or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google's strict policies for 'open' Android OS revealed in newly public documents
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google's strict policies for 'open' Android OS revealed in newly public documents - Page 2

post #41 of 206

But...but...but...Android is OPEN.  That is what makes it so great!  

 

Oh!  And Google is NOT evil!  Yeah, that's the ticket!

post #42 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 View Post

That's not what this says: "manufacturers using Android agree to preinstall specific Google Apps, set Google Search as the default search provider for all Web access points and preload Google's Network Location Provider service.…"

Note the first 3 words of the quote: "manufacturers using Android...." Nowhere does it say "licensing Google apps." That's presumptive based on the quid pro quo of installing those apps in favored position in exchange for permission to use Android on their devices.

Got it now?

Yet Amazon has forked Android and I'm sure will continue to do so. These 'rules' aren't all that strict.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #43 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 View Post


That's not what this says: "manufacturers using Android agree to preinstall specific Google Apps, set Google Search as the default search provider for all Web access points and preload Google's Network Location Provider service.…"

Note the first 3 words of the quote: "manufacturers using Android...." Nowhere does it say "licensing Google apps." That's presumptive based on the quid pro quo of installing those apps in favored position in exchange for permission to use Android on their devices.

Got it now?

 

Tell that to Amazon, B&N or Chinese Android device manufacturers. Ups, they don't use none of those services.

 

The article can say what it wants, what the DOCUMENTS are talking about is Google Services licensing. And perhaps is better quote the WSJ article

 

 

Quote:
The documents show that Google has imposed strict restrictions on device makers that want access to its search engine, YouTube or the more than one million apps in its Play Store

 

 

Got it?

I'd rather believe AppleInsider than the Wall Street Journal.

post #44 of 206
Google changed the definition of "open": Android is open as long as you don't use any of our services.
post #45 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by SudoNym View Post

I'd rather believe AppleInsider than the Wall Street Journal.

Yes but a manufacturer isn't obligated to use Google Services. In order to use youtube or Google search on a Kindle, one has to use the web app, and get apps from the Amazon app store. Any manufacturer can take Android and cut Google out of it completely.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #46 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Google changed the definition of "open": Android is open as long as you don't use any of our services.

My definition of open isn't what a manufacturer can do but what you or I can do, and the fact remains that anyone can take the OS and customize to their liking. Most people don't care for that but for those that do that option is available.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #47 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Google changed the definition of "open": Android is open as long as you don't use any of our services.

...Google licensed services are not.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #48 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

The WSJ article is behind a paywall and in the excerpt there is no claim of what you said, do you have the full text?


What? Apple vs Samsung trial ruling affected Samsung implementation, not AOSP implementation
Technically speaking, Google was not a party to the trial and, thus, whether or not Android itself infringed directly was not at issue.

Samsung's modifications to Android were was clearly at issue.

The issue of whether or not other Android users infringed is up to discussions between the other manufacturers and Apple. HTC, I believe, has already worked a licensing deal with Apple that covers patents by both parties.

And, since Google derives no economic gain from a sale of Android (hence the reason they license other google products and services the way they do) it will be virtually impossible for anyone to effectively challenge a patent infringement case against them.
post #49 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 View Post

Technically speaking, Google was not a party to the trial and, thus, whether or not Android itself infringed directly was not at issue.

Samsung's modifications to Android were was clearly at issue.

The issue of whether or not other Android users infringed is up to discussions between the other manufacturers and Apple. HTC, I believe, has already worked a licensing deal with Apple that covers patents by both parties.

And, since Google derives no economic gain from a sale of Android (hence the reason they license other google products and services the way they do) it will be virtually impossible for anyone to effectively challenge a patent infringement case against them.

HUH?? Just what do you think Oracle was doing? They were asserting both patent infringement and copy right claims. I realize it makes a convenient explanation for why Apple doesn't sue Google directly but's it a bogus one IMO.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #50 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 View Post


Technically speaking, Google was not a party to the trial and, thus, whether or not Android itself infringed directly was not at issue.

Samsung's modifications to Android were was clearly at issue.

