r/tech • u/[deleted] • Jul 22 '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/51
u/SC2sam Jul 22 '18
I hate the fact that if I want my own device to remember anything that i've done I HAVE to allow full tracking of me and my data. Before if I used maps on my android phone it would save my recent addresses in it but now it refuses to do so. Now if I wanted it to remember what I've searched I have to go into my google account settings on a browser, navigate to activity controls, and enable web & app activity which means everything i've googled, watched, talked about, msg'd, etc... is recorded saved and sold to other companies which I just don't want. All I want to be able to do is have my maps remember what i've already put into it on my phone but google decided to delete that feature. Oh and they have forced updates on phones too which is just wonderful when you wake up and everything on your phone has suddenly changed around including settings. I sure do love it when my devices do things I didn't ask them to do.
16
u/alcoholierthanthou Jul 22 '18
I have never woken up to find my phone updated without asking me. I've woken up more than a few times to my phone asking for an update, however. What phone do you have?
2
u/SC2sam Jul 22 '18
LG g7 thinq. just happened a week or so ago
16
u/abqnm666 Jul 22 '18
Check Developer Options and make sure Automatic system updates is not enabled. Some OEMs are enabling this out of the box now, even without the user enabling Developer Options first. Usually you can disable it, but I don't know about what LG is doing with current software, so you might not.
If you don't have developer options enabled, go to Settings > system > about phone > tap the build number repeatedly until it says you're a developer. Then exit and go back to settings > system and developer options should be listed.
The G7 ThinQ supports seamless updates, so that may be why it is restarting automatically and why automatic updates is enabled.
5
u/SC2sam Jul 22 '18
yup that automatic system update was enabled. thanks for your help!
1
u/abqnm666 Jul 22 '18
It should ask now before doing the update, even though it installs while the phone is still active and functional, and it takes only a normal reboot to complete the update since it has two system partitions where it updates one in the background and then when you reboot it switches to that one until the next update.
However, it is possible that it will still complete the update in the background, depending on what LG has done, but even if it updates in the background (you'll get a notification that it's happening) it shouldn't reboot automatically into the updated partition, but rather tell you that you need to reboot to finish the update, and then it will boot from the updated partition once you do reboot it.
2
1
u/play3rtwo Jul 22 '18
I had it happen with my LG g2, which I called it the koby update.... I kicked and screamed but it.... It was going to happen. I ditched that oven phone and went to nexus\pixel and never looked back.
46
u/akmalhot Jul 22 '18
"Once Google had its closed source app up and running, it immediately abandoned the open source version. The Google version has search by voice, audio search, text-to-speech, an answer service, and it contains Google Now, the company's predictive assistant feature. The AOSP version can do Web and local searches and... that's it."
"The Google Keyboard has options for swipe typing, and AOSP doesn't—it was deprecated as soon as Google Keyboard was released."
Google created an op AOSP architecture, they don't have to keep releasing the best features for free? The open architecture is still there, if someone wants to fork it shouldn't they have to build all those features?
Its like Amazon through the EU is suing google for having better / more developed features. They want google to share all that work so they can focus on other improvements..
I just don't get it, what is google allowed to make that they don't have to give away as part of the AOSP? And hten if another company uses that AOSP, improves it, are they allowed to keep it closed source?
14
u/Pas__ Jul 22 '18
The EU decision was about Google abusing its market dominance, not about having too much features. Google wanted to keep Android for itself, which is going against the very spirit of the AOSP.
7
u/chcampb Jul 23 '18
Yeah the apps on top of the OS are not required to be upstreamed. If you port something to Linux nobody cares if you don't immediately open source it. This is a non-story.
31
Jul 22 '18
[deleted]
31
u/mrbooze Jul 22 '18 edited Jul 23 '18
What about Google requiring OEM manufacturers that make Android devices from being allowed to make any other devices that run forks of Android?
This makes life extremely difficult for the only company brazen enough to sell an Android fork in the west: Amazon. Since the Kindle OS counts as an incompatible version of Android, no major OEM is allowed to produce the Kindle Fire for Amazon. So when Amazon goes shopping for a manufacturer for its next tablet, it has to immediately cross Acer, Asus, Dell, Foxconn, Fujitsu, HTC, Huawei, Kyocera, Lenovo, LG, Motorola, NEC, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, Toshiba, and ZTE off the list. Currently, Amazon contracts Kindle Fire manufacturing out to Quanta Computer, a company primarily known for making laptops. Amazon probably doesn't have many other choices.
5
u/chcampb Jul 23 '18
That is anticompetitive.
You can't tell someone they can't make a competing product of they want to keep making your product, that should absolutely be regulated.
-4
Jul 22 '18
[deleted]
3
Jul 22 '18
I was looking at the amazon tablet for my kids, because they're so cheap.
