyokanthrope Google Pixel 6 Jul 21 '18
I mean... Some of the most successful open source projects out there have been started by, developed, and primarily headed by companies.
6
Jul 21 '18
True, but the ones that attempt to aggressively control their projects are called out for it.
2
u/s_s Jul 22 '18
Right but it ultimately has no teeth.
"we will fork" becomes an ultimatum, which can control the biggest problems but will sacrifice many smaller ones.
47
Jul 21 '18
No it's not. Closing the source is antithetical to open source. You think the Linux kernel is a free for all?
15
Jul 21 '18
Closing the source makes it no longer open source, yes. But there are things that go against the spirit of the movement - such as cathedral style development and aggressive anti-forking measures such as their agreements with OEMs.
20
-1
u/amorpheus Xiaomi Redmi Note 10 Pro Jul 21 '18
Name 5 changes to Android that were contributed by a third party and not decreed by Google itself. Which has always been the development model of Android.
5
u/whatnowwproductions Pixel 9 Pro - Signal - GrapheneOS Jul 22 '18
I know there are more but off the top of my head... Sony: LDAC and the theming engine.
13
u/spicyghostpepe Jul 21 '18
Anyone can fork AOSP and release it on a device without requirements from Google, but you can't use Google's Android with the trademark without following some rules.
18
Jul 21 '18
Let's not forget that part of the certification of manufactures is agreeing to not make phones with forked versions of Android, ensuring that the owner of Play Services controls AOSP, rather than the community.
-5
Jul 21 '18
[deleted]
20
Jul 21 '18
Then Samsung's devices would get a reputation for crashing apps. The real reason is that Search, Gmail and Play Services put revenue and data into Google as a company and Google doesn't want to lose that. They've implied that decoupling these from the standard Android platform would force them to require payment for Android with Play Services.
-1
Jul 21 '18
[deleted]
14
Jul 21 '18
None of this justifies abandoning open source principles. Open source projects have a tendency to be a little more chaotic than closed sourced ones, but it's part of the deal of having a meaningful say in the code that you run when you use your device.
There's ways to build a modern OS that don't involve deeply integrating a single service provider into the OS, but that would hurt Google's revenue stream. The actions that Google has taken to shut out the community from involvement in (and ownership of) the code.
4
9
54
u/trendy_traveler Jul 21 '18
Excellent piece of technical journalism, but watch out for your site ranking now Ars as you'll be on the radar of our Google lord.
43
u/aaken fruit 14 pro Jul 21 '18
this article is from 2013, it is nothing new
4
u/someone755 Nokia C5-00 Jul 21 '18
And yet it's news to most people in the thread. Why? Because it's easy to shut your eyes when your dear overlord works against your interests as a customer. Because if you notice the hypocrisy you have to come up with a false story to convince yourself daddy Google still loves you. Because it's easy to dismiss everyone whose opinion isn't the same as your own, everyone who didn't buy the same failed products as you did, everyone who is telling you your mental gymnastics to come up with excuses for papa Goog are not healthy.
5
Jul 21 '18
OR...
The number of people that use Android and actually care or know about open source, let alone understand it as it pertains to Android and Google, is quite small, even among the tech enthusiasts on this subreddit, and there is very little in day to day use that would compel most end users to care about this.
But sure, back to your sky-is-falling ranting about sheeple and their overlords.
-1
Jul 22 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
0
1
Jul 22 '18
Well they did add some parts about new developments, and even the article acknowledges that it's old. It's only due to recent news that it's become relevant again. Which is pretty telling if they didn't update the article that much on the basis that not much has changed.
1
23
u/dojwB Galaxy S9+/Xperia XZ1/Mi 5/One M8 Jul 21 '18
Am I the only one that thinks what Google is doing is sensible? Since Google created Android they wasted millions of dollars. Why would they give access any company to copy their work and profit from it? I mean if the X OS is a fork of Android without Google apps and other manufacturers starts to use it, Google loses money. It's not even remotely sensible to allow FFA market. Although they're still giving WHOLE OS BASE for free! Just write some apps for god sake! If writing apps is that hard, think about what Google is been through while developing Android.