The issue of whether or not other Android users infringed is up to discussions between the other manufacturers and Apple. HTC, I believe, has already worked a licensing deal with Apple that covers patents by both parties.

And, since Google derives no economic gain from a sale of Android (hence the reason they license other google products and services the way they do) it will be virtually impossible for anyone to effectively challenge a patent infringement case against them.

 

Technically speaking, the patents in the trial were not part of AOSP, they were developed by Samsung.

 

By the way, tell Oracle or IV if they can challenge or not Android patents.

post #51 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

HUH?? Just what do you think Oracle was doing? They were asserting both patent infringement and copy right claims. I realize it makes a convenient explanation for why Apple doesn't sue Google directly but's it a bogus one IMO.
It's reality.
post #52 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Technically speaking, the patents in the trial were not part of AOSP, they were developed by Samsung.

By the way, tell Oracle or IV if they can challenge or not Android patents.
They can challenge all they want.may even win. But, collecting damages is fruitless since Google derives no income from sales of Android (since they give it away).
post #53 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 View Post

It's reality.
What are you referring to as "reality"? 1confused.gif Are you saying Apple isn't suing Google directly because they can't get any money from them, or are you talking about something else entirely?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #54 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

What are you referring to as "reality"? 1confused.gif Are you saying Apple isn't suing Google directly because they can't get any money from them, or are you talking about something else entirely?
Basically, yes. I am. Google doesn't see Android. They derive no direct income from the sale of Google. There is no income from which to pay damages if Google were to lose a lawsuit for patent infringement.
post #55 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 View Post


Basically, yes. I am. Google doesn't see Android. They derive no direct income from the sale of Google. There is no income from which to pay damages if Google were to lose a lawsuit for patent infringement.

 

I am not American, but isn't there a distinction between damages, punitive damages and 'infringers profits'? I would think they'd still be able to sue Google for distributing Android even if there are no infringer's profits.

post #56 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by SudoNym View Post
 

But...but...but...Android is OPEN.  That is what makes it so great!  

 

No. What makes it so great is that I can buy a top-tier smartphone experience for $350, unlocked. And it runs Tasker.

post #57 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 View Post

Basically, yes. I am. Google doesn't see Android. They derive no direct income from the sale of Google. There is no income from which to pay damages if Google were to lose a lawsuit for patent infringement.

I forget the actual legal term but Google can be sued for indirect patent infringement.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #58 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
..Google licensed services are not.

The whole point is that once you license any of Google services, Android is no longer open or become less open. And the more services you license the less and less open Android gets. And once it's less open, it's not really open at all. For instance, when Samsung license Google Maps, they must put Google map as the default rather than any other map service. Even if they were to start their own map service. The same with Google app or Google Search. Each Google licensed services seems to put restrictions on what the phone manufacturer can do with Android. Technically, Android is only open if you don't license anything from Google. 

post #59 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by mknopp View Post
 


And considering all of the reports that Fandroids love pointing to where Google is dominating in market share with Android then I think that this might be close to being a monopoly violation. Google had better start praying that Apple's iOS keeps going strong because if it ever falters then I can assure you that it will be considered a monopoly violation and just like with Microsoft the governments will soon step in to force Google to give consumers a choice.

You don't get a "monopoly violation" when you achieve a monopoly.  Having a monopoly is not illegal.  (I wish more people understood that!)

 

Now, if you abuse your monopoly powers to trample on competitors via illegal business practices, that's where violations come in.

post #60 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

The whole point is that once you license any of Google services, Android is no longer open or become less open. And the more services you license the less and less open Android gets. And once it's less open, it's not really open at all. For instance, when Samsung license Google Maps, they must put Google map as the default rather than any other map service. Even if they were to start their own map service. The same with Google app or Google Search. Each Google licensed services seems to put restrictions on what the phone manufacturer can do with Android. Technically, Android is only open if you don't license anything from Google. 

I don't think you understand the difference between Android the OS and Google's Android version that includes licensed Google services. There's several companies using open-sourced Android as the basis for their device's OS, and courtesy of Google's contributions to the project. Amazon and now Nokia would be two high-profile examples.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #61 of 206

Android is open. Just ask Acer when they tried to make a device to run Aliyun (a forked version of Android). Google shut them down pronto.