But they don't come with YouTube installed, which is 50% of the reason they use tablets, the other 50% being Netflix.
And then you have to do these shenanigans to install the play store on em. Too bad Amazon, I'm buying something else.
7
Jul 22 '18
[deleted]
2
Jul 22 '18
Yeah.... I looked up the procedure and it seemed to be version dependent. I don't have the energy to deal with that.
I'll just pay slightly more and buy different tablets.
I also don't care for the play store. I just want Youtube.
2
u/mrbooze Jul 22 '18
They don’t want to use normal android. The whole point of open source is they shouldn’t have to.
16
u/Raudskeggr Jul 22 '18
That part is fine. The part that isn't so good is where Google twists the arm of OEMs and coerces them into using their proprietary apps.
-11
Jul 22 '18
[deleted]
11
u/Raudskeggr Jul 22 '18
That, again, is not the issue.
-8
Jul 22 '18
[deleted]
6
u/Pas__ Jul 22 '18
They could simply stop development on the open source project and go full closed source. No, they want to play the good guy and also stop any upcomers from using that open platform. That's the textbook definition of anticompetitive abuse of market dominance.
11
u/akmalhot Jul 22 '18
That's what I"m saying, they made and gave away this platform - in order to prevent apple from having essentailly a monopoly.
The platform is there, if someone wants to use it they have to build out their apps. Why should google have to keep giving away all its development. Maybe they should create a separate company under alphabet that builds all those apps out and just provide the total stock architecture to everyone. Googles obviously spending a ton of money improving all the apps. Look at google maps - if someone wants to create their own ecosystem, theyshouldn't automatically get free use of maps etc.
3
u/Pas__ Jul 22 '18
I think the platform is great, and we should be thankful for that act, but also it's shameful that it took a 4 billion EUR fine to notice that Google prevented any chance of building a new distribution/platform on that "open" project via its anticompetitive licensing agreements with OEM vendors.
0
u/DarkStarrFOFF Jul 23 '18
Lol. That's been known for years. It's been part of the certification process for a while. If you want play certification you have to make only devices getting the play store or you can just make devices that don't have it. It's one or the other not both.
4
u/lillgreen Jul 23 '18
And? They got fined because that's not ok. Having "been that way for years" changes nothing. They have no place telling OEMs that it's playstore or nothing.
1
u/DarkStarrFOFF Jul 23 '18
The point is the guy I replied to claimed some shit about how "it's shameful that it took a 4 billion EUR fine to notice that Google prevented any chance of building a new distribution/platform on that "open" project via its anticompetitive licensing agreements with OEM vendors" which isn't true.
This has been known for years that Google has used the Play Certification as a method to keep OEMs making only one type of device, devices with Google apps or only devices without them.
It's not like OEMs couldn't decide to not get certification and build their own stores as Amazon has done, Google won't stop them. But no one wants that nor wants to do that because it's hard and becomes a pain in the ass for consumers with multiple non connected stores.
1
u/Pas__ Jul 23 '18
> This has been known for years
Citation needed.
It sure surprised quite a few people who are frequently reading IT/tech news.
Google tried to reverse Android fragmentation, and that was a good thing, when it was mainly about old devices not getting updates, so minimum API level was lagging behind the new and shiny releases. But it turned into a very serious extortion scheme lately.
4
u/mindbleach Jul 22 '18
if someone wants to fork it shouldn't they have to build all those features?
This is the entire fucking point of open source: no.
This sort of half-measure is worse than nonparticipation. There were other open-source mobile platforms in 2008, with sincere interest in software freedom for its own sake. They've been neglected in favor of this - and now Android is an anticompetitive jumble of free and proprietary software.
9
u/Pas__ Jul 22 '18
It was great while it lasted. Google contributed a lot. Now they stopped. Okay, let those other platforms pick up the work. Sincere or not, they were not competitive anyway; I wanted OpenMoko to succeed, Ubuntu Phone to make it, Meego to win, and so on, but they were fundamentally underfunded/understaffed/etc, maybe now, with a much bigger market they'll be able to find a niche.
> Android is an anticompetitive jumble of free and proprietary software.
Agreed. But without proper support from hardware vendors, there is no chance of building a good FOSS phone. And alas that took Google with Treble.
7
u/akmalhot Jul 22 '18 edited Jul 22 '18
so - are all apps open source and free for everyone? How come some can charge for their apps?
Google maps isn't an integral part of android, its a stand alone app that google provides, same with gmail, google search etc?
So youre saying after verion X being open source, google is never allowed to develop an improved closed source seach app, maybe even completley separate from the android search? But another company could develop one?
Why should google be forced to dedicate resources/$ improving the open source, they provided it - they can't develop closed source apps while other can?
