I’m on Googles side with this. If the EU doesn’t like it, they can spend the time and money making their own OS and do with it as they see fit.
Their fracked up licensing of Android didn't allow "other OS" (sic) to be split off cause they'd lose access to the play store on the other fracking devices, so you can put that into your Goo pipe and smoke it bud.
Get some real info before assenting.
I don’t understand what you’re saying. AOSP is Google’s forked version that doesn’t include, or allow, Google’s Services. Though now, with payments, they might.
Samsung could not fork Android and sell a phone with that fork and one with Android, that's the whole point.
AOSP is not a fork, it's basically the base layer of Android without any Google services.
Amazon is a case in point with Kindle, it's a fork and they;re not selling a device Android with Google services.
Considering that is supposedly "open source", it's a hell of a joke that hopefully the EU thing will crack.
I’m on Googles side with this. If the EU doesn’t like it, they can spend the time and money making their own OS and do with it as they see fit.
Their fracked up licensing of Android didn't allow "other OS" (sic) to be split off cause they'd lose access to the play store on the other fracking devices, so you can put that into your Goo pipe and smoke it bud.
Get some real info before assenting.
Wow you are a RUDE PILE OF CR*P!!!
You don't know what you're talking about. Yes Google Licence Android to use it. This in keeping from the same company being able to use FORKED versions of Android. I'm all for Google now just charging any phone sold in the EU that wants to use Android a $50 Licence fee. Maybe more!!! Then if you want to use a forked version of Android on your phone, you are free to do so and Google will still support you in the Play store and anything else and still get security updates. If you want a OS upgrade on that phone, that's another fee, a reduced Upgrade OS fee.
So long as these company's are getting the OS for free, they should have to follow the rules GOOGLE put forth. Google is the one spending the time and money in developing the OS. These company's just want Google to spend their money and time, and then they do anything they want with it. Well F the EU!!!!! You can't have it both ways.
Google is not forcing a single company to use Android. Company's in China managed to have nothing at all to do with Google. They do just fine. Amazon has nothing to do with Google . These company's can spend their own time and money writing their own OS and do anything they want with that. There are also other choices. It was really these dumb company's using that free Android OS, and now making it the dominate OS out there. I don't even like Android for a number of reasons, but I'm still on Google's side of this. This is really a load of B.S. Attacking yet another American Company for MONEY. Which is really just theft. Why bother doing anything in the EU. No American company is stopping anyone in the EU from creating their own OS or using something that's already out there.
I'm sure there's others out there that haven't been discontinued.
Instead these company's want Google to do all the work and spend all the money, and then they can come along, take it, and do anything they want. Well that is just flat out wrong. Sounds like Entitlement for a Business.
I;m not reading your crap. Frack off now. You still HAVE NO CLUE about this issue.
Use your little finger, diddle on the keyboard, you think you're good at that huh, and eventually Google will give you the answer bud. Now, go away cause I can't stand your idiocy.
Fascinating account of working on the Google+ team, and goes a long way to explaining why it failed.
The fella who wrote it seems a genuinely nice chap, but I think his years working remotely for non-profits left him ill-prepared for working at Google: folk don’t always get to work on the projects they want to work on; that’s just working life, I’m afraid.
I mean, the top guy has a whole floor to himself, including his own speciality vegan restaurant?
There is one other key change happening here. In the past, Google required that companies building phones or tablets that included the Play Store only build phones and tablets that included the Play Store — they couldn’t make other devices with a forked version of Android. Now, that’ll be allowed. So if Samsung wants to ship both the regular Galaxy S9 with Google’s Play Store and some whackadoo Galaxy phone that runs, say, Amazon’s Fire OS, it can now do that in Europe.
Google prevented licensees from making phones the phones they wanted to make, if they used Google software.
That's ironic.
While the Android fans went on about how Apple prevented anyone from running other app stores on the hardware they owned, Google was forcing its partners into deals ensuring that no other app store would survive on the hardware they didn't own.
Google's version of 'open'.
