Google indemnifies Samsung against charges of patent infringement. That doesn't come for free.
Thanks for bringing that up. Google has no official indemnification policy (as an example, Microsoft does have one). They have SELECTIVELY indemnified certain vendors (mainly those who were in lawsuits). Gatorguy has in the past tried to take these few selective agreements to imply that Google does in fact indemnify Android vendors, but to this day he has not been able to point us to Google's OFFICIAL policy on this.
Microsoft has their policy up on their website for all to view (I'll try to find the link again). Google does not. Which makes me think Google only picks and chooses who it will indemnify based on some conditions that are only known to them.
Perhaps Gatorguy now has a link for us to update where Google stands on indemnification?
Trying to change the focus of the discussion to something other than the EU charges once again I see.
Samsung IS NOT ALLOWED to make a forked version of Android, name it something else so customers don't expect to be able to run Android Apps on it, and sell it. AOSP minus Google services IS NOT the same as a forked version of Android.
Exactly as for iPhone, almost all the value added is in the AppStore/PlayStore. So basically every manufacturer needs to sign in for the PlayStore, and at the moment it means taking the whole bundle of google services, constraints and compatibility needs.
So you are right: no one is allowed to include PlayStore without accepting those rules. But it is not an operating system issue, it is an "android market" issue... the right to bundle PlayStore in a whatever operating system.
First, it's NOT voluntary. Taking a license from Microsoft to use Windows is voluntary, since back in the 90's (when MS ran afoul of the EU) you could also sell PCs with Linux or OS/2 (as an example). However, no PC vendor could survive without selling Windows PCs so you were FORCED to use Windows because that's what the market wanted to buy.
Second point is just spin. Samsung could make a phone specific to a certain market (China) using AOSP to build a forked version of Android and then call it something else entirely. There's no confusion for the customer as nothing on the phone identifies it as Android. Yet Samsung is not allowed to do this because Google forbids any company from making a forked version of Android alongside the Google version of Android (with all their services).
Third, you have to load ALL of the Apps. You can't pick and choose which ones you want to install.
Fourth and fifth points are irrelevant.
Eric, you're apparently unaware that Samsung DOES sell Android phones in China that don't include Google's services suite. The forking issue is an entirely separate one that I don't believe is among the charges the EU has made.
After digesting that point perhaps you could go on to explain why signing up as a supporting member of the OHA and accepting the contract stipulations to do so isn't voluntary. Half a dozen other companies have chosen to use open-source Android to develop their own operating system for smartphones to avoid partnering up with Google (for various reasons) and some doing so pretty darn successfully, more so than those older PC makers who tried to go it alone without Microsoft.
Nokia, Xiaomi, Meizu and others were free to develop their own OS with free help from Google and AOSP, and that's what they chose. Companies like LG, Motorola and others made a different voluntary choice did they not?
There are no Google Services available in China, so I'm guessing that Samsung hasn't violated the OTA conditions by selling phones there sans Google Services.
First, it's NOT voluntary. Taking a license from Microsoft to use Windows is voluntary, since back in the 90's (when MS ran afoul of the EU) you could also sell PCs with Linux or OS/2 (as an example). However, no PC vendor could survive without selling Windows PCs so you were FORCED to use Windows because that's what the market wanted to buy.
Second point is just spin. Samsung could make a phone specific to a certain market (China) using AOSP to build a forked version of Android and then call it something else entirely. There's no confusion for the customer as nothing on the phone identifies it as Android. Yet Samsung is not allowed to do this because Google forbids any company from making a forked version of Android alongside the Google version of Android (with all their services).
Third, you have to load ALL of the Apps. You can't pick and choose which ones you want to install.
Fourth and fifth points are irrelevant.
Eric, you're apparently unaware that Samsung DOES sell Android phones in China that don't include Google's services suite. The forking issue is an entirely separate one that I don't believe is among the charges the EU has made.
After digesting that point perhaps you could go on to explain why signing up as a supporting member of the OHA and accepting the contract stipulations to do so isn't voluntary. Half a dozen other companies have chosen to use open-source Android to develop their own operating system for smartphones to avoid partnering up with Google (for various reasons) and some doing so pretty darn successfully, more so than those older PC makers who tried to go it alone without Microsoft.
Nokia, Xiaomi, Meizu and others were free to develop their own OS with free help from Google and AOSP, and that's what they chose. Companies like LG, Motorola and others made a different voluntary choice did they not?
