Google could develop an open source project, relinquish all control and not even try to make money from the thing and people would still find fault and malice in it.
Whatever is open source about Android is good enough to produce the Fire devices and the bulk of the Chinese smartphone market.
But never mind all that the fine wasn't about which parts of Android are open source, the fine was predetermined, they just worked backwards and they didn't even come up with convincing reasons because many people are already convinced that tech firms are too big and Google is evil. The fine is a result of the mandate to the EU commision to penalise and hamstring US tech companies.
Counterpoint: Because of FireOS (not a "Google approved" Android fork) Amazon is no longer allowed to license any Google apps. As hinted by them missing from the OHA members list: http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/oha_members.html
How many phone companies can afford to do this?
Imagine a different scenario with a company you may not have a strong positive bias towards: Microsoft. Imagine all the OEM agreements are: "if you want to sell laptops with Windows you must agree to never sell laptops with other OSes". Or "if your software runs on any competing OS you are no longer allowed access to some proprietary and critical Windows API".
What many people refuse to understand is one simple fact: what Google did is illegal. And it's only their personal pro-Google bias that makes them ignore and excuse the behavior. Or even to claim that the law should change for them. The fact that so few people were outraged when Microsoft landed in the same hot water is irrefutable proof of this.
The same people that dismiss Android as excessively fragmented will also cheer the recent decision to punish them for trying to reign in that fragmentation. The mobile market is healthy right now, with meaningful choice and competition that has benefitted consumers on both leading platforms. Hopefully that will still be the case after this recent misguided attack by the EC.
There was no meaningful competition in the OS space when Microsoft was fined.
Do you think the mobile market would be less healthy without the OHA that the article criticizes; say, if Asus were allowed to build Fire Tablets for Amazon without risking its own Android phone business?
When you basically own the market you are active in the rules change for any company. Because with that kind of power you can easily force out any competition and then switch into neutral and coast.
And normally I had to endlessly argue with people about why competition is good. But now you have an excellent example in AMD vs. Intel where after years of stagnation and no price drop in sight Intel was persuaded into offering more cores at lower price by the simple fact that they suddenly had competition.
So what competition are you expecting to emerge as a result of this? Making a successful mobile operating system at this point is very very difficult. Even Microsoft couldn’t do it. If you handicap Android all you’re going to have left is iOS and cheap phones loaded with carrier crap.
The whole situation reminds me of progressives in the US that keep voting for people like Nader and Sanders and effectively make conservatives win. Life very rarely offers us our ideal options.
Did you actually read the article? Amazon's Fire OS could have been a very successful OS. If only it wasn't cut off from every API Google has to offer. And OEMs weren't blocked by Google from using it under threat that they will also be cut off.
Alibaba's Aliyun OS would likely have been a successful OS. If it wasn't in the same situation as Amazon where no OEM would touch it and the OS itself wasn't cut off from anything Google.
How is the removal of these artificial limitations "handicapping" Android? Wait, don't answer.
So my good sir, you are either a troll, or simply unwilling/unable to understand the issue. Reading the article would have answered every question you pretend to want the answer to.
Maybe if Google banned you from Gmail because you have an email address with the competition you would understand the situation better.
So it’s not enough that Google has given anybody that wants to compete in mobile a head start 80% of the way to a finalized product. They have to bring them up to 99% now? Sorry but decent maps, mail, and browser are just table stakes to the game. If you can’t develop those yourself you don’t have an “OS”, just a lazy rebranding of Android. At least Microsoft tried a little harder than that.
In the interest of fair competition yes, that's exactly what they have to do. Or play in a market with different laws.
Now were you this upset when Microsoft had not only to give other browser makers access to an OS that was on 90% of computers in the world, they had to take them to 99% with the "browser choice" screen that was basically free promotion for other browsers?
The law is clear, when you have a dominant position you are not allowed this kind of shenanigans. And Google was fully aware of that law. This situation isn't the negotiating type. And you are not actually looking for answers, you think trolling is useful somehow.
Microsoft was fined in 2009 for bundling IE with Windows. At the time IE had... 65.5% market share. Today's Google market share is larger than that in basically every segment that counts.
At that time Microsoft had almost complete dominance of the operating system market, at 93%, which is the point. There was nothing like the counterpart to it that iOS is to Android today.
Android may look like it's similarly dominant but in the most valuable markets it's way closer to parity and if you exclude the cheap low end devices it's actually a minority. Apple isn't raking in 85% of the profits in mobile for nothing.
Be careful what you wish for. A lot of improvements in iOS in recent years were inspired by Android.
At this time Android has 87% market share. And climbing.