Google needs to fire its lawyers. They only had to look at the Microsoft case to know this was illegal. Or did the management know and just think they could get away with it?
There is one other key change happening here. In the past, Google required that companies building phones or tablets that included the Play Store only build phones and tablets that included the Play Store — they couldn’t make other devices with a forked version of Android. Now, that’ll be allowed. So if Samsung wants to ship both the regular Galaxy S9 with Google’s Play Store and some whackadoo Galaxy phone that runs, say, Amazon’s Fire OS, it can now do that in Europe.
Google prevented licensees from making phones the phones they wanted to make, if they used Google software.
That's ironic.
While the Android fans went on about how Apple prevented anyone from running other app stores on the hardware they owned, Google was forcing its partners into deals ensuring that no other app store would survive on the hardware they didn't own.
Google's version of 'open'.
Google needs to fire its lawyers. They only had to look at the Microsoft case to know this was illegal. Or did the management know and just think they could get away with it?
But the other reason they’ll lose is because the EU is both the judge and jury, which in my layperson’s opinion, is bloody ridiculous.
This is of course incorrect. It is the European Commission in Brussels that detects if Google has violated he EU competition rules and decides for a penalty. It is the European Court in Luxembourg that decides on the appeal. It is bloody ridiculous that ignorant people always assume they know the absolute truth
An excellent idea. Read again what the EU Commission actually claims. One thing it does not is Google preventing app store alternatives on a licensed Google Android handset. Samsung for instance preinstalls the "Samsung Gallery Apps" app store on their premium handsets. There's also numerous other app stores for most other Android handsets to choose from including these: https://medium.com/pen-bold-kiln-press/best-google-play-store-alternatives-30c759de1c26
But the other reason they’ll lose is because the EU is both the judge and jury, which in my layperson’s opinion, is bloody ridiculous.
This is of course incorrect. It is the European Commission in Brussels that detects if Google has violated he EU competition rules and decides for a penalty. It is the European Court in Luxembourg that decides on the appeal. It is bloody ridiculous that ignorant people always assume they know the absolute truth
The European Comission in Brussels and the European Court in Luxembourg. Both in the EU.
It’s blood ridiculous that some people are so gullible.
Quite frankly, a lot of this ruling is crap. The EU can’t get it’s act together. It has investment and financial rules that make it almost impossible for anyone there to come up with companies like any of the large USA based companies. It’s interesting that much of what the commission is doing isn’t aimed towards the European companies that do exactly the same thing.
apple was singled out, for example, even though a large number of European companies use Luxembourg in exactly the same way.
Apple wasn't 'singled out' at all, unless being one of over 300 companies means being singled out.
In fact it was US enquiries that prompted the EU to take a closer look at Apple.
"Arizona Republican John McCain castigated Apple as “one of the biggest tax avoiders in America”. Democrat Carl Levin of Michigan peered over the glasses perched on the tip of his nose and said Apple uses “offshore tax strategies whose purpose is tax avoidance, pure and simple”.
And EU companies are just as likely to be investigated as US companies. The latest is IKEA .
But the other reason they’ll lose is because the EU is both the judge and jury, which in my layperson’s opinion, is bloody ridiculous.
This is of course incorrect. It is the European Commission in Brussels that detects if Google has violated he EU competition rules and decides for a penalty. It is the European Court in Luxembourg that decides on the appeal. It is bloody ridiculous that ignorant people always assume they know the absolute truth
The European Comission in Brussels and the European Court in Luxembourg. Both in the EU.
It’s blood ridiculous that some people are so gullible.
I think it was pretty clear you meant the EU Commission and not the EU government at large. Otherwise your comment would make no sense. Of course EU competition issues would be settled by EU government agencies and courts just as US issues are settled by US agencies and courts, and same with China. You can't appeal this to the US Supreme Court. Nothing wrong about that is there? The rulings only apply to business operations taking place in those countries/regions, not worldwide which is proper.
Now as for financial penalties being based on worldwide revenues and not EU-specific ones you might claim that to be "bloody ridiculous" and I might agree with you as would some others.