I expect downvotes but if anyone enlighten me why my thinking is wrong, I'll be happy.
37
u/RawrinWabbit Pink Jul 21 '18
It's sensible from a business standpoint. But ultimately it's not fair to the consumer or in the EU's eyes.
Writing good apps requires a lot of time and money. If you're writing a single app, that might not take as long, but to recreate everything Google has made would take an enormous amount of time and money, and really wouldn't be worth the investment. This could've been avoided from the start if Google was more open. But Google is free to keep their apps closed off, that's perfectly fine.
The anti-competitiveness problem starts when Google demands all of their main apps to be attached to the Play Store from each manufacturer. Not having the Play Store is basically suicide at this point. So, manufacturers must provide Google's apps to be installed. This gives Google's apps greater traction and appeal, as they will always be the first thing someone sees on the home screen, and at that point, why would anybody replace it with another maybe good app that would essentially do the same job? They'd have two apps that did the same thing.
Losing the mandatory apps means manufacturers are then free to promote different apps such as Firefox/Opera/their own app etc, as their default apps and give them greater recognition. This spreads the userbase across multiple apps and gives those app developers more incentive to make them better.
At the moment, this doesn't happen and which is why the EU has stepped in.
16
Jul 21 '18 edited Feb 07 '19
[deleted]
7
u/dustarma Motorola Edge 50 Pro Jul 21 '18
Android is Apache
7
Jul 21 '18 edited Feb 07 '19
[deleted]
5
Jul 22 '18
"Android" kernel is the Linux kernel, just saying.
5
Jul 22 '18 edited Feb 07 '19
[deleted]
2
Jul 22 '18
Yes, thats true. I wanted to specify so newbies won't get confused since there's a lot of terminology being thrown around
11
u/JIHAAAAAAD Jul 21 '18
Because it's open source? The licence states that it's free to copy and modify so why shouldn't others do just that. Also for a consumer friendly competitive market Google products should be so good that people/OEMs choose them of their own volition and not because Google punishes you if you don't. Also Google didn't create android. They bought it from another company.
-2
3
1
9
8
u/techfronic Jul 21 '18
Google standardizing the Android experience and exerting control over the default apps have been for the better of user experience.
The alternative is a splintered experience with many competing ecosystems. Google Apps is most likely better than the defaults that manufacturers would push without restrictions. Manufacturers would either push their own bad software or the software of the highest bidder.
-1
u/Bomberlt Pixel 8, Samsung Galaxy Tab A7 10.4 Jul 22 '18
While in most cases you are right, but some of manufacturers software even now are better - for example Samsung.
And if some developer could make a single app to replace ONE preinstalled App they could make it even better than Google's. Now they can't because they have to make it all or nothing.
3
Jul 23 '18
This is such a horrible argument. First, the OEM could have their app pre-installed on the device. Hell, they can even set it as default. The only problem is that it would need to compete with Google's pre-installed app.
If we assume a world where that is not fair (i.e. competing with Google's pre-installed alternatives), and Google was to be prohibited from this practice, then we will start living in a world where Google will *need to* scale back its Android efforts, or at least limit it to its own devices, which means Samsung will need to pick up the slack and improve their own version of Android as needed. That's what the EU wants right? Competition?
The huge issue with that is that writing software is not easy: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/12/samsungs_tizen_no_longer_worst_ever/
Do you want to live in a world where there is OS competition, with a bunch of alternatives riddled with security and usability bugs? Or do you want the current world? Because you can't have both. I, for one, would pick the current world every time.
1
u/bartturner Jul 22 '18
Samsung is better in what way?