The only thing I wish for is for none of these companies to be allowed to get the entire pie. Those improvements you talk about? They were done during a fight when they were more or less tied with the opponent. The closer you are to 100% market share, the fewer and far between they are. You want proof? Look at MS, or Intel. The moment they got dominance they coasted on it for years with no tangible improvement to anything else but their bottom line.
And you seem to think that I must be an iOS fan and probably hate Google. My main phone is Android and has been for 7 years now (although I tend to own and use one of each Windows, iOS, BB10). That's exactly why I want to see more free competition.
P.S. Google deals in user data, not selling phones. So a valuable market is one that gives them access to that data. One with lots of users. The phone they use is irrelevant.
It’s 55% in the US, 32% in Japan, and only 75% in Europe. It doesn’t make any sense to pretend that an iPhone and a low end Chinese burner phone are even remotely in the same category of device. And in other markets Apple only has a minority share because they’d rather protect their unprecedented profit margins than sell something those people can afford.
Those are the most valuable markets and even in those markets startups and developers target iOS first. If you kneecap Android you’re just putting Apple even more in the driver seat than they are today.
I still haven’t heard anyone explain how they think this recent ruling makes anything better. Who is going to benefit from this?
Notice how conspicuously absent is the price of the phone or the number of apps you choose to buy.
It's not just Android, it's also the Google apps that come with it (you know, the ones that an OEM loses access to if it tries to compete).
And the revenue is not a percentage from every expensive phone you buy in the US. It's the user data that phone, cheap or expensive, gives them access to. So as long as the phone is able to provide data about your location, browsing habits, emails, music preference, searches, etc. Google will never care if it's a cheap one.
Why do you think Google complies with every request it gets from the government of one of its biggest markets that you forgot to mention, China? Because access to that trove of user data is almost priceless. Why do you think the likes of Facebook want to give free internet in Africa? For a Nobel prize? No, it's because that's paving the way to accessing more user data.
> I still haven’t heard anyone explain how they think this recent ruling makes anything better. Who is going to benefit from this?
The customers. I see you are commenting a lot but probably didn't bother to read the article linked here on HN. You are asking questions that have very logical answers available everywhere you look, even in real life. Which makes me believe you're not actually trying to get an answer, you're suggesting that competition law is wrong. Possibly just when some companies have to suffer.
So as long as the phone is able to provide data about your location, browsing habits, emails, music preference, searches, etc. Google will never care if it's a cheap one.
User data of users with money is more valuable than data of users without. Of course Google cares about the price of the phone because it’s very closely correlated with how much disposable income the user has. It’s exactly the same reason app developers prioritize iOS even though it has a minority share and those developers of course never see a penny of the purchase price of the phone. iOS users are worth more because they spend more on devices AND services.
I think you and a lot of other commentators on this are letting your paranoia cloud your judgement. The concepts are not difficult to grasp.
And the revenue is not a percentage from every expensive phone you buy in the US. It's the user data that phone, cheap or expensive, gives them access to. So as long as the phone is able to provide data about your location, browsing habits, emails, music preference, searches, etc. Google will never care if it's a cheap one.
This is why I don’t understand how computer geeks can prefer Android over iOS. I understand not everyone can afford iOS products, but for the people who both know Google’s business model and can afford it, why wouldn’t someone prefer the simple transaction that Apple offers - you give them money and they give you stuff.
> if you want to sell laptops with Windows you must agree to never sell laptops with other OSes
When Nvidia tried this move with its GeForce Partner Program just this year[1], they faced a social media shitstorm (rightly so). Similarly, Intel received a record fine by the EU in 2009 because it "made payments to some manufacturers in exchange of postponing, canceling or putting restrictions on the introduction or distribution of AMD-based products"[2].
I don't see how Google's behavior is any better just because parts of Android are open source, in fact it strikes me as even more dishonest.
First, that analogy is wrong. Android manufacturers have sold many devices running other operating systems, both free and proprietary. Second, pre-emptively accusing anyone who disagrees with you of pro-Google bias is fallacious.
There are no complaints about "Windows fragmentation", on the other hand, because you can't fork Windows at all. Or any other major OS, such as macOS or iOS.
GPL components such as the Linux kernel must be open sourced, but other parts of Android could have been made proprietary. Carriers and manufacturers only cared that Android was free-as-in-beer, not free-as-in-speech. The flip side of complaints that Android's development isn't community driven enough is that it's hard to turn around and claim Android owes its success to the open source community either.
First: your understanding of my analogy is wrong. The moment you fork Android you are no longer allowed to license Google apps which everyone knows is "the money maker". As such the analogy where "the moment you compete you can no longer access the core money maker" (in my analogy - Windows) is perfectly valid.