But the other reason they’ll lose is because the EU is both the judge and jury, which in my layperson’s opinion, is bloody ridiculous.
This is of course incorrect. It is the European Commission in Brussels that detects if Google has violated he EU competition rules and decides for a penalty. It is the European Court in Luxembourg that decides on the appeal. It is bloody ridiculous that ignorant people always assume they know the absolute truth
The European Comission in Brussels and the European Court in Luxembourg. Both in the EU.
It’s blood ridiculous that some people are so gullible.
I think it was pretty clear you meant the EU Commission and not the EU government at large. Otherwise your comment would make no sense. Of course EU competition issues would be settled by EU government agencies and courts just as US issues are settled by US agencies and courts, and same with China. You can't appeal this to the US Supreme Court. Nothing wrong about that is there? The rulings only apply to business operations taking place in those countries/regions, not worldwide which is proper.
No, I meant the EU which is what I said, and actually, yes; I think there is something wrong with it.
I don't see why these disputes can be settled by different sections of the same body. It's like going up in court and finding that the jury is made up of the victim's family and the judge is his uncle.
When you've got cases like this when a foreign company is going up a country or an economic union or whatever, then I think the court should not just be made up of representatives of that union. I think other bodies who are not part of either group should also be involved. I said this during the Microsoft case, the Apple case, and the Google case (though I think the EU was right during on this one, I don't necessarily agree with the punishment).
But the other reason they’ll lose is because the EU is both the judge and jury, which in my layperson’s opinion, is bloody ridiculous.
This is of course incorrect. It is the European Commission in Brussels that detects if Google has violated he EU competition rules and decides for a penalty. It is the European Court in Luxembourg that decides on the appeal. It is bloody ridiculous that ignorant people always assume they know the absolute truth
The European Comission in Brussels and the European Court in Luxembourg. Both in the EU.
It’s blood ridiculous that some people are so gullible.
I think it was pretty clear you meant the EU Commission and not the EU government at large. Otherwise your comment would make no sense. Of course EU competition issues would be settled by EU government agencies and courts just as US issues are settled by US agencies and courts, and same with China. You can't appeal this to the US Supreme Court. Nothing wrong about that is there? The rulings only apply to business operations taking place in those countries/regions, not worldwide which is proper.
No, I meant the EU which is what I said, and actually, yes; I think there is something wrong with it.
I don't see why these disputes can be settled by different sections of the same body. It's like going up in court and finding that the jury is made up of the victim's family and the judge is his uncle.
When you've got cases like this when a foreign company is going up a country or an economic union or whatever, then I think the court should not just be made up of representatives of that union. I think other bodies who are not part of either group should also be involved. I said this during the Microsoft case, the Apple case, and the Google case (though I think the EU was right during on this one, I don't necessarily agree with the punishment).
You mean bring in an American judge with the power to affect the appeal, perhaps one from China or Russia as well? It sounds like what you're really saying is the right to legislate withing one's own governance region should be taken out of their hands and turned over to a pseudo-World Court? That would come with a major world-changer of its own: A mover towards a united world government with the power to mandate on every continent.
Wow... You actually thought this thru and advocate for that? Surprising IMHO, but here are those who want just that.
An excellent idea. Read again what the EU Commission actually claims. One thing it does not is Google preventing app store alternatives on a licensed Google Android handset. Samsung for instance preinstalls the "Samsung Gallery Apps" app store on their premium handsets. There's also numerous other app stores for most other Android handsets to choose from including these: https://medium.com/pen-bold-kiln-press/best-google-play-store-alternatives-30c759de1c26
Seeing nothing in your posts that proves the Verge was wrong. Let's take another look:
There is one other key change happening here. In the past, Google required that companies building phones or tablets that included the Play Store only build phones and tablets that included the Play Store — they couldn’t make other devices with a forked version of Android. Now, that’ll be allowed. So if Samsung wants to ship both the regular Galaxy S9 with Google’s Play Store and some whackadoo Galaxy phone that runs, say, Amazon’s Fire OS, it can now do that in Europe.