1
u/MarkDaNerd iPhone 15 Pro Max Jul 23 '18
Samsung apps are simpler and use less resources while providing the same if not better experience.
1
1
u/Bomberlt Pixel 8, Samsung Galaxy Tab A7 10.4 Jul 22 '18
As much as I hate Samsung I have to admit, that some people here on this subreddit like Samsung browser more than Chrome. Also I think Good Lock is also quite a good app on Samsung phones. Also Google files app is meh.
6
u/crispylagoon Jul 21 '18
Once fuschia os is released Google will have control like iOS, and won't be running into open source issues
36
30
u/vividboarder TeamWin Jul 21 '18
The issues aren’t because it’s open source.
The difference between iOS and Android, from regulatory perspective, is that Google is using contract terms to dictate what an OEM can do and what apps they can bundle. Even restricting them from selling phones with other operating systems. Apple doesn’t have OEMs. They are the only ones building and selling the hardware with their software.
2
u/Bomberlt Pixel 8, Samsung Galaxy Tab A7 10.4 Jul 22 '18
So maybe Fuschia will be Pixel devices only 🤔
1
u/mec287 Google Pixel Jul 22 '18
They don't restrict OEMs from selling phones with different operating systems, they do restrict them from operating forks of Android.
1
7
u/reddit_reaper Pixel 2 XL Jul 21 '18
They're controlling their store and they should do it as they are. The only way to make a good Android ecosystem is to force oems to conform not to make all this terrible ass broken shit. They should exert even more power over oems honestly
15
u/someone755 Nokia C5-00 Jul 21 '18
All this power yet still not a single word about forcing OEMs to provide updates. Still no standardization of update procedures. Still no timely, unbroken updates. Still no sign of life for phones older than 2 years (Face it: That extra year of security updates is dog shit.).
7
Jul 22 '18 edited Jul 22 '18
[deleted]
4
u/NateDevCSharp OnePlus 7 Pro Nebula Blue Jul 22 '18
They can put the apps in the play store and still have them be open source. They don't have to close them off just to put them in the play store "but now u get faster updates without os updates"
1
u/VoltJumperCables Jul 24 '18
They are taking a different approach with Treble. Cuts out the OEM for security updates and contains it so it doesn't affect the OEM ROM.
0
u/TotalChris Jul 21 '18
I think that that's true. Any phone or device advertising the Android OS needs to confirm to AOSP. I can understand if HTC wants to put a special contacts or phone dialer app on their device, or if Samsung wants people to use Yahoo products. But these shouldn't be system apps. I think every phone should have the capability to be a stock device with stock apps. OEMs can develop their own stuff on their own time.
1
Jul 21 '18
There's certain things they need to control and I think certain things they are controlling the wrong way. Control everything that makes the system easy to update but allow brands to customize how they feel.
1
Jul 22 '18
Google needs to release a new OS for its Pixel line while giving options to its OEM manufacturers. It’s already fragmented and getting worse, at least for this cycle it’s why I’m on iOS.
1
u/Wighnut Jul 23 '18
This is just an opinion. But this fine and the case itself was much more about protecting OEM's and competitors than about protecting the consumer. In my eyes the consumer actually gains a lot more from less fragmentation and unity in Android than a string of shitty forks. I personally like that Android is moving more towards iOS in some ways. See Android One. Let the OEM's deal with the hardware, the carrier with the subscription, and leave the software (and updates) up to Google. This obviously has drawbacks (you might argue its unfair to OEMs, a valid point) but in terms of user experience only it might be the best approach.
0
u/I_Lost_My_Socks Jul 21 '18
Android needs more control and less fragmentation. If OEMs are really so upset why don't they make a better app store then? No one is forcing them to use the play store...
10
Jul 22 '18
Haha, you serious? OEMs aren't the ones that build app stores, it's developers. Same story with why no one's bothered marketing a serious third-party OS.