Second: The point isn't that you disagree with me, it's that you disagree with the outcome of an official investigation under EU law that found that Google's practices are illegal. So I have that to support my opinion. Feel free to bring something stronger to support yours. You can't say it's not bias but then bring nothing to support that claim. ;)
P.S. >There are no complaints about "Windows fragmentation"
Android fragmentation is Google's own doing and is in no way solved by blocking OEMs from forking it. The forks are not Android, they are the likes of Fire OS and Aliyun OS. As such would never count under "Android fragmentation".
"Google was terrified that Apple would end up ruling the mobile space. So, to help in the fight against the iPhone at a time when Google had no mobile foothold whatsoever, Android was launched as an open source project."
This is not a quote from anyone because it's false.
Andy started Android well before anyone knew iPhone existed (years). I say existed only because I don't know offhand when Apple started iPhone internally, so i can't say for sure he started it before Apple did, but i suspect that's true as well.
Andy left Danger in 2003 to go start to create Android. The first iPhone was not released until mid-2007.
Google was terrified, but it was terrified the carriers would end up owning the mobile space, because they already were.
Andy also didn't open source Android to "get a foothold in something".
He's literally said his reasons before.
Given how poorly researched just this simple paragraph is (it literally can't be true), it would take a lot of time to point out how bad the rest is too.
That quote isn't attributed to anyone in the article. I took it to be the author's opinion.
According to Wikipedia, the first iPhone was released on June 29, 2007 and Android had its initial release on Septebmer 23, 2008 with the first hardware (the HTC Dream) released on October 20, 2008. It seems to me that the iPhone beat Android to market by a year and a bit.
I'm calling your bluff, I don't think you have any counter-arguments to the article and you're leading with your best argument already: nitpicking one paragraph.
But we had this discussion before and I pointed out that Google, an online services provider with zero mobile experience and no name recognition had a very poor chance of convincing manufacturers to go for their unproven, inferior to pretty much anything OS (including Symbian and Blackberry).
They might as well have just licensed Windows.
Google not charging a license for the OS and making it open source must have been a big part of what convinced them to pick Android instead. It's just very logical that they would be swayed by price and the possibility of changing Android if they wanted to.
"I'm calling your bluff, I don't think you have any counter-arguments to the article and you're leading with your best argument already: nitpicking one paragraph."
No, i'm just not bothering. Really.
For example: It quotes vic gundotra for why android happened, a man who literally was not at Google until after Android was released.
(and who Andy Rubin definitely did not give a shit about or chat with until much much later. Vic may have left an SVP, but he did not come in as one)
"But we had this discussion before and I pointed out that Google, an online services provider with zero mobile experience and no name recognition had a very poor chance of convincing manufacturers to go for their unproven, inferior to pretty much anything OS (including Symbian and Blackberry). They might as well have just licensed Windows."
It was definitely not inferior, but i'll ignore your opinion on this one and stick with the substance.
You conflate two pieces, one of which mattered, and one of which didn't:
"Google not charging a license for the OS and making it open source must have been a big part of what convinced them to pick Android instead. It's just very logical that they would be swayed by price and the possibility of changing Android if they wanted to."
The not charging was the main part of it (they actually mostly expect it to end up saving their low end from licensing fees), and yes, customization mattered. But ability for partners to have source is completely orthogonal to open sourcing.
In fact, most of the partners were heavily against open sourcing it, because they felt it would cause them to lose their value add. They also didn't want to have to deal with the compliance aspects of android OSS licensing even a little bit! They were also strongly against having to non assert patents.
I spent about a year of my life convincing htc and others it would be okay for them if we open source d it. (As mentioned elsewhere, because Andy wanted to help the world, not because it was critical to Google strategy). In fact, the open source release almost didn't happen at the same time as the SDK release, and was considered fairly secondary. The only critical piece was the compliance source.
So again, I don't know why everyone is so stuck on the open source. Closed source worked fine for partners, and still does. It's even what they want.
I'm going to state definitively a thing that is as true now as it was then:
The hardware manufacturers do not give a crap about Android being open source. They did not care then. They still don't care.
In fact, they still see it as a net negative. They want to be able to develop with Google in private branches that the other hardware manufacturers can't see.
I'm not sure why this is so provocative to people. It's not like you see these hardware manufacturers running around trying to be pillars of the OSS community.
In any case, I've said more than enough about this multiple times and I'm not going to spend more of a weekend arguing about this. You are welcome to rewrite history. Someday, I hope you are successful enough to experience this as well.
Re the quote(s): that's the least interesting part of the article, although assuming the quote is correct, I don't believe we should fault Ars because Google management gave misleading statements.
The core is the discussion about the various apps and how Google is using the GAS as a lever to control an open source OS to the point that it's both having its open source cake and eating it too. Well, until this EU decision that is.