If Google is dictating what forked versions of Android can't do, then it ain't open. Simple as that. What they've attempted to do is exert control over the OS by using components.
My own opinion (which doesn’t matter because I'm not an EU judge) is that no one actually forced the manufacturers to sign up for this, and if they were getting something that saved them millions in development costs (even if it only made one or two of them any money) then I think they were happy to accept the restrictions that went with it. I also don't see how anything in this agreement has harmed the market for consumers or manufacturers in any way, but again, I'm not a judge.
But, this requirement does prove that Android isn't as as free or as open as they'd like you to believe. You build something based on it, and you're still required to play ball. And that is especially ironic because the same rule applies to Java, which Google was happy to ignore.
An excellent idea. Read again what the EU Commission actually claims. One thing it does not is Google preventing app store alternatives on a licensed Google Android handset. Samsung for instance preinstalls the "Samsung Gallery Apps" app store on their premium handsets. There's also numerous other app stores for most other Android handsets to choose from including these: https://medium.com/pen-bold-kiln-press/best-google-play-store-alternatives-30c759de1c26
Seeing nothing in your posts that proves the Verge was wrong. Let's take another look:
There is one other key change happening here. In the past, Google required that companies building phones or tablets that included the Play Store only build phones and tablets that included the Play Store — they couldn’t make other devices with a forked version of Android. Now, that’ll be allowed. So if Samsung wants to ship both the regular Galaxy S9 with Google’s Play Store and some whackadoo Galaxy phone that runs, say, Amazon’s Fire OS, it can now do that in Europe.
If Google is dictating what forked versions of Android can't do, then it ain't open. Simple as that. What they've attempted to do is exert control over the OS by using components.
My own opinion (which doesn’t matter because I'm not an EU judge) is that no one actually forced the manufacturers to sign up for this, and if they were getting something that saved them millions in development costs (even if it only made one or two of them any money) then I think they were happy to accept the restrictions that went with it. I also don't see how anything in this agreement has harmed the market for consumers or manufacturers in any way, but again, I'm not a judge.
But, this requirement does prove that Android isn't as as free or as open as they'd like you to believe. You build something based on it, and you're still required to play ball. And that is especially ironic because the same rule applies to Java, which Google was happy to ignore.
I completely agree with you that Android is open only until it's not.
Google has certainly kept a fair amount of control, and by separating out the best parts and offering them and their updates and enhancements via Google Play, have grabbed back even more control over the platform in the past few years.
Now as for financial penalties being based on worldwide revenues and not EU-specific ones you might claim that to be "bloody ridiculous" and I might agree with you as would some others.
And that is yet another reason why organisations such as the EU shouldn't have the final say in cases involving companies from outside the EU. Sure, America shouldn't get to decide, but someone else should have a say.
If this case had been brought before the EU with countries outside the EU having a say in the judgement, or at least the penalty, then with any luck someone would have said "Wait, this is about European Law, so why are you making your penalty global?"
So will the EU make sure that this financial penalty is fairly distributed around the rest of the world, or will they keep the whole lot?
Let me get this straight, Google gets fine $5B because they lock in/require all Android phones manufactures (except in China) to have google products pre-installed. So they turn around and now going to charge the Android licensee to install these app. So the EU just help Google make more money, they a real win for consumers since the manufactures will just pass this along to consumers.
"There is one other key change happening here. In the past, Google required that companies building phones or tablets that included the Play Store only build phones and tablets that included the Play Store — they couldn’t make other devices with a forked version of Android. Now, that’ll be allowed. So if Samsung wants to ship both the regular Galaxy S9 with Google’s Play Store and some whackadoo Galaxy phone that runs, say, Amazon’s Fire OS, it can now do that in Europe."
That’s right. It will mix the line between Android and AOSP. Google might gain from AOSP, in the EU, being able to gain Google’s services, and they might lose from those possibly choosing to not use them on Android. What a mess!
I’m on Googles side with this. If the EU doesn’t like it, they can spend the time and money making their own OS and do with it as they see fit.