There are no Google Services available in China, so I'm guessing that Samsung hasn't violated the OTA conditions by selling phones there sans Google Services.
We can all guess as to the reasons. That one is probably the biggest reason altho Google is apparently rolling out Google Play in China sometime in the coming weeks.
Im no fan of how Google generates revenue. But the EU is constantly sticking its neck into realms that it probably shouldn't. in this case Google is right. They develop Android, and should have a very strong say as to what can be done with it. Using Android is completely volunteer so I don't see how this is a legitimate gripe with phone OEMs. if you don't like the rules make your own OS and market it. otherwise, resolve your beef with Google directly.
if someone wants to choose a different search engine then they need to follow the steps to make changes or download Apps that allow them to bypass google's search. If they don't like that because it limits some functionality of the OS, too bad. Go use another OS or live with the workaround. Google does not owe anyone an apology for their business model.
Google's only real stream of revenue is Ad sales, so no wonder they try and dominate the home screens with THEIR search. I cant blame them for that.
Concerning some of the other complaints about how Google treats search results, thats another story, and it sounds like there are very legitimate gripes about that. But in this world you need to pay to play. Isn't my favorite model, but its Google's and they are free to make that decision IMO.
Replace "Google" and "Android" with "Microsoft" and "IE" and you'll see that this is (and was) a losing augment. The US Courts (and EU) found Microsoft guilty of anti-trust violation because they were forcing vendors to bundle IE with Windows. PC makers could not pre-install Netscape in the PC they sold if they wanted to sell PC's with Windows. Consumers were forced to download Netscape over a slow modem connection (back then). Consumers could not be uninstall IE from Windows. (They could only hide the icon.) Microsoft purposely made Windows code non compatible with Netscape, thus making it run not as smooth as IE. Microsoft made agreements with all ISP to provide IE exclusively to their customers. Telling the vendors that using Windows is voluntary and they can sell PC's with some else's OS or they can develop their own OS is not in the best interest of consumers. Nor is it a viable option for vendors that makes money selling PC's.
Microsoft has yet to apologize for forcing consumers to use their inferior IE browser, when Netscape should have been easily available.
• Microsoft's Christian Wildfeuer wrote on February 24, 1997: "It seems clear that it will be very hard to increase browser market share on the merits of IE 4 alone. It will be more important to leverage the OS asset to make people use IE instead of Navigator" (emphasis added);
• Microsoft Senior Vice President Allchin had similarly written on December 20, 1996, that unless Microsoft were to "leverage Windows . . . . I don't understand how IE is going to win . . . . Maybe being free helps us, but once people are used to a product it is hard to change them . . . . My conclusion is that we must leverage Windows more. Treating IE as just an add-on to Windows which is cross-platform loses our biggest advantage -- Windows market share. We should dedicate a cross group team to come up with ways to leverage Windows technically more . . . . We should think first about an integrated solution -- that is our strength."
In this World, if you have a monopoly or dominate position in term of market shares, forcing vendors to pay to maintain your dominance will get you in trouble. In both the US and EU.
Im no fan of how Google generates revenue. But the EU is constantly sticking its neck into realms that it probably shouldn't. in this case Google is right. They develop Android, and should have a very strong say as to what can be done with it. Using Android is completely volunteer so I don't see how this is a legitimate gripe with phone OEMs. if you don't like the rules make your own OS and market it. otherwise, resolve your beef with Google directly.
if someone wants to choose a different search engine then they need to follow the steps to make changes or download Apps that allow them to bypass google's search. If they don't like that because it limits some functionality of the OS, too bad. Go use another OS or live with the workaround. Google does not owe anyone an apology for their business model.
Google's only real stream of revenue is Ad sales, so no wonder they try and dominate the home screens with THEIR search. I cant blame them for that.
Concerning some of the other complaints about how Google treats search results, thats another story, and it sounds like there are very legitimate gripes about that. But in this world you need to pay to play. Isn't my favorite model, but its Google's and they are free to make that decision IMO.