I have seen first hand how Google's subsidizing of Android through ad dollars brought other mobile OS producers to their knees. This behaviour is anti-competitive and should not be allowed.
Few are "successful enough to experience this as well", because Google destroyed the mobile OS market: Windows Phone, FirefoxOS, webOS, Meego were all technically compelling alternatives that had potental to grow, but which couldn't compete with "free".
And since we're wishing each other things, I hope you will realise one day how much your employer is hurting our societies and realise that you were right there helping and defending them.
P.S: I have wrongly focused too much on OSS instead on the gratis + subsidized by ads part. I am willing to concede the point regarding OSS being a plus for manufacturers in light of what you said, if you claim that Google was willing to share all the sources with manufacturers while keeping the project closed.
This would basically have given them all the advantages, assuming they had a solid contract in place.
I'll keep this in mind when discussing this in the future, thanks.
"And since we're wishing each other things, I hope you will realise one day how much your employer is hurting our societies and realise that you were right there helping and defending them."
Sorry, that was a cheap shot on my part, i apologize.
FWIW: I am the type of person who if i felt what you say was true, i would just quit. So i suspect we just have different perspectives on reality here. Which is fine.
I think you also would find i am not in general a fan of corporations and corporate form.
For example: I think LLCs shouldn't exist (They aren't needed to promote innovation), and in general, that corporations exist to serve society and not the other way around. I think that's definitely gone off the rails in the past 100 years or so.
But this thing we are talking about, even looking back with the benefit of hindsight, i would say it was a good thing for society overall.
My employer in general, well, again, I think our perspectives are just different. On what my employer does, it's motivations, etc.
Actually that's mostly true. Rubin's open source Android didn't have to stay open source. But there was no choice, unlike Apple Google didn't plan on making the phone. So they had to have a lot of partnerships with OEMs and carriers.
And as Google was trying to sell that phone (with keyboard and no touchscreen) and OS to carriers Apple launched the iPhone. At this point Rubin and Google changed course and made their phone and OS less Blackberry and more iPhone because they were smart enough to realize that was the future.
The only way to make it work, to convince carriers and fight Apple, was to keep it open source. Or to sign it away to the carriers :).
Rubin himself said that the iPhone was the thing that made them reconsider their entire strategy and come up with the first Android phone as we know it.
If you're curious about the story there's a good book with all the behind the curtain details: Dogfight: How Apple and Google Went to War and Started a Revolution.
Rubin's open source Android didn't have to stay open source. But there was no choice, unlike Apple Google didn't plan on making the phone. So they had to have a lot of partnerships with OEMs and carriers.
There was nothing forcing Google to semi-open source Android. The competitive advantage of Android was that it was free not open source. Microsoft has licensed a closed source operating system to OEMs for decades.
Again, if you want to get details read that book. It's validated by statements from Google insiders and more.
The gist is that free wasn't enough. Right around the launch of the iPhone carriers didn't want to buy into anything that they didn't own. So carriers and OEMs got free reign to modify Android as they saw fit, not just get it for free. Which is why Rubin's Sidekick phone was only sold because T-Mobile agreed to rebrand it and sell it. And as far as anybody knew it was made by T-Mobile, not a Danger.
Carriers controlled the industry and it was only the first iPhone that made a dent in that.
What choice did carriers have besides accepting Android? The only other licensed OS was Windows Mobile. Being a closed sourced operating system doesn’t preclude OEMs and carriers from installing bloatware - see Windows.
How was Apple, a brand new entrant in the phone market, able to keep carrier crapware off of their phones from day one? The first Android phones came after the iPhone.
Microsoft was in the market for a lot longer and could command some exceptions. And maybe Jobs had a better negotiating position. After all Jobs was coming with his own phone and by all accounts the whole package was a compelling proposition.
Google on the other hand came with a proposition that kept shifting, and some uncertain partnerships with OEMs. I guess Rubin and Google just saw this as an opportunity to fast track Android's evolution and decided to keep it open. Just as Rubin always intended as per his own words.
As some apparent insider sources in Google said, open source gave carriers and OEMs confidence that Google wouldn't have absolute power over the Android ecosystem. Which is basically exactly what Google has now.
The push to accept Android actually came (ironically) from the threat of Apple. They managed to upend the traditional model and have a relationship directly with the users (customers would switch carriers for the iPhone). This didn't make AT&T happy in the long run. On the other hand the iPhone was also an AT&T exclusive. Which didn't make other carriers happy. And on the third hand other OEMs had nothing to compete with. In about 2 years both carriers and OEMs had started embracing Android because it gave them some peace of mind: they could customize phones, they could brand them, and the customer relationship would still be with the carrier.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. And that friend happened to be Android. And it was just the openness mentioned above that probably made the difference between Android and Windows.