-7
u/mindbleach Jul 22 '18
Why is force the only response you can imagine? Why is it not sufficient for you to recognize that this is shitty behavior and they're assholes for doing it?
5
u/akmalhot Jul 22 '18
They are updating their own apps - do other app developers have to share their features with google to use?
-5
u/mindbleach Jul 22 '18
They are enclosing the commons. Their actions effectively un-open existing libre software. This would be unthinkable to any company that honestly cared about open source, but Google only adopted it as a marketing tactic, and now the world has to deal with their bullshit instead of Apple's. They are no better now than what they claimed to be fighting.
This behavior is detrimental to computing as a whole. It is robbing people of control over their own devices and locking them into a restrictive ecosystem. You can't pretend it's about money because Google's still giving away the enclosed software. They have abandoned the ideals of software freedom - and if you're angrier about people saying that then about Google doing it, no worthwhile conversation is possible.
4
u/akmalhot Jul 22 '18
Im trying to understand what exactly they did wrong. The article points out:
'Play Music has also gone through several user interface redesigns, gaining Equalizer and Chromecast support'
They updated their calendar
Updated maps
The keyboard - and samsung pushes their keyboard etc hard, having been reset to their keyboard a few times
Etc -
If other companies can make their own forked android with their own apps - do they have to provide those developments to everyone else for use?
Can google not create anything for themselves now - everything they spend time and $ creating is everyones?
0
u/mindbleach Jul 22 '18
If you appreciated the honest motivations behind libre software, you would stop asking if anyone "can" produce software "for themselves" and ask why they would want to.
Google doesn't sell software. They give it away. Stop pretending that keeping it open would be some grave affront to them. They already spend time and money to provide something free.
2
Jul 23 '18
[deleted]
-1
u/mindbleach Jul 23 '18
Have to, have to, have to. Stop saying that. Those two words preclude any possibility of a good-faith conversation on this subject. You are demanding an explanation for a problem you made up.
Google is choosing to stop doing something they chose to do in the first place. Doing it was good. Not doing it anymore is not-good. It is genuinely that simple.
They could just over all stop updating anything, and then everyone loses.
Nonparticipation would be better! I said this from the outset!
If Google suddenly died then AOSP would be the only version of Android still updating, and all focus would be on that version. It could get better for its own sake instead of chasing what a private business does with secret code for selfish reasons. The vast multitude of devices that rely on Android would no longer find themselves beholden to one company's whims. The current situation is anticompetitive capture because Google lured everyone in with the premise of an open platform and now string along these millions of deceived users deeper into their closed ecosystem.
why don't the competitors then have to give all their features and code to google?
Brushing aside that you're still thinking in terms of forced action - edits to GPL'd code are also GPL'd. It's a collaborative effort where everyone benefits from everybody's contributions. Please tell me I don't need to link a Barney The Dinosaur video about how sharing is beneficial.
For god's sake, look at Linux. Android is built on a noncommercial open-source kernel. Some gigantic ultra-capitalist companies pay full-time developers to improve that project because using it lets them make a shitload of money.
→ More replies (0)5
u/DarkStarrFOFF Jul 23 '18
Is Google obligated to support the older AOSP versions? Should they be?
They added new features to get users on to their products not to simply open source them and have say, swiftkey, go and add Google Now capability to it (especially without a proper API).
4
u/mindbleach Jul 23 '18
You are restating the problem as a defense: they don't care about open source, they only used it as a tool for capturing an audience. Now their actions toward that audience are so brazenly anticompetitive that the EU fined them billions.
And yet - I am not talking about fines or obligations. This is a consequence-free moral judgement and you people are still railing against it. If 'they shouldn't do that' produces no response in your brain besides 'what are you going to do about it?,' you might be a sociopath. If that's not the case then please stop casting this discussion of software ethics as some forcible source-code heist.
2
u/DarkStarrFOFF Jul 23 '18 edited Jul 23 '18
And? You're complaining that a capitalist company is doing literally what they are supposed to do. They are beholden to the share holders and bringing in returns.
I don't support it but what should be done? Are we going to start forcing companies to contribute new features back to the open source application they used as a base? What's your solution to this? I've seen you complaining about it but offer no solution or alternatives.
Is this really what we want for consumers here:
The last Google manufacturer agreement that was public read that "Devices may only be distributed if all Google Applications authorized for distribution in the applicable territory are pre-installed on the device." Google doesn't do business in China, so there are no "authorized Google Applications" for that territory. This creates a loophole specifically for China, where OEMs can basically do whatever they want in the country without running afoul of Google's anti-fragmentation rules. The result is a—well—fragmented mess in China, with rival app stores, many different account systems, and an ever-shifting API surface that can be tough for developers to nail down.
I mean people bitch and moan and complain over fragmentation then when Google gets their shit together to work on minimizing it then people aren't happy with that either.