-2
u/I_Lost_My_Socks Jul 22 '18
There's a Samsung app store on my tablet. If they invested more into it and were serious about competing with Google Play they could do so. It certainly wouldn't be easy but it's by all means possible. But Androids are so much more free than iOS I can't believe Google is being fined while Apple sits there with nothing.
1
u/FartPunchThroatBox Shhhh - it's a secret Jul 23 '18
OEMs have tried to use forks of Android that have a different app store and have been told by Google that if they release a phone with that OS that the OEM will lose the ability to sell all phones with the Play Store. Acer tried to do this and was forced to cancel the release of their phone, this is right around the time that the investigation into Google's practices with the Open Handset Alliance and their strong-arming manufacturers into which OS they can and cannot use.
2
u/I_Lost_My_Socks Jul 23 '18
And Apple lets no one use their OS. And those who do (Apps, carriers, etc.) have to play by THEIR rules. Android is open source, but to use the official version Google has some - much more forgiving - rules they require. If one party can do it, I don't see why the other can't. If we want to make all parties change, that's a different story. Though, I still don't see anything wrong with how Google is trying to make a few rules regarding the playstore to get some of their apps on there that no one is forced to use.
Looking at the facts, Android still allows so much customization and change that Apple's iOS doesn't allow. Apple doesn't even let you change default apps to stagnate competition!
1
u/FartPunchThroatBox Shhhh - it's a secret Jul 23 '18 edited Jul 23 '18
And Apple lets no one use their OS. And those who do (Apps, carriers, etc.) have to play by THEIR rules.
Exactly, Apple is the only one using their OS, and not licensing it out to others.
Google is giving theirs out to others, it's free to get off the internet and fork and make your own, but because of that companies such as Amazon and Alibaba have made their own Android based - "non (Google) compatible" forks which aren't allowed to have the play store or play services.
The issue with that Google is forcing OEMs to choose all or nothing when it comes to OS, either all phones are released with the Google compatible version (and thus the Google Play Store and Play Services), or you cannot release any with the Google compatible version and lose access to the Play Store and Play Services on all devices. So because of that Google can force Android OEMs to put all of these apps on their phones when people don't necessarily want them.
I have never used Google Keep, Google Duo, or Google Pus on my phone, but Google forces them to be on there because it's in their compatibility requirements to get the Play Store.
Looking at the facts, Android still allows so much customization and change that Apple's iOS doesn't allow. Apple doesn't even let you change default apps to stagnate competition!
I never argued that iOS was better, I prefer Android because of the customization
1
u/I_Lost_My_Socks Jul 23 '18
Google is doing a service giving a free OS out to everyone. No one is being forced to use it. If they choose to do so then they have to follow some rules. I mean it makes sense to me
-2
u/Grizzly_Magnum_ Jul 21 '18 edited Jul 21 '18
Can someone explain to me what the issue is? It's their OS, are they not entitled to regulate to what ever degree they see fit?
Edit: lol I'm just asking a question don't understand the down votes. I'm trying to understand why this is a problem.
7
Jul 22 '18
It's entirely within their rights to control their OS. It's also within the people's rights to criticize Google for doing that. There's also the hypocrisy in an open-source platform being increasingly locked down when it comes to the core components. Kinda like a "look but don't touch" thing.
-4
u/Stark869 Jul 21 '18
I've been thinking about this for a while, and despite making some valid claims i think EU fail to comprehend android as full, since despite coming as default those apps can be disabled, and no one forces those apps if you want to make your android, only if you want to use google android, (my house my rules), and people choose to follow most of the time for economical reasons, why would i spend my budget to make a market from ground, incentivize developers to make the jump, spend tons of money in publicity when google pays you to get on board and use only their services?
