I wish Google just stop developing android or just convert it to Chrome OS and make it a closed system. No more free meals from open source. Phone manufacturers want good OS? Pay the license fees or just use Tizen or Cyanogen...yeah, the user experience will be like shit!
"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."
Oddly, since no one actually asked what my thoughts were on all of Google's responses to the Commission's concerns here it is.
For the most part I agree with Google on including Google Search as the default on Google Android devices. They're spending significant time, money and resources on an operating system that benefits the OEM's and in return they get their investment back via advertising revenues. That's how Google works, like it or not. It's a time-honored way to support magazines, newspapers and journals that works well for Google too. I've also no issue with Google requiring their other apps to be pre-installed either. Users can set the default to someone else's app whether it be from Microsoft, Facebook or whoever, but it's Google's version of Android so it comes with various Google services. No one has to use 'em, consider it bloatware if you wish.
Now about not allowing OHA members to develop their own forked Android versions as a condition of joining: I think those old rules already served their purpose. There's little danger that official Google Android won't continue to be the world's most used operating system for the foreseeable future. The ecosystem is mature, there's no lack of features, security issues have largely been dealt with, developers in the Play Store are making money. . .
There's not much reason for any OEM to roll off on their own and try to develop yet another ecosystem for a relatively small market served by their specific smartphone models. IMHO Google should just drop that stipulation as it no longer serves any particular purpose regarding Android adoption. Google accomplished what they set out to do, ensuring they would not be locked out of the mobile market by a company like Microsoft. Android won, with probably far more success in market adoption than Google (or anyone here) could have imagined in the beginning dating back to 2005.
So drop that from the OHA agreement. Let OEM's try doing their own if that's what they wish, but not likely that many will try nor succeed IMO. It wouldn't matter anyway as consumers are going to want Google Search, Google Drive, Gmail and a number of other Google services on their phone no matter whose OS is running it if those services are available to them.
So on those other points I personally think Google is right in their response. On the whole forking thing just retire it and move on, not worth fighting it.
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.
CAN isn't mutually inclusive in this case. But what can I say judge Posner did not do his job well on the Google oracle case so maybe this is another example of things that are harder for most to comprehend. Maybe this now needs some corrective measures from the US government side. Oracle brought the amo just a while ago for this next party!
"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."
Oddly, since no one actually asked what my thoughts were on all of Google's responses to the Commission's concerns here it is.
For the most part I agree with Google on including Google Search as the default on Google Android devices. They're spending significant time, money and resources on an operating system that benefits the OEM's and in return they get their investment back via advertising revenues. That's how Google works, like it or not. It's a time-honored way to support magazines, newspapers and journals that works well for Google too. I've also no issue with Google requiring their other apps to be pre-installed either. Users can set the default to someone else's app whether it be from Microsoft, Facebook or whoever, but it's Google's version of Android so it comes with various Google services. No one has to use 'em, consider it bloatware if you wish.
Now about not allowing OHA members to develop their own forked Android versions as a condition of joining: I think those old rules already served their purpose. There's little danger that official Google Android won't continue to be the world's most used operating system for the foreseeable future. The ecosystem is mature, there's no lack of features, security issues have largely been dealt with, developers in the Play Store are making money. . .
There's not much reason for any OEM to roll off on their own and try to develop yet another ecosystem for a relatively small market served by their specific smartphone models. IMHO Google should just drop that stipulation as it no longer serves any particular purpose regarding Android adoption. Google accomplished what they set out to do, ensuring they would not be locked out of the mobile market by a company like Microsoft. Android won, with probably far more success in market adoption than Google (or anyone here) could have imagined in the beginning dating back to 2005.
So drop that from the OHA agreement. Let OEM's try doing their own if that's what they wish, but not likely that many will try nor succeed IMO. It wouldn't matter anyway as consumers are going to want Google Search, Google Drive, Gmail and a number of other Google services on their phone no matter whose OS is running it if those services are available to them.
So on those other points I personally think Google is right in their response. On the whole forking thing just retire it and move on, not worth fighting it.
So there's my .02
There are so many problems with that 2 cents that I don't know where to begin. Oracle now brought the big guns to the party by proving how Google operates. It is doing so many illegal thing that this makes MS look like a quireboy.
"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."
Oddly, since no one actually asked what my thoughts were on all of Google's responses to the Commission's concerns here it is.
For the most part I agree with Google on including Google Search as the default on Google Android devices.
Now about not allowing OHA members to develop their own forked Android versions as a condition of joining: I think those old rules already served their purpose. There's little danger that official Google Android won't continue to be the world's most used operating system for the foreseeable future. The ecosystem is mature, there's no lack of features, security issues have largely been dealt with, developers in the Play Store are making money. . .
So drop that from the OHA agreement. So there's my .02
There are so many problems with that 2 cents that I don't know where to begin. Oracle now brought the big guns to the party by proving how Google operates. It is doing so many illegal thing that this makes MS look like a quireboy.
Well start anywhere then. Expand on any one problem with what I posted and we can go from there with a civil discussion.
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.
Finally it's great to see some one standing up and calling out googles walled garden
So THIS is really interesting. Microsoft was the lead complainant in the EU's look at competition issues vis a' vis Google that was published yesterday. Today both Google and Microsoft announce they are withdrawing any complaints they've filed with regulators against each other. Coincidence?
Comments
For the most part I agree with Google on including Google Search as the default on Google Android devices. They're spending significant time, money and resources on an operating system that benefits the OEM's and in return they get their investment back via advertising revenues. That's how Google works, like it or not. It's a time-honored way to support magazines, newspapers and journals that works well for Google too. I've also no issue with Google requiring their other apps to be pre-installed either. Users can set the default to someone else's app whether it be from Microsoft, Facebook or whoever, but it's Google's version of Android so it comes with various Google services. No one has to use 'em, consider it bloatware if you wish.
Now about not allowing OHA members to develop their own forked Android versions as a condition of joining: I think those old rules already served their purpose. There's little danger that official Google Android won't continue to be the world's most used operating system for the foreseeable future. The ecosystem is mature, there's no lack of features, security issues have largely been dealt with, developers in the Play Store are making money. . .
There's not much reason for any OEM to roll off on their own and try to develop yet another ecosystem for a relatively small market served by their specific smartphone models. IMHO Google should just drop that stipulation as it no longer serves any particular purpose regarding Android adoption. Google accomplished what they set out to do, ensuring they would not be locked out of the mobile market by a company like Microsoft. Android won, with probably far more success in market adoption than Google (or anyone here) could have imagined in the beginning dating back to 2005.
So drop that from the OHA agreement. Let OEM's try doing their own if that's what they wish, but not likely that many will try nor succeed IMO. It wouldn't matter anyway as consumers are going to want Google Search, Google Drive, Gmail and a number of other Google services on their phone no matter whose OS is running it if those services are available to them.
So on those other points I personally think Google is right in their response. On the whole forking thing just retire it and move on, not worth fighting it.
So there's my .02
http://recode.net/2016/04/22/microsoft-google-agree-to-stop-complaining-to-regulators-about-each-other/