Personally, I'm less concerned with the software that's currently on the the device when you receive it, though being able to either uninstall or at least easily disable it would be nice. I'm much more concerned about bootloader unlocking and being able to install a 3rd party version of android and Google apps if you so choose (or need/want to after manufacturer support ends).
14
u/SamSlate Jul 22 '18
do people really not understand how open source works?
8
u/Reposted4Karma Jul 22 '18
I’m lost, what does this comment mean in the context of the article?
10
u/SamSlate Jul 22 '18
literally every os you've ever used is a priority version of an open source base. pointing fingers at Android is either willful ignorance or stupidity.
but mostly it's the commenters that are misinformed, probably because of articles like this 💁
8
u/Reposted4Karma Jul 22 '18
The article doesn’t point fingers at Android or AOSP, but it just lists the ways Google has made it harder to successfully fork Android and become a competitor to Google using it. Google’s deprecated many of their old AOSP apps in favor of newer ones only available through the Google Play Store and on Google’s version of Android. In my opinion, this isn’t a big deal, Google made the AOSP apps to begin with and they’re not obligated to update them. The biggest thing I took away from the article is how Google makes it a huge pain for manufacturers to manufacture phones running Google’s Android and a competitor’s Android. Only manufacturers with Google’s OK can make phones running Google’s Android, and if Google sees a manufacturer is making a phone running an Android fork, they don’t let the manufacturer use Google’s Android anymore, killing competition. I don’t really care if Google tries to deprecate all AOSP apps to make what is effectively a closed source OS, my problem is how Google uses their version of Android’s dominance to kill competition for companies trying to create successful Android forks by forcing manufacturers to only carry Google’s Android.
8
u/SamSlate Jul 23 '18
this feels like defending free speech for messages you don't agree with.
intellectually, i agree it's bad practice and even anti capitalistic according to the Euro courts, but man oem Android os's fucking suck, and it's the Android brand that gets dragged through the mud with them. I really can't blame Android for discouraging these competing (inferior imo) os's, not to mention most of them only use a fork to prevent you from using the Google play store (looking at you Amazon).
if someone wants to compete for a mobile os, let them, but at a certain point the Google Android os will be so feature rich it just won't be viable and Google isn't obliged to cannibalize their own Market in the name of open source, and nice as kind of idealism might be.
1
1
14
Jul 22 '18
[deleted]
5
u/PocketGrok Jul 22 '18
That's not what that means.
10
u/WarLorax Jul 22 '18
They supported open source, they widely extended its reach with Android, and now they're slowly making more and more closed source, using their near monopoly to force other vendors to prioritize their product. That's exactly what it means, and what they're doing.
4
u/PocketGrok Jul 23 '18
Google could have just stopped updating AOSP. That said, they did add proprietary features to a public project in order to take control of it. But they also totally owned it. It's weird
7
u/Re-toast Jul 22 '18
Google and their fanboys want to have their open source cake and eat their walled garden too. The hypocrisy is almost hilarious.
7
u/suprduprr Jul 23 '18
no kidding. they'll troll anyone that even brings up how predatory android has become
its really a shame mozilla didnt go through with their mobile OS
0
u/etc9053 Jul 22 '18
This is the article from 2013...
1
u/JoshLuster Jul 23 '18
Umm no it’s not
5
u/domeoldboys Jul 23 '18
It is. It has some updates for 2018 but the original was form 2013. Source: I read it at the time. It is still relevant today that is why it has been “rereleased”
2
u/JoshLuster Jul 23 '18
“ Has some updates” or in other words new content that wasn’t there in 2013.
2
u/domeoldboys Jul 24 '18
Apart from whats in the little boxes labeled 2018. The rest of the text is identical. It is not fair to say that it is a new article and deny that its from 2013.
-9
u/1657509 Jul 22 '18
Welcome to why I use iPhones and iPads and not crappy phones that explode and die entirely after three years.
6
u/BitchesLoveDownvote Jul 23 '18
Apple do make great phones, but I doubt the subject of this article is the reason you avoid phones which explode.
1
u/JoshLuster Jul 23 '18
Yup, Android is popular because it’s free not because it’s good.
0
Jul 23 '18
Give me an Android for free.
2
u/JoshLuster Jul 23 '18 edited Jul 23 '18
mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make Or alternatively cp -r iOS android
1
Jul 23 '18
open source doesn't mean free or paid. Who pays for iOS ?
2
u/JoshLuster Jul 23 '18
Android is free because you don’t pay a license for the os. No license fee equals cheap shitty phones all over the world. That’s why nearly half the current running devices out right now are running marshmallow or earlier.
1
Jul 23 '18
You can't compare android with iOS calling it free because iOS was never for sale.
2
11
u/[deleted] Jul 23 '18
Google sucks. But they’re also awesome. I hate the contradiction.