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

1356711

Comments

  • Reply 41 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.

  • Reply 42 of 206
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,918member
    Google changed the definition of "open": Android is open as long as you don't use any of our services.
  • Reply 43 of 206
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    sudonym wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 44 of 206
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    jungmark wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 45 of 206
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,364member
    jungmark wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 46 of 206
    gwydion wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 47 of 206
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,364member
    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.
  • Reply 48 of 206
    gwydiongwydion Posts: 1,083member
    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.

  • Reply 49 of 206
    gatorguy wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 50 of 206
    gwydion wrote: »
    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).
  • Reply 51 of 206
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,364member
    It's reality.
    What are you referring to as "reality"? :???: 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?
  • Reply 52 of 206
    gatorguy wrote: »
    What are you referring to as "reality"? :???: 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.
  • Reply 53 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.

  • Reply 54 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.

  • Reply 55 of 206
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    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.
  • Reply 56 of 206
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kharvel View Post

     

    One important thing folks should not overlook:

     

    Android infringes on patented Apple technologies.

     

    We know that from the $1 billion Samsung v. Apple verdict (in which similar damages have been imposed by two different juries!) as well as the recent ruling by Judge Koh in the second Samsung v. Apple trial in which she ruled that Samsung Android phones were infringing on a certain Apple patent.  

     

    Why is this fact relevant?



    Because it is those infringed Apple patents that enables Android phones to seriously compete with Apple products.  And because of this close-enough-parity with iOS, manufacturers are more than happy to agree to whatever terms Google imposes on them with regards to Android licensing.  The burden of Android licensing is far outweighed by the benefits of openly infringing on invaluable Apple patents, especially the Steve Jobs multitouch patents.  

     

    If Android wasn't infringing on Apple patents, it wouldn't be as competitive and/or would be quite outdated and manufacturers would be less likely to use Android on their products and would instead migrate to alternatives such as Windows mobile.

     

    The conclusion is that Google's power over the Android device manufacturers is partly based on continuing infringement of patented Apple technologies.

     

    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.  




    I hear you friend.  The only way to stop Android trampling all over Apple is to vote UKIP.  Vote UKIP to stop Google and the EU!

  • Reply 57 of 206
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,539member
    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. 

  • Reply 58 of 206
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,516member
    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.

  • Reply 59 of 206
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,364member
    davidw wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 60 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.

Sign In or Register to comment.