Replace "Google" and "Android" with "Microsoft" and "IE" and you'll see that this is (and was) a losing augment. The US Courts (and EU) found Microsoft guilty of anti-trust violation because they were forcing vendors to bundle IE with Windows. PC makers could not pre-install Netscape in the PC they sold if they wanted to sell PC's with Windows. Consumers were forced to download Netscape over a slow modem connection (back then). Consumers could not be uninstall IE from Windows. (They could only hide the icon.) Microsoft purposely made Windows code non compatible with Netscape, thus making it run not as smooth as IE. Microsoft made agreements with all ISP to provide IE exclusively to their customers. Telling the vendors that using Windows is voluntary and they can sell PC's with some else's OS or they can develop their own OS is not in the best interest of consumers. Nor is it a viable option for vendors that makes money selling PC's.
Microsoft has yet to apologize for forcing consumers to use their inferior IE browser, when Netscape should have been easily available.
• Microsoft's Christian Wildfeuer wrote on February 24, 1997: "It seems clear that it will be very hard to increase browser market share on the merits of IE 4 alone. It will be more important to leverage the OS asset to make people use IE instead of Navigator" (emphasis added);
• Microsoft Senior Vice President Allchin had similarly written on December 20, 1996, that unless Microsoft were to "leverage Windows . . . . I don't understand how IE is going to win . . . . Maybe being free helps us, but once people are used to a product it is hard to change them . . . . My conclusion is that we must leverage Windows more. Treating IE as just an add-on to Windows which is cross-platform loses our biggest advantage -- Windows market share. We should dedicate a cross group team to come up with ways to leverage Windows technically more . . . . We should think first about an integrated solution -- that is our strength."
In this World, if you have a monopoly or dominate position in term of market shares, forcing vendors to pay to maintain your dominance will get you in trouble. In both the US and EU.
FWIW Canada just closed a similar investigation of Google. In general they're in the clear and abiding with the law. The US didn't find cause to file any antitrust action either. Additionally Android licensees CAN pre-install services that compete with Google's own, which is where MS was running afoul of competition rules.
Good. This is common sense and it actually surprises me to see so many people supporting Google.
Actually, it doesn't surprise me. Considering the trash that the fanatics post about Android it makes sense they'd try to spin this in Google's favor as well.
Look more closely. It's not about supporting Google, it's about making sure the same crap doesn't come Apple's way. Consider this the EU's practice run. Apple is a much bigger fish.
Thanks for bringing that up. Google has no official indemnification policy (as an example, Microsoft does have one). They have SELECTIVELY indemnified certain vendors (mainly those who were in lawsuits). Gatorguy has in the past tried to take these few selective agreements to imply that Google does in fact indemnify Android vendors, but to this day he has not been able to point us to Google's OFFICIAL policy on this.
Microsoft has their policy up on their website for all to view (I'll try to find the link again). Google does not. Which makes me think Google only picks and chooses who it will indemnify based on some conditions that are only known to them.
Perhaps Gatorguy now has a link for us to update where Google stands on indemnification?
Trying to change the focus of the discussion to something other than the EU charges once again I see.
No, just reminding you of the lies you told in the past on AI.
Do you have a link to Google's indemnification policy or not?
Thanks for bringing that up. Google has no official indemnification policy (as an example, Microsoft does have one). They have SELECTIVELY indemnified certain vendors (mainly those who were in lawsuits). Gatorguy has in the past tried to take these few selective agreements to imply that Google does in fact indemnify Android vendors, but to this day he has not been able to point us to Google's OFFICIAL policy on this.
Microsoft has their policy up on their website for all to view (I'll try to find the link again). Google does not. Which makes me think Google only picks and chooses who it will indemnify based on some conditions that are only known to them.
Perhaps Gatorguy now has a link for us to update where Google stands on indemnification?
Trying to change the focus of the discussion to something other than the EU charges once again I see.
No, just reminding you of the lies you told in the past on AI.
Do you have a link to Google's indemnification policy or not?
Can you explain or not why choosing to sign on with the Open Handset Alliance isn't voluntary?
...and while you're at it can you link to those "lies" I told or not. It's hardly the first time I've asked nor the first time you've failed to deliver.
No, just reminding you of the lies you told in the past on AI.
Do you have a link to Google's indemnification policy or not?
Can you explain or not why choosing to sign on with the Open Handset Alliance isn't voluntary?
...and while you're at it can you link to those "lies" I told or not.
Signing on to the OTA can be bothvoluntary and anticompetitive; whether the EU is considering this aspect is unknown, but they surely are aware of it.