"The only way to make it work, to convince carriers and fight Apple, was to keep it open source. Or to sign it away to the carriers :)."
Again, it's simply not. You are confusing having access to source with being open source. The partner were happy with closed source.
They did care somewhat that they had source. They definitely did not care if anyone else did, and didn't want anyone else to.
"If you're curious about the story there's a good book with all the behind the curtain details: Dogfight: How Apple and Google Went to War and Started a Revolution."
I literally was in the room, so i don't need the book :)
Take it up with Rubin. He seems to have had a different understanding. And he was the one negotiating with carriers for a long time.
And while I wasn't "in the room", Rubin said it himself in multiple interviews: he wanted to make an open source OS, not with access to source in order to appeal to exactly what the carriers wanted.
In fact every time Rubin talked about this he referred to Android as it was since its phone OS inception as open. It's always "his idea to create an open source OS for phones".
I'll just assume that one of you is embellishing his story. And in all honesty it could be either way, founder stories tend to get beautified over time.
You're not even rebutting him. He didn't say Rubin didn't want Android to be open source. He said Rubin's reasons for supporting open source were not the ones people attribute to him; that open sourcing Android had nothing to do with penetration among hardware vendors, who did not want Android to be open source.
Android wasn't developed to fend off Apple. It was developed to fend off Microsoft.
Andy Rubin was already in Vegas at CES to show off Android to carriers and device makers (back when it was going to be a Blackberry knockoff) when Steve Jobs was on stage to demo the iPhone.
>On the day Jobs announced the iPhone, the director of the Android team, Andy Rubin, was six hundred miles away in Las Vegas, on his way to a meeting with one of the myriad handset makers and carriers that descend on the city for the Consumer Electronics Show. Rubin was so astonished by what Jobs was unveiling that, on his way to a meeting, he had his driver pull over so that he could finish watching the webcast.
“Holy crap,” he said to one of his colleagues in the car. “I guess we’re not going to ship that phone.”
Google did change Android from being a Blackberry knockoff to being an iOS knockoff after seeing the iPhone demo, but Android was already long in development, because Google then feared Microsoft would engage in exactly the sort of behavior that Google was just found guilty of.
>Google executives were convinced that if Windows on mobile devices caught on, Microsoft would interfere with users’ access to Google search on those devices in favor of its own search engine. The U.S. government’s successful antitrust trial against Microsoft in the 1990s made it difficult for the company to use its monopoly on desktops and laptops to bully competitors. It could not, for example, make Microsoft’s the default search engine in Windows without giving users a choice between its search engine and those from Google, Yahoo, and others.
However, on smartphones, few rules governed how fiercely Microsoft could compete. It didn’t have a monopoly there. Google worried that if Microsoft made it hard enough to use Google search on its mobile devices and easy enough to use Microsoft search, many users would just switch search engines.
Only partially agree here. Ageee that Android wasnt a response to Apple, but don’t think it was a response to MS either.
It was a response to Oracle, and their tight grip of Java and the devices supported by it.
At the time, Java owned most devices and Oracle had tight licensing requirements (you could either GPL all your code or pay Oracle a nice fee). Android created a (semi) compatible runtime that allowed companies to side-skirt Oracles licensing requirements. This of course brought a huge lawsuit from Oracle to Google (touching on fundamentals legal issues on whether large APIs are copyrightable), but Google seems to have come out on top.
Android effectively unlocked Java from Oracle, turning it into a (sort-of) open platform, while gaining access to their huge developer base.
I'd have to point out that Oracle never developed a competing search engine and ad network the way Microsoft did, and their CEO had not been publicly quoted as threatening to "kill" Google.
Google's fears turned out to be unfounded (given the way things turned out) but it was Microsoft that they feared.
There was never a moment where MS’s search engine was seriously competitive with Googles, whether that’s 2003 or 2018. Google was worried, but it wasn’t about the search algorithm. It was who would control the platform that controlled which search to run.
Back then, MS clearly had the desktop (this was well before the widespread adoption of Chrome). Oracle/Java had a shaky but real lead in devices. The answer to desktop domination / MS was Chrome and taking the lead on new web standards that Google could control.
But the answer to device / Oracle domination was Android. If Google didn’t wage that battle, every Android advertisement would have a “powered by Oracle” slogan in the bottom corner.
Hindsight may tell us that Microsoft turned out to be a paper tiger, but as the article I cited points out, it was Microsoft that Google feared a the time.
A lot of Chinese no name phones come with 2.* era Android exactly because of that. Google provides no workable lawsuit threat free userspace apps for later versions of android.