 

Android is not free for anyone to use how they wish. You want Google services, you have to abide by Google's very strict rules (essentially making Android closed-source). You want to do what you wish with Android? Then you get the stripped out version that actually is open source (the version that's getting removed of more and more features as Google moves the API's into Google Play and out of Android itself.

 

The only people left who think Android is open are the hardcore fanboys or people who know nothing about Android.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #62 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Yes but a manufacturer isn't obligated to use Google Services. In order to use youtube or Google search on a Kindle, one has to use the web app, and get apps from the Amazon app store. Any manufacturer can take Android and cut Google out of it completely.

You are absolutely correct but if Samsung decided to fork Android like Amazon then they would no longer be permitted to sell "Android" phones. That is a huge incentive not to fork it. I don't blame Google for that tactic since they created Android and have spent probably billions developing and supporting their ecosystem and then give it away for free. As the old adage says nothing in life is truly free though. I think Samsung used to have some leverage with Tizen but not so much anymore. If they offered an S5 running Android or the same hardware running Tizen I think the Android version would trounce the Tizen version in sales. If they decided to fork Android completely a la Amazon then people would likely start to migrate to LG, HTC, Sony, Lenovo and others that would love to fill the gap left by Samsung exiting the Android market. Samsung isn't going anywhere and Google knows it.

 

People can despise Google all they want but they were actually very clever to give their OS away for free with conditions as opposed to what Microsoft did and sold a license but allowed manufacturers to produce phones with any OS they wanted.By requiring a license that opened the door for Android. People forget just how dominate Windows Mobile was at one time granted the percentage of smartphones was also far smaller. Had Microsoft reacted far sooner and released Windows Phone about 2 years sooner with the same licensing deal as Google Android would be a footnote. Now look at Microsoft contemplating building a forked Android phone with Nokia just to try and stay relevant. 


Edited by gwmac - 2/13/14 at 8:46am

 

Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. 

Reply

 

Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. 

Reply
post #63 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

People can despise Google all they want but they were actually very clever to give their OS away for free with conditions as opposed to what Microsoft did and sold a license but allowed manufacturers to produce phones with any OS they wanted.

Google doesn't say if you produce Google Android phones a manufacturer can't also produce WinMo phones or Tizen phones or any other phones for that matter. What they do expect is if you license Google Android phones you can't also produce your own forked Android phones alongside them. Ya gotta choose to go one way or the other, but either way they can still build on Android.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #64 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

That's different. IE came from a dumb company, Android comes from a stupid company¡

Both dependent on Apple for R&D and IP for their successes!
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
post #65 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Android is open. Just ask Acer when they tried to make a device to run Aliyun (a forked version of Android). Google shut them down pronto.

No they didn't Eric. They reportedly told Acer to choose whether to use the Open Handset Alliance's Google Android that they asked to be a part of or go with the Android-based and Chinese developed Aliyun. They couldn't do both and remain within the terms of their OHA contract. It was Acer's choice. Google never threatened any legal action to prevent them from using Aliyun.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #66 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

The linked source is pretty readable. It seems that either you use all of Google's services or you don't. If you don't, you do the Amazon path of using AOSP and putting your own services on top.

I think the people saying it's not "open" don't really understand which part is supposed to be open and which isn't.

Gatorguy always posts an erudite and interestingly different take on all matters Google. I enjoy seeing his well written counter arguments to DED's obvious and enjoyably passionate pro Apple views (and in this case I realize it is not a DED .. is it?).
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
post #67 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Google doesn't say if you produce Google Android phones a manufacturer can't also produce WinMo phones or Tizen phones or any other phones for that matter. What they do expect is if you license Google Android phones you can't also produce your own forked Android phones alongside them. Ya gotta choose to go one way or the other, but either way they can still build on Android.