Their fracked up licensing of Android didn't allow "other OS" (sic) to be split off cause they'd lose access to the play store on the other fracking devices, so you can put that into your Goo pipe and smoke it bud.
Get some real info before assenting.
Wow you are a RUDE PILE OF CR*P!!!
You don't know what you're talking about. Yes Google Licence Android to use it. This in keeping from the same company being able to use FORKED versions of Android. I'm all for Google now just charging any phone sold in the EU that wants to use Android a $50 Licence fee. Maybe more!!! Then if you want to use a forked version of Android on your phone, you are free to do so and Google will still support you in the Play store and anything else and still get security updates. If you want a OS upgrade on that phone, that's another fee, a reduced Upgrade OS fee.
So long as these company's are getting the OS for free, they should have to follow the rules GOOGLE put forth. Google is the one spending the time and money in developing the OS. These company's just want Google to spend their money and time, and then they do anything they want with it. Well F the EU!!!!! You can't have it both ways.
Google is not forcing a single company to use Android. Company's in China managed to have nothing at all to do with Google. They do just fine. Amazon has nothing to do with Google . These company's can spend their own time and money writing their own OS and do anything they want with that. There are also other choices. It was really these dumb company's using that free Android OS, and now making it the dominate OS out there. I don't even like Android for a number of reasons, but I'm still on Google's side of this. This is really a load of B.S. Attacking yet another American Company for MONEY. Which is really just theft. Why bother doing anything in the EU. No American company is stopping anyone in the EU from creating their own OS or using something that's already out there.
I'm sure there's others out there that haven't been discontinued.
Instead these company's want Google to do all the work and spend all the money, and then they can come along, take it, and do anything they want. Well that is just flat out wrong. Sounds like Entitlement for a Business.
I know you’re just throwing a number out there, but wow, it better not be close to $50. The average Android phone sells for $230, worldwide, and I’d bet not much more in the EU, which has a large number of, shall we say, not rich members?
"There is one other key change happening here. In the past, Google required that companies building phones or tablets that included the Play Store only build phones and tablets that included the Play Store — they couldn’t make other devices with a forked version of Android. Now, that’ll be allowed. So if Samsung wants to ship both the regular Galaxy S9 with Google’s Play Store and some whackadoo Galaxy phone that runs, say, Amazon’s Fire OS, it can now do that in Europe."
This is actually more in line with the "injustice" that the EU is trying to correct. This SEVERELY limits the use of AOSP to companies that can't, or won't, ever consider a device with Google services. This ALSO limits, for example, access to Google Drive except through the web browser-- and you can only use Chromium to access those services, which is also limited.
I'd much rather have a more level playing field, and if that means that Google charges for their value-add in Google services, so be it. If Google services were available on Amazon's devices, it would open up a whole new market for educational use of their products, just through the availability of Google Docs alone. As it stands now, Amazon is BARRED from that market because the Kindle, a limited-use device, uses AOSP.
Say what you will about Amazon, I'm just using them as an example-- others are also impeded in the same way.
You know, this could give a dead phone OS, such a Windows Phone, of some ilk, another chance. While I’m not saying that Microsoft would consider it, it was most popular in some EU countries. If Google has to charge, then this could get interesting. What would happen if Microsoft didn’t, because they would start as a small player?
Comments
https://twitter.com/morganknutson/status/1049523067506966529
Fascinating account of working on the Google+ team, and goes a long way to explaining why it failed.
The fella who wrote it seems a genuinely nice chap, but I think his years working remotely for non-profits left him ill-prepared for working at Google: folk don’t always get to work on the projects they want to work on; that’s just working life, I’m afraid.
I mean, the top guy has a whole floor to himself, including his own speciality vegan restaurant?
Wow, if Tim Cook did that …
https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/16/17984074/google-eu-android-licensing-bundle-chrome-search
Google prevented licensees from making phones the phones they wanted to make, if they used Google software.
That's ironic.
While the Android fans went on about how Apple prevented anyone from running other app stores on the hardware they owned, Google was forcing its partners into deals ensuring that no other app store would survive on the hardware they didn't own.