For the record, Android OS wasn't focused on the consumer for many years of its early life, in my opinion anyway. It was all about encouraging the broad adoption of Android OS to protect Google's potential mobile advertising revenue. It's commendable that Google has made efforts some eight years into Androids existence to clean up the mess, but that seems to have encouraged Google to controls that are especially beneficial to its service revenue. Nothing wrong with that unless it is in fact anticompetitive.
The anticompetitive aspect is tying Google services to the search engine and likely the EU's whole issue with Google in the first place.
And if the Europeans find it anticompetitive and levy Google with fines, nothing that can be done about it. Like MSFT leveraged Windows to propel IE into dominance, Google is doing with Android for search.
Google can remove the stipulation regarding the default search engjne, pay the penalty or exit the European market all together.
The one thing they cannot do, is wantonly continue to violate European laws.
No matter how the Google apologists want to spin things, the crux of the matter is that the Europeans make the laws that pertain to their own nations. Either abide and accept the penalties or go home. Google is going to lose. That much is certain. How they handle things remains to be seen.
The next statement that will come is that Google isn't violating any laws. Well, good, then they have nothing to worry about. But I suspect the Europeans are still going to fine them heavily.
Much like the US is going to do to Volkswagen for violating US environmental laws. Laws that aren't the same in Europe. Volkswagen can comply or go home. No difference.
Google is still technically in violation. Much like Volkswagen was technically in violation although their vehicles did pass the official smog tests.
No, just reminding you of the lies you told in the past on AI.
Do you have a link to Google's indemnification policy or not?
Can you explain or not why choosing to sign on with the Open Handset Alliance isn't voluntary?
...and while you're at it can you link to those "lies" I told or not. It's hardly the first time I've asked nor the first time you've failed to deliver.
It's not voluntary because everyone wants Google Apps/Services. Outside of China it would be suicide to try and release a phone that ran a version of Android without access to Google services or the Play Store. Do you think PC vendors in the 90's could have chosen to use another OS besides Windows and still sell PCs?
Don't know why I waste my time with a troll like you, but here goes again:
From the beginning I commented that Microsoft has an indemnification policy and likes to make fun of Google for lacking one. You seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between a "policy" and an "action". Google HAS indemnified SOME Android vendors in differing capacities, but that doesn't mean they have an actual "policy" regarding indemnification. I have continually asked you to provide us with such a document and you, to this day, have been UNABLE to. All you do is bring up the three contracts between Google and HTC, Samsung and Motorola (companies involved with lawsuits at the time) and then try to imply that Google indemnifies Android OEMs based on these contracts (which, BTW, are limited in scope and vary in what they actually cover).
You then went on a rant claiming Microsoft doesn't indemnify mobile devices and provided an out-of-date quote from (of Microsoft) stating embedded and mobile devices weren't included. I then provided an up-to-date quote which states that embedded and mobile devices ARE included from the same David Kaefer. This is, again, typical of your posts. You intentionally try to mislead with very carefully worded responses that you know are lies, but post them anyway. Such as pretending that you didn't know what David Kaefer stated about indemnification when I provided you with EXPLICIT instructions how to find Microsoft's policy online so you can read it for yourself.
Or you respond with nonsense like this:
"I recall at least three contracts have become public that proved they do (HTC, Samsung, Motorola), but not one document yet indicating they do not."
Two logical fallacies in one sentence. Bravo. First assuming that Because A Then B (or that since there's a record that Google has indemnified some vendors that they have an official policy of indemnification). Second trying to get me to prove a negative (that there's a document that simply cannot exist - one which Google denies any indemnification).
To sum this is really simply, and go back to the VERY BEGINNING:
- Microsoft has an official indemnification policy. It's on their website for anyone to read and lays out very clearly what's covered. - Google, it appears, does not. There's no document by Google that explains their indemnification policy.
I have asked you repeatedly to provide such a document, but you have never been able to. It must be tough for a Google shill such as yourself, who always has an answer and multiple links to articles to counter any negative news about Google, to not have an answer to this question.
No, just reminding you of the lies you told in the past on AI.
Do you have a link to Google's indemnification policy or not?
Can you explain or not why choosing to sign on with the Open Handset Alliance isn't voluntary?
...and while you're at it can you link to those "lies" I told or not. It's hardly the first time I've asked nor the first time you've failed to deliver.