 

I thought that is what I said. I understand that point and Samsung are allowed to make Windows phones or Tizen phones as long as they are not Android forks. I was complementing Google on that strategy. People here hate Google which is understandable since they are Apple's biggest competitor. Amazon's experiment has not been hugely successful when you consider many of the top apps like Clash of Clans are still not available on Amazon. Or many others get updates far later than the Google Play store. I also heard sales of their Fire devices are starting to decline. What would be an interesting development is it Microsoft and Nokia partnered with Amazon and made some smartphones to complement just their tablets and shared compatibility on their two stores for apps.  Or perhaps HTC might make a good partner since they are not doing so hot at competing with Samsung or Apple and make smartphones for Amazon as a last ditch effort to survive. I am not saying this is a good idea and likely would happen out of desperation but it is possible. 

 

Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. 

Reply

 

Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. 

Reply
post #68 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


No they didn't Eric. They reportedly told Acer to choose whether to use the Open Handset Alliance's Google Android that they asked to be a part of or go with the Android-based and Chinese developed Aliyun. They couldn't do both and remain within the terms of their OHA contract. It was Acer's choice. Google never threatened any legal action to prevent them from using Aliyun.

 

there is no real difference between this and EricTheHalfBee saying "Google shut them down pronto." anytime one party "tells" another "to choose" in order to "remain with in the terms" of a "contract," that is of course ipso facto an implicit "threat" of "legal action." that is routinely how contracts are enforced. the only alternative way is to suspend actual services or payments provided by the aggrieved party to the other under the contract, but those are N/A in this case.

post #69 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


No they didn't Eric. They reportedly told Acer to choose whether to use the Open Handset Alliance's Google Android that they asked to be a part of or go with the Android-based and Chinese developed Aliyun. They couldn't do both and remain within the terms of their OHA contract. It was Acer's choice. Google never threatened any legal action to prevent them from using Aliyun.

 

I never stated they threatened legal action. Stop putting words in my mouth (yet again, so typical of you). I said Google shut them down pronto, which is correct since Acer was all set to announce the phone and they literally canned it at the last minute AFTER Google "reminded" them of the implications of releasing an Aliyun phone (being removed from the OHA).

 

There's no way you can spin this to make Google look good. Google rules Android with an iron fist. Manufacturers have strict rules to follow if they want to release an Android device as part of the OHA, which is completely against the concept of "being open". While this news may have just broke today, anyone who's ever coded for Android (like myself) knew about most of these conditions for some time.

 

And I see you want to avoid (yet again) the comment I made about Android moving all new API's and features into Google Play Services, thereby moving Android into the closed-source realm. Soon there will be no need for the OHA and all these "rules" as Google will have absolute control over Android since they control Google Play Services.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #70 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post


There's no way you can spin this to make Google look good. Google rules Android with an iron fist.

Typical. It looks to me like you're trying your best to put an evil spin on it simply because Google is involved. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. If they weren't filing legal action they how did Google shut them down? Seems to me it was Acer that shut it down as a smart business decision. Further if "Google rules Android with an iron fist" how do you explain Aliyun. Or Amazon's tablet OS. Or the latest phone OS from Nokia.

Yes, Google is getting a bit smarter about their business, pulling the parts they've invested a lot of time and money in into Google Android rather than contributing those new additional bits to open-source. That doesn't make the Android OS any less open does it? Those that want to use Android for their OS without contributing just don't get the added benefit of free Google services engineering but otherwise are welcome to use it without restrictions just as Nokia has discovered.
Edited by Gatorguy - 2/13/14 at 10:08am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #71 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post
 

 

I never stated they threatened legal action. Stop putting words in my mouth (yet again, so typical of you). I said Google shut them down pronto, which is correct since Acer was all set to announce the phone and they literally canned it at the last minute AFTER Google "reminded" them of the implications of releasing an Aliyun phone (being removed from the OHA).

 

There's no way you can spin this to make Google look good. Google rules Android with an iron fist. Manufacturers have strict rules to follow if they want to release an Android device as part of the OHA, which is completely against the concept of "being open". While this news may have just broke today, anyone who's ever coded for Android (like myself) knew about most of these conditions for some time.

 

And I see you want to avoid (yet again) the comment I made about Android moving all new API's and features into Google Play Services, thereby moving Android into the closed-source realm. Soon there will be no need for the OHA and all these "rules" as Google will have absolute control over Android since they control Google Play Services.