I think they just began to feel what a big impediment it will be for them in the future. 2.* android is what IE6 was to Windows.
A lot of app authors still intentionally target 2.* era APIs because they clientele lives in countries where "Chindroid" is dominant.
More interestingly Google internally recognized that Skyhook's ability to locate the user's device may have been superior when Google's Steve Lee wrote, in an internal Google email:
Funny story. I loved smart phones. From the first Palm with cell access to the Treo 270 and 650. I bought the first iPhone and then spent tons of time in IRC working out with a large group how to unlock it as my company paid for T-mobile, not ATT. I loved my iPhone and had a few. At some point I bought a Galaxy Note. I loved the HW, but hated the OS. Did the whole custom ROM etc, but it was just never as clean as IOS. About this time I was at a small party at a friends who used to work at Google. There was the normal crowd of techies from most of the major players in the valley. I was talking to a few friends about how much I disliked the Android experience. There was this guy there that I did not know. He starts asking tons of question zeroing in on why I disliked Android, which came down to the lack of interface guidelines between apps and the like. This Q&A went on for like 30 minutes. At the end I asked him, “why do you care so much?” He said “Sorry, we have not been introduced, I am Andy and I run Android at Google.” The thing that impressed me very much was the depth and detail of the question and his understanding of what my issue was. He said at the end “you are right, we can do better”. Nice guy.
The entire ecosystem of Google and Arm are not open in any way, it's a one sided relationship and this kind of fake open source makes a mockery of the open source movement and the extraordinary value Google, Facebook and rest of the ecosystem have got from open source.
The apologists and hand wavers do a disservice to good faith discussion on open source and are more interested in moats, which is a legitimate objective but then build your own moat. Don't posture about being open. That's just corrupt.
Here is a quick test of value. Will Linux be affected in the slightest if Google dropped Android and moved to Fuschia today? It will not even be noticed.
Same with Google's use of Linux in the rest of their infrastructure. Will Linux be affected in the slightest if Google stops using Linux? Again no.
So Google is actually benefiting hugely from Linux and adding little to no value back. Open source licenses need to learn from this to prevent their abuse. Even better a new clause which forbids the use of open source for surveillance and stalking is sorely needed. Or if this is the result people will simply not be motivated to contribute.
Project Fuchsia is clearly their attempt at rectifying the mess they had with Android. No pesky GPLv2 licensing with the Linux kernel getting in the way, no ambiguity with Oracle... an OS completely owned by them.
Sure, it _might_ be OSS as well, but in the end, they'll be the ones to call the shots, and sure enough they won't include any of the secret sauce. Hopefully also for good by forcing providers and manufacturers to give some reasonable support to their phones and not be lazy with security patches, or better yet, completely lifting that kind of "responsibilities" off them.
52 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 97.3 ms ] threadGoogle could develop an open source project, relinquish all control and not even try to make money from the thing and people would still find fault and malice in it.
Whatever is open source about Android is good enough to produce the Fire devices and the bulk of the Chinese smartphone market.
But never mind all that the fine wasn't about which parts of Android are open source, the fine was predetermined, they just worked backwards and they didn't even come up with convincing reasons because many people are already convinced that tech firms are too big and Google is evil. The fine is a result of the mandate to the EU commision to penalise and hamstring US tech companies.
How many phone companies can afford to do this?
Imagine a different scenario with a company you may not have a strong positive bias towards: Microsoft. Imagine all the OEM agreements are: "if you want to sell laptops with Windows you must agree to never sell laptops with other OSes". Or "if your software runs on any competing OS you are no longer allowed access to some proprietary and critical Windows API".
What many people refuse to understand is one simple fact: what Google did is illegal. And it's only their personal pro-Google bias that makes them ignore and excuse the behavior. Or even to claim that the law should change for them. The fact that so few people were outraged when Microsoft landed in the same hot water is irrefutable proof of this.
There was no meaningful competition in the OS space when Microsoft was fined.
To say they can't be allowed to put restrictions on access to the app store and play services on a particular model is ridiculous though.
And normally I had to endlessly argue with people about why competition is good. But now you have an excellent example in AMD vs. Intel where after years of stagnation and no price drop in sight Intel was persuaded into offering more cores at lower price by the simple fact that they suddenly had competition.
The whole situation reminds me of progressives in the US that keep voting for people like Nader and Sanders and effectively make conservatives win. Life very rarely offers us our ideal options.
Alibaba's Aliyun OS would likely have been a successful OS. If it wasn't in the same situation as Amazon where no OEM would touch it and the OS itself wasn't cut off from anything Google.
How is the removal of these artificial limitations "handicapping" Android? Wait, don't answer.