Google's version of 'open'.
Google needs to fire its lawyers. They only had to look at the Microsoft case to know this was illegal. Or did the management know and just think they could get away with it?
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/European-Commission-s-Google-case-is-stuck-in-13098708.php
https://www.ft.com/content/f1d7b3fc-06dd-11e6-a70d-4e39ac32c284
...and for those truly curious souls who want to understand why this wouldn't be an issue in the US but is in the EU:
https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1607&context=shlr
https://medium.com/pen-bold-kiln-press/best-google-play-store-alternatives-30c759de1c26
Both in the EU.
It’s blood ridiculous that some people are so gullible.
In fact it was US enquiries that prompted the EU to take a closer look at Apple.
"Arizona Republican John McCain castigated Apple as “one of the biggest tax avoiders in America”. Democrat Carl Levin of Michigan peered over the glasses perched on the tip of his nose and said Apple uses “offshore tax strategies whose purpose is tax avoidance, pure and simple”.
And EU companies are just as likely to be investigated as US companies. The latest is IKEA .
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/meet-the-maxforce-the-eu-team-that-fined-ireland-13bn-over-apple-1.2909027
Now as for financial penalties being based on worldwide revenues and not EU-specific ones you might claim that to be "bloody ridiculous" and I might agree with you as would some others.
I don't see why these disputes can be settled by different sections of the same body. It's like going up in court and finding that the jury is made up of the victim's family and the judge is his uncle.
When you've got cases like this when a foreign company is going up a country or an economic union or whatever, then I think the court should not just be made up of representatives of that union. I think other bodies who are not part of either group should also be involved. I said this during the Microsoft case, the Apple case, and the Google case (though I think the EU was right during on this one, I don't necessarily agree with the punishment).
Wow... You actually thought this thru and advocate for that? Surprising IMHO, but here are those who want just that.
Seeing nothing in your posts that proves the Verge was wrong. Let's take another look:
If Google is dictating what forked versions of Android can't do, then it ain't open. Simple as that. What they've attempted to do is exert control over the OS by using components.
My own opinion (which doesn’t matter because I'm not an EU judge) is that no one actually forced the manufacturers to sign up for this, and if they were getting something that saved them millions in development costs (even if it only made one or two of them any money) then I think they were happy to accept the restrictions that went with it. I also don't see how anything in this agreement has harmed the market for consumers or manufacturers in any way, but again, I'm not a judge.
But, this requirement does prove that Android isn't as as free or as open as they'd like you to believe. You build something based on it, and you're still required to play ball. And that is especially ironic because the same rule applies to Java, which Google was happy to ignore.
Google has certainly kept a fair amount of control, and by separating out the best parts and offering them and their updates and enhancements via Google Play, have grabbed back even more control over the platform in the past few years.
And that is yet another reason why organisations such as the EU shouldn't have the final say in cases involving companies from outside the EU. Sure, America shouldn't get to decide, but someone else should have a say.
If this case had been brought before the EU with countries outside the EU having a say in the judgement, or at least the penalty, then with any luck someone would have said "Wait, this is about European Law, so why are you making your penalty global?"
So will the EU make sure that this financial penalty is fairly distributed around the rest of the world, or will they keep the whole lot?
Let me get this straight, Google gets fine $5B because they lock in/require all Android phones manufactures (except in China) to have google products pre-installed. So they turn around and now going to charge the Android licensee to install these app. So the EU just help Google make more money, they a real win for consumers since the manufactures will just pass this along to consumers.
I know you’re just throwing a number out there, but wow, it better not be close to $50. The average Android phone sells for $230, worldwide, and I’d bet not much more in the EU, which has a large number of, shall we say, not rich members?
You know, this could give a dead phone OS, such a Windows Phone, of some ilk, another chance. While I’m not saying that Microsoft would consider it, it was most popular in some EU countries. If Google has to charge, then this could get interesting. What would happen if Microsoft didn’t, because they would start as a small player?