It's not voluntary because everyone wants Google Apps/Services. Outside of China it would be suicide to try and release a phone that ran a version of Android without access to Google services or the Play Store. Do you think PC vendors in the 90's could have chosen to use another OS besides Windows and still sell PCs?
What makes you think companies selling other OS'es on their devices couldn't offer Google Search or Google Maps or any of a dozen other Google services if they wanted to? They don't have to agree to use Android in order to use Google services, other than anything that requires Google Android to work, ie Play. You're just arguing to argue now IMHO since it's not making sense at least the way you're framing it.
As for the "lies" you still neglect to offer links to them. Either ya got'em or you don't. Apparently it's "don't".
In any event stooping to personal attacks on another member you have a difference of opinion with is something I would expect to see from far younger folks, a "playground mentality" most of us outgrow. Most of the other members here conduct themselves better than that, and I think it would reflect better on you too if you dropped the childish-sounding "liar" stuff you often resort to. Perhaps you don't realize how often you use that tactic, but if you search "lie" and "Liar" in posts you've made it might be an eye-opener. Just my opinion.
In the meantime shouldn't we stay on topic? If you want to start a different thread to discuss different issues unrelated to the EU and competitive issues feel free to do so. I might even chime in if you will try to keep it civil. This is the wrong one for your "other stuff".
"The European Commission on Wednesday made new antitrust charges against Google, alleging that the company foisted its search application and the Chrome browser on Android smartphones makers as a condition to license its other apps and services.
The commission also charged Google with preventing makers from selling devices running variants or “forks” of its Android operating system, and giving financial incentives to both phone makers and mobile network operators if they agree to preinstall Google Search on their devices.
In its contracts with manufacturers, Google has made the licensing of the Play Store on Android devices conditional on its search application being pre-installed and set as default search service, according to the commission."
"The European Commission on Wednesday made new antitrust charges against Google, alleging that the company foisted its search application and the Chrome browser on Android smartphones makers as a condition to license its other apps and services.
The commission also charged Google with preventing makers from selling devices running variants or “forks” of its Android operating system, and giving financial incentives to both phone makers and mobile network operators if they agree to preinstall Google Search on their devices.
In its contracts with manufacturers, Google has made the licensing of the Play Store on Android devices conditional on its search application being pre-installed and set as default search service, according to the commission."
Everything Google does is way more antitrust worthy than even MS (which is saying something). Do not evil indeed... ;-).
"The European Commission on Wednesday made new antitrust charges against Google, alleging that the company foisted its search application and the Chrome browser on Android smartphones makers as a condition to license its other apps and services.
The commission also charged Google with preventing makers from selling devices running variants or “forks” of its Android operating system, and giving financial incentives to both phone makers and mobile network operators if they agree to preinstall Google Search on their devices.
In its contracts with manufacturers, Google has made the licensing of the Play Store on Android devices conditional on its search application being pre-installed and set as default search service, according to the commission."
Everything Google does is way more antitrust worthy than even MS (which is saying something). Do not evil indeed... ;-).
Ah, says the professor. Google saying things are rosy is not a Get Out of Jail Free Card for anti-competitive behaviour. Edelman reminded Google there’s a difference between not liking competitive law and refusing to obey it.
“I disagreed with the European Commission when it addressed the question of media players in Windows: it seemed mistaken to me,” says Edelman of his testimony against Microsoft in its competition case. "But eventually you can come to terms with the law. I can disagree with the speed limit, but I can’t fight the policemen giving me the speeding ticket. I can disagree with the law - I can’t disobey it.”
There’s an open-source part to Android, and there’s a proprietary Google chunk, called GMS, for which you must pass a series of tests. In a 2011 court case, a Google executive memorably describe Google using the compatibility tests with the words: “We are using compatibility as a club to make them [OEMs] do things we want".
EU politicians are bunch of idiots. Even though I'm not a Fandroids, but fck it, Google need to make some money to continue the OS development. I'll give you free breads but at least my name must be on wrapping bags. If EU don't like it, develop their own OS...oops, EU is not capable to develop any OS...real OS. So, stop sticking the damn nose into US companies. Without companies like Apple, Google, Microsoft...EU still use pos Symbian.
Comments
Their stance is highly suspect. Sure you can download Android for free but you won't get any Google apps unless you join.
You are misrepresenting the indemnification.
So you are right: no one is allowed to include PlayStore without accepting those rules.