 

First of all let me say that I agree with your assessment that Android is not quite as "open" as they once pretended and I understand how they are deliberately using Google play services to lock down Android tighter. Acer however should have been aware of the contract they signed so I am not sure you can blame Google for Acer being ignorant of their contract. I also think that Google is simply doing what they had to do to protect their company and Android. Amazon's forked version was a huge wake up call for them. After they had invested billions to develop Android the last thing they wanted was for companies to use that as a foundation or weapon to remove Google services and any revenue. But at the same time they can no longer try and pretend they are the bastion of open source anymore either. They are finally starting to see that Apple was correct to have rules and regulations in place and are becoming much more closed source and eventually they will likely try to make the open sourced version so limited that it is no longer useful. I cannot blame them for this strategy though since it is the best course of action for the company and shareholders. 

 

Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. 

Reply

 

Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. 

Reply
post #72 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

the only alternative way is to suspend actual services or payments provided by the aggrieved party to the other under the contract, but those are N/A in this case.

Why N/A? Google licenses their services in a contract that's intended to benefit both parties. If Acer is violating the terms of the contract Google suspends the services. Seems simple enough and doesn't require a courtroom.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #73 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

The whole point is that once you license any of Google services, Android is no longer open or become less open. And the more services you license the less and less open Android gets. And once it's less open, it's not really open at all. For instance, when Samsung license Google Maps, they must put Google map as the default rather than any other map service. Even if they were to start their own map service. The same with Google app or Google Search. Each Google licensed services seems to put restrictions on what the phone manufacturer can do with Android. Technically, Android is only open if you don't license anything from Google. 

Yup, I think you got a pretty good understanding of it.

You want to use services or product that you believe to be valuable and the company that owns them wants a give-and-take then you reach agreement and license them. If they're not all that valuable to you then you don't. Nothing wrong with that is there?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #74 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Google will have absolute control over Android since they control Google Play Services.

No they don't have 'absolute' control. Amazon was able to do to fork it, and now there are manufacturers that will be installing Cyanogenmod (a custom ROM) on their devices as the stock OS. LG could very easily leave the OHA and fork Android to their liking.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #75 of 206
Oooohhh. . . this is interesting.

According to the contract manufacturers are supposed to report the number of Google Android handsets they produce each month. At least that's what the old contracts stipulated and I can't imagine why they would have changed it. That puts Google in the unique position of having reliable shipping numbers for all licensees, tho it's actual end-user numbers they report to the media every so often.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #76 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 View Post

Technically speaking, Google was not a party to the trial and, thus, whether or not Android itself infringed directly was not at issue.

Samsung's modifications to Android were was clearly at issue.

The issue of whether or not other Android users infringed is up to discussions between the other manufacturers and Apple. HTC, I believe, has already worked a licensing deal with Apple that covers patents by both parties.

And, since Google derives no economic gain from a sale of Android (hence the reason they license other google products and services the way they do) it will be virtually impossible for anyone to effectively challenge a patent infringement case against them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post
 

 

Technically speaking, the patents in the trial were not part of AOSP, they were developed by Samsung.

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 View Post


Basically, yes. I am. Google doesn't see Android. They derive no direct income from the sale of Google. There is no income from which to pay damages if Google were to lose a lawsuit for patent infringement.
 
Let me address the points above within the context of my original commentary which can be summarized as follows:
 
"Stop the infringement (which Apple is trying through the courts) and Android degrades and in turn, Google's power over the manufacturers will also degrade. "
 
It is true that Google does not derive any direct revenues from AOSP+Google Play+ Google software operating system (hereby called the "Google Android system" or "Google Android software") because the software is given away at no cost to anyone but that is besides the point.  The point is that Google derives control over the Google Android system through the free but highly restrictive license over the Google Android software.  As mentioned in the article and other documents, manufacturers have to adhere to Google's terms if they want to release handsets as part of the OHA and that runs on the Google Android system.
 
If you were a manufacturer of handsets, you would wonder WHY you would even think of agreeing to the Google terms.  Why not just use AOSP alone and not have to worry about Google's terms?  Because AOSP by itself is a far inferior product compared to the Google Android system.  And why is the Google Android system so much better?  Key answer:  because it includes the add-on Google software layer (Google Play, etc) which infringes on key Apple patents.
 