So my good sir, you are either a troll, or simply unwilling/unable to understand the issue. Reading the article would have answered every question you pretend to want the answer to.
Maybe if Google banned you from Gmail because you have an email address with the competition you would understand the situation better.
Now were you this upset when Microsoft had not only to give other browser makers access to an OS that was on 90% of computers in the world, they had to take them to 99% with the "browser choice" screen that was basically free promotion for other browsers?
The law is clear, when you have a dominant position you are not allowed this kind of shenanigans. And Google was fully aware of that law. This situation isn't the negotiating type. And you are not actually looking for answers, you think trolling is useful somehow.
Android may look like it's similarly dominant but in the most valuable markets it's way closer to parity and if you exclude the cheap low end devices it's actually a minority. Apple isn't raking in 85% of the profits in mobile for nothing.
Be careful what you wish for. A lot of improvements in iOS in recent years were inspired by Android.
The only thing I wish for is for none of these companies to be allowed to get the entire pie. Those improvements you talk about? They were done during a fight when they were more or less tied with the opponent. The closer you are to 100% market share, the fewer and far between they are. You want proof? Look at MS, or Intel. The moment they got dominance they coasted on it for years with no tangible improvement to anything else but their bottom line.
And you seem to think that I must be an iOS fan and probably hate Google. My main phone is Android and has been for 7 years now (although I tend to own and use one of each Windows, iOS, BB10). That's exactly why I want to see more free competition.
P.S. Google deals in user data, not selling phones. So a valuable market is one that gives them access to that data. One with lots of users. The phone they use is irrelevant.
Those are the most valuable markets and even in those markets startups and developers target iOS first. If you kneecap Android you’re just putting Apple even more in the driver seat than they are today.
I still haven’t heard anyone explain how they think this recent ruling makes anything better. Who is going to benefit from this?
Notice how conspicuously absent is the price of the phone or the number of apps you choose to buy.
It's not just Android, it's also the Google apps that come with it (you know, the ones that an OEM loses access to if it tries to compete).
And the revenue is not a percentage from every expensive phone you buy in the US. It's the user data that phone, cheap or expensive, gives them access to. So as long as the phone is able to provide data about your location, browsing habits, emails, music preference, searches, etc. Google will never care if it's a cheap one.
Why do you think Google complies with every request it gets from the government of one of its biggest markets that you forgot to mention, China? Because access to that trove of user data is almost priceless. Why do you think the likes of Facebook want to give free internet in Africa? For a Nobel prize? No, it's because that's paving the way to accessing more user data.
> I still haven’t heard anyone explain how they think this recent ruling makes anything better. Who is going to benefit from this?
The customers. I see you are commenting a lot but probably didn't bother to read the article linked here on HN. You are asking questions that have very logical answers available everywhere you look, even in real life. Which makes me believe you're not actually trying to get an answer, you're suggesting that competition law is wrong. Possibly just when some companies have to suffer.
User data of users with money is more valuable than data of users without. Of course Google cares about the price of the phone because it’s very closely correlated with how much disposable income the user has. It’s exactly the same reason app developers prioritize iOS even though it has a minority share and those developers of course never see a penny of the purchase price of the phone. iOS users are worth more because they spend more on devices AND services.
I think you and a lot of other commentators on this are letting your paranoia cloud your judgement. The concepts are not difficult to grasp.
This is why I don’t understand how computer geeks can prefer Android over iOS. I understand not everyone can afford iOS products, but for the people who both know Google’s business model and can afford it, why wouldn’t someone prefer the simple transaction that Apple offers - you give them money and they give you stuff.
When Nvidia tried this move with its GeForce Partner Program just this year[1], they faced a social media shitstorm (rightly so). Similarly, Intel received a record fine by the EU in 2009 because it "made payments to some manufacturers in exchange of postponing, canceling or putting restrictions on the introduction or distribution of AMD-based products"[2].
I don't see how Google's behavior is any better just because parts of Android are open source, in fact it strikes me as even more dishonest.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/7/17326122/nvidia-geforce-pa... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/business/global/14compete...
There are no complaints about "Windows fragmentation", on the other hand, because you can't fork Windows at all. Or any other major OS, such as macOS or iOS.
GPL components such as the Linux kernel must be open sourced, but other parts of Android could have been made proprietary. Carriers and manufacturers only cared that Android was free-as-in-beer, not free-as-in-speech. The flip side of complaints that Android's development isn't community driven enough is that it's hard to turn around and claim Android owes its success to the open source community either.