But it is not an operating system issue, it is an "android market" issue... the right to bundle PlayStore in a whatever operating system.
There are no Google Services available in China, so I'm guessing that Samsung hasn't violated the OTA conditions by selling phones there sans Google Services.
Replace "Google" and "Android" with "Microsoft" and "IE" and you'll see that this is (and was) a losing augment. The US Courts (and EU) found Microsoft guilty of anti-trust violation because they were forcing vendors to bundle IE with Windows. PC makers could not pre-install Netscape in the PC they sold if they wanted to sell PC's with Windows. Consumers were forced to download Netscape over a slow modem connection (back then). Consumers could not be uninstall IE from Windows. (They could only hide the icon.) Microsoft purposely made Windows code non compatible with Netscape, thus making it run not as smooth as IE. Microsoft made agreements with all ISP to provide IE exclusively to their customers. Telling the vendors that using Windows is voluntary and they can sell PC's with some else's OS or they can develop their own OS is not in the best interest of consumers. Nor is it a viable option for vendors that makes money selling PC's.
Microsoft has yet to apologize for forcing consumers to use their inferior IE browser, when Netscape should have been easily available.
• Microsoft's Christian Wildfeuer wrote on February 24, 1997: "It seems clear that it will be very hard to increase browser market share on the merits of IE 4 alone. It will be more important to leverage the OS asset to make people use IE instead of Navigator" (emphasis added);
• Microsoft Senior Vice President Allchin had similarly written on December 20, 1996, that unless Microsoft were to "leverage Windows . . . . I don't understand how IE is going to win . . . . Maybe being free helps us, but once people are used to a product it is hard to change them . . . . My conclusion is that we must leverage Windows more. Treating IE as just an add-on to Windows which is cross-platform loses our biggest advantage -- Windows market share. We should dedicate a cross group team to come up with ways to leverage Windows technically more . . . . We should think first about an integrated solution -- that is our strength."
https://www.justice.gov/archive/atr/public/press_releases/1998/1764.htm
In this World, if you have a monopoly or dominate position in term of market shares, forcing vendors to pay to maintain your dominance will get you in trouble. In both the US and EU.
EDIT: I can across an article where the author describes the experience of using a Google Android phone without Google services.
http://www.androidauthority.com/note-4-china-no-google-impressions-615960/
No, just reminding you of the lies you told in the past on AI.
Do you have a link to Google's indemnification policy or not?
Nice spin. The EU isn't talking about compatibility harming users - they're talking about restrictions on manufacturers that could harm users.
Google is the one trying to spin App compatibility as a reason for the "conditions". Nice try, you want to think about who said what again?
...and while you're at it can you link to those "lies" I told or not.
It's hardly the first time I've asked nor the first time you've failed to deliver.
For the record, Android OS wasn't focused on the consumer for many years of its early life, in my opinion anyway. It was all about encouraging the broad adoption of Android OS to protect Google's potential mobile advertising revenue. It's commendable that Google has made efforts some eight years into Androids existence to clean up the mess, but that seems to have encouraged Google to controls that are especially beneficial to its service revenue. Nothing wrong with that unless it is in fact anticompetitive.
And if the Europeans find it anticompetitive and levy Google with fines, nothing that can be done about it. Like MSFT leveraged Windows to propel IE into dominance, Google is doing with Android for search.
Google can remove the stipulation regarding the default search engjne, pay the penalty or exit the European market all together.
The one thing they cannot do, is wantonly continue to violate European laws.
No matter how the Google apologists want to spin things, the crux of the matter is that the Europeans make the laws that pertain to their own nations. Either abide and accept the penalties or go home. Google is going to lose. That much is certain. How they handle things remains to be seen.
The next statement that will come is that Google isn't violating any laws. Well, good, then they have nothing to worry about. But I suspect the Europeans are still going to fine them heavily.
Much like the US is going to do to Volkswagen for violating US environmental laws. Laws that aren't the same in Europe. Volkswagen can comply or go home. No difference.
Google is still technically in violation. Much like Volkswagen was technically in violation although their vehicles did pass the official smog tests.
It's not voluntary because everyone wants Google Apps/Services. Outside of China it would be suicide to try and release a phone that ran a version of Android without access to Google services or the Play Store. Do you think PC vendors in the 90's could have chosen to use another OS besides Windows and still sell PCs?