So precisely because the Google Android system is so much better than AOSP, manufacturers are more than happy to subject themselves to the Google terms in order to sell handsets running on the Google Android system.
 
But here's the interesting part:  Apple is suing the prominent Android manufacturers (Samsung, Motorola, et al) for infringement of Apple patents by the Google Android system running on their products.  And Samsung has already lost one trial and is on the losing track in the second trial and that is making Samsung re-think the cost/benefits analysis of the Google Android system.
 
That's where Google's control over the Android ecosystem starts to weaken.  As more manufacturers face the prospect of patent infringement lawsuits tied to products running on the Google Android system, they will start thinking about whether the highly restrictive license terms are really worth the legal risk of patent infringement.  They may ultimately decide that moving to alternatives (eg. Tizen) or the basic AOSP by itself may be better than the patent-infringing Google Android system and that's when Google will start losing control over the manufacturers.  
 
So the key takeaway is this:  manufacturers are OK being under Google's thumb because the Google Android system is superior to any alternatives (including the basic AOSP) and the Google Android system is superior in part because it infringes on key Apple technologies.  Apple is attempting to offset this superiority by attaching real legal risk to the Google Android system implementation.  When the pendulum swings the other way, towards legal risk, you will see more prominent manufacturers abandoning the Google Android system for alternatives, pushing back against the restrictive licensing terms, and/or making modifications to the Google Android software (if allowed under licensing terms) that degrades the user experience.  HTC is an interesting case study here.  What compromises did they make in the Google Android system as required by the "anti-cloning" provisions of the settlement they reached with Apple?  It must be really onerous if Samsung has refused repeatedly to agree to similar "anti-cloning" provisions in the settlement talks with Apple that has occurred over the past year, despite losing big in the first trial and facing the prospect of another big loss in the second trial.  
post #77 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by kharvel View Post
 
  Key answer:  because it includes the add-on Google software layer (Google Play, etc) which infringes on key Apple patents.

 

And exactly what key patents infringes GMS?

post #78 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post
 

You are absolutely correct but if Samsung decided to fork Android like Amazon then they would no longer be permitted to sell "Android" phones. That is a huge incentive not to fork it. 

 

This incentive is being reduced substantially by the real legal risk that Apple has attached to handsets implementing the Google Android software.  If Samsung loses the second infringement trial,  that may be the tipping point where Samsung decides that forking Android is better than selling Google Android phones.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

 I think Samsung used to have some leverage with Tizen but not so much anymore. If they offered an S5 running Android or the same hardware running Tizen I think the Android version would trounce the Tizen version in sales. If they decided to fork Android completely a la Amazon then people would likely start to migrate to LG, HTC, Sony, Lenovo and others that would love to fill the gap left by Samsung exiting the Android market. Samsung isn't going anywhere and Google knows it.

 

 

If Apple is successful in its patent infringement lawsuits, it may be able to get the courts or the ITC to ban the import/sale of Samsung products running on Google Android software.  In that case, Samsung will have no choice but to sell Samsung hardware running on Tizen or an Android fork.  You see, Apple is about to force Samsung to go somewhere else and Google knows that, too.  

 

As for people migrating to other manufacturers, don't think for a second that these manufacturers will not face patent infringement lawsuits from Apple and they are going to consider this legal risk as they decide whether to accept Google's terms to use the Google Android software or fork Android.  

post #79 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Google doesn't say if you produce Google Android phones a manufacturer can't also produce WinMo phones or Tizen phones or any other phones for that matter. What they do expect is if you license Google Android phones you can't also produce your own forked Android phones alongside them. Ya gotta choose to go one way or the other, but either way they can still build on Android.

So Googs def of openness involves restrictions. Nice.
post #80 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post
 

 

And exactly what key patents infringes GMS?

 

Here is one example:

http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/01/us-court-finds-samsung-to-infringe-one.html

 

The Auto-correct feature is found in the GMS but not in the AOSP.  (http://www.fonearena.com/blog/88107/google-places-api-brings-out-autocomplete-for-better-predictions.html)

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google's strict policies for 'open' Android OS revealed in newly public documents