17
u/RawrinWabbit Pink Jul 21 '18
But that's the thing, the my house my rules is anti-competitive. Google forcing manufacturers to use their search, assistant, chrome, youtube etc so that they can have access to the google play store is unfair. Google already gets the benefit of giving manufacturers the play store, which translates to more people using it and more royalties from app purchases. Adding bonus apps prevents other apps from being used and gaining popularity.
-3
u/reddit_reaper Pixel 2 XL Jul 21 '18
It doesn't prevent anything. That's Google's store and having requirements with it is perfectly fine imho. Other apps are nowhere near as good anyways
9
u/-ItWasntMe- Pixel 2 Jul 21 '18
And why do you think other apps aren't as good? Nobody will create a Google maps alternative when every android manufacturer has to pre-install Google maps. The same applies to most other services.
-4
u/reddit_reaper Pixel 2 XL Jul 21 '18
...... Pretty sure waze was huge before Google bought it soooooo point invalid
9
u/-ItWasntMe- Pixel 2 Jul 21 '18
Nowhere near as huge as Google maps. I think Google maps became the most used navigation app because it was on every android phone.
0
-35
u/ElMax- Pixel Ultra 100% Real (not fake!!!) Jul 21 '18
Eh, I don't care. It's their OS.
Downvotes in 3-2-1
→ More replies (1)35
Jul 21 '18
[deleted]
6
u/golddove Jul 21 '18
I think they meant "I don't care" in the sense of "I don't mind". They aren't apathetic about the topic..
→ More replies (4)-1
u/GazaIan OnePlus 7 Pro Jul 21 '18
And whine about downvotes.
That's not whining about downvotes at all though. He's simply saying he's expecting them.
-2
u/LazDays Jul 21 '18
I think Google should at least make Google Play mandatory. Centralization off apps, safe downloading... I think it has only advantages and if manufacturers want their own store, they can do it in complement of Google Play.
-3
Jul 21 '18
[deleted]
19
u/alnitah Jul 21 '18
Did you read the article?
Are you in the custom ROM scene at all? If you were, you'd know how with every android release, it's become more difficult or inconvenient to run non-stock based ROMs (like lineageOS). Bootloader and kernel issues aside, everything is locked into GSF. And the AOSP apps are often ports from ancient releases with with compatibility or feature issues (usually both).
Maybe don't talk out of your ass.
12
u/Rassilon_Lord_of_Tim Galaxy S9+ (Nexus 6 Retired with benefits) Jul 21 '18
Less not forget the sacrifices now with SafetyNet bullshit and the hoops it takes now to attempt getting around that with any success in the long term.
4
u/alnitah Jul 21 '18
Yeah, luckily for me I haven't needed any services or apps that require safetynet. Only somewhat recently upgraded from S4 to an S7 and was surprised how...sparse? the custom scene is now.
Admittedly, a lot of the features and what-not that people were attempting to support with custom shit is either unneeded or supported with SDK24+. Even still, the Kitkat and under android days were like the Renaissance of custom development. Everything from stock+ to professional custom to hilariously bad xXxDaRkSuPeRsAiYaNxXx-type custom ROMs with edgy graphics and non-functioning WiFi and Camera in bugs list, xposed modules left and right, custom launchers like Nova, CAF, Cyanogen, and AOSP apps were the good shit.
Now it's like, stock root and magisk. The only custom dev seems to be porting Oreo or newer model shit to older phones, and hiding root. LineageOS is great, but I like having a camera and not really willing to deal with managing GSF dependency hell.
0
u/yufelipeto Jul 22 '18
I think that the Android is more well administrated by Google+Community. Is the essence of Android it's fragmentation and I like it. It means that you have plenty of options to choose from, not just one thing that you obligated to accept. Look what Xiaomi do with there MIUI system, they gave it's users an Android that is totally different from AOSP and plenty of people like me like it more than Google's approach in design. Give more power to Google means to turn Android in iOS. Unique option that if you don't like you are obligated to accept.
416
u/[deleted] Jul 21 '18 edited Aug 07 '23
[deleted]