Don't know why I waste my time with a troll like you, but here goes again:
From the beginning I commented that Microsoft has an indemnification policy and likes to make fun of Google for lacking one. You seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between a "policy" and an "action". Google HAS indemnified SOME Android vendors in differing capacities, but that doesn't mean they have an actual "policy" regarding indemnification. I have continually asked you to provide us with such a document and you, to this day, have been UNABLE to. All you do is bring up the three contracts between Google and HTC, Samsung and Motorola (companies involved with lawsuits at the time) and then try to imply that Google indemnifies Android OEMs based on these contracts (which, BTW, are limited in scope and vary in what they actually cover).
You then went on a rant claiming Microsoft doesn't indemnify mobile devices and provided an out-of-date quote from (of Microsoft) stating embedded and mobile devices weren't included. I then provided an up-to-date quote which states that embedded and mobile devices ARE included from the same David Kaefer. This is, again, typical of your posts. You intentionally try to mislead with very carefully worded responses that you know are lies, but post them anyway. Such as pretending that you didn't know what David Kaefer stated about indemnification when I provided you with EXPLICIT instructions how to find Microsoft's policy online so you can read it for yourself.
Or you respond with nonsense like this:
"I recall at least three contracts have become public that proved they do (HTC, Samsung, Motorola), but not one document yet indicating they do not."
Two logical fallacies in one sentence. Bravo. First assuming that Because A Then B (or that since there's a record that Google has indemnified some vendors that they have an official policy of indemnification). Second trying to get me to prove a negative (that there's a document that simply cannot exist - one which Google denies any indemnification).
To sum this is really simply, and go back to the VERY BEGINNING:
- Microsoft has an official indemnification policy. It's on their website for anyone to read and lays out very clearly what's covered.
- Google, it appears, does not. There's no document by Google that explains their indemnification policy.
I have asked you repeatedly to provide such a document, but you have never been able to. It must be tough for a Google shill such as yourself, who always has an answer and multiple links to articles to counter any negative news about Google, to not have an answer to this question.
As for the "lies" you still neglect to offer links to them. Either ya got'em or you don't. Apparently it's "don't".
In any event stooping to personal attacks on another member you have a difference of opinion with is something I would expect to see from far younger folks, a "playground mentality" most of us outgrow. Most of the other members here conduct themselves better than that, and I think it would reflect better on you too if you dropped the childish-sounding "liar" stuff you often resort to. Perhaps you don't realize how often you use that tactic, but if you search "lie" and "Liar" in posts you've made it might be an eye-opener. Just my opinion.
In the meantime shouldn't we stay on topic? If you want to start a different thread to discuss different issues unrelated to the EU and competitive issues feel free to do so. I might even chime in if you will try to keep it civil. This is the wrong one for your "other stuff".
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3058850/android/eu-charges-google-with-foisting-its-search-and-browser-on-smartphone-makers.html
"The European Commission on Wednesday made new antitrust charges against Google, alleging that the company foisted its search application and the Chrome browser on Android smartphones makers as a condition to license its other apps and services.
The commission also charged Google with preventing makers from selling devices running variants or “forks” of its Android operating system, and giving financial incentives to both phone makers and mobile network operators if they agree to preinstall Google Search on their devices.
In its contracts with manufacturers, Google has made the licensing of the Play Store on Android devices conditional on its search application being pre-installed and set as default search service, according to the commission."
Do not evil indeed... ;-).
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/20/edelman_android/
"Is Google’s consumer benefits argument fair? We asked Professor Ben Edelman, the only authority to publish and analyse Google’s secrets mobile contracts with Samsung and HTC in full – for his view.
Ah, says the professor. Google saying things are rosy is not a Get Out of Jail Free Card for anti-competitive behaviour. Edelman reminded Google there’s a difference between not liking competitive law and refusing to obey it.
“I disagreed with the European Commission when it addressed the question of media players in Windows: it seemed mistaken to me,” says Edelman of his testimony against Microsoft in its competition case. "But eventually you can come to terms with the law. I can disagree with the speed limit, but I can’t fight the policemen giving me the speeding ticket. I can disagree with the law - I can’t disobey it.”
There’s an open-source part to Android, and there’s a proprietary Google chunk, called GMS, for which you must pass a series of tests. In a 2011 court case, a Google executive memorably describe Google using the compatibility tests with the words: “We are using compatibility as a club to make them [OEMs] do things we want".