Second: The point isn't that you disagree with me, it's that you disagree with the outcome of an official investigation under EU law that found that Google's practices are illegal. So I have that to support my opinion. Feel free to bring something stronger to support yours. You can't say it's not bias but then bring nothing to support that claim. ;)
P.S. >There are no complaints about "Windows fragmentation"
Android fragmentation is Google's own doing and is in no way solved by blocking OEMs from forking it. The forks are not Android, they are the likes of Fire OS and Aliyun OS. As such would never count under "Android fragmentation".
This is not a quote from anyone because it's false. Andy started Android well before anyone knew iPhone existed (years). I say existed only because I don't know offhand when Apple started iPhone internally, so i can't say for sure he started it before Apple did, but i suspect that's true as well.
Andy left Danger in 2003 to go start to create Android. The first iPhone was not released until mid-2007.
Google was terrified, but it was terrified the carriers would end up owning the mobile space, because they already were.
Andy also didn't open source Android to "get a foothold in something".
He's literally said his reasons before.
Given how poorly researched just this simple paragraph is (it literally can't be true), it would take a lot of time to point out how bad the rest is too.
I am also pretty sure that Andy’s actions have absolutely no relevance here.
I think that this first sentence is actually super true and maybe even captivating to read the rest..
Google CEO I think has admitted publicly that Google’s mobile-phone efforts at first were just by a simple fear of Apple :)
According to Wikipedia, the first iPhone was released on June 29, 2007 and Android had its initial release on Septebmer 23, 2008 with the first hardware (the HTC Dream) released on October 20, 2008. It seems to me that the iPhone beat Android to market by a year and a bit.
Google is absolutely at fault here and EU is the first of what should be many more cases against them.
But we had this discussion before and I pointed out that Google, an online services provider with zero mobile experience and no name recognition had a very poor chance of convincing manufacturers to go for their unproven, inferior to pretty much anything OS (including Symbian and Blackberry). They might as well have just licensed Windows.
Google not charging a license for the OS and making it open source must have been a big part of what convinced them to pick Android instead. It's just very logical that they would be swayed by price and the possibility of changing Android if they wanted to.
Why on earth would they pick Android otherwise?
No, i'm just not bothering. Really.
For example: It quotes vic gundotra for why android happened, a man who literally was not at Google until after Android was released. (and who Andy Rubin definitely did not give a shit about or chat with until much much later. Vic may have left an SVP, but he did not come in as one)
"But we had this discussion before and I pointed out that Google, an online services provider with zero mobile experience and no name recognition had a very poor chance of convincing manufacturers to go for their unproven, inferior to pretty much anything OS (including Symbian and Blackberry). They might as well have just licensed Windows."
It was definitely not inferior, but i'll ignore your opinion on this one and stick with the substance.
You conflate two pieces, one of which mattered, and one of which didn't: "Google not charging a license for the OS and making it open source must have been a big part of what convinced them to pick Android instead. It's just very logical that they would be swayed by price and the possibility of changing Android if they wanted to."
The not charging was the main part of it (they actually mostly expect it to end up saving their low end from licensing fees), and yes, customization mattered. But ability for partners to have source is completely orthogonal to open sourcing.
In fact, most of the partners were heavily against open sourcing it, because they felt it would cause them to lose their value add. They also didn't want to have to deal with the compliance aspects of android OSS licensing even a little bit! They were also strongly against having to non assert patents.
I spent about a year of my life convincing htc and others it would be okay for them if we open source d it. (As mentioned elsewhere, because Andy wanted to help the world, not because it was critical to Google strategy). In fact, the open source release almost didn't happen at the same time as the SDK release, and was considered fairly secondary. The only critical piece was the compliance source.
So again, I don't know why everyone is so stuck on the open source. Closed source worked fine for partners, and still does. It's even what they want.
I'm going to state definitively a thing that is as true now as it was then: The hardware manufacturers do not give a crap about Android being open source. They did not care then. They still don't care.
In fact, they still see it as a net negative. They want to be able to develop with Google in private branches that the other hardware manufacturers can't see.
I'm not sure why this is so provocative to people. It's not like you see these hardware manufacturers running around trying to be pillars of the OSS community.
In any case, I've said more than enough about this multiple times and I'm not going to spend more of a weekend arguing about this. You are welcome to rewrite history. Someday, I hope you are successful enough to experience this as well.
The core is the discussion about the various apps and how Google is using the GAS as a lever to control an open source OS to the point that it's both having its open source cake and eating it too. Well, until this EU decision that is.
I have seen first hand how Google's subsidizing of Android through ad dollars brought other mobile OS producers to their knees. This behaviour is anti-competitive and should not be allowed. Few are "successful enough to experience this as well", because Google destroyed the mobile OS market: Windows Phone, FirefoxOS, webOS, Meego were all technically compelling alternatives that had potental to grow, but which couldn't compete with "free".
And since we're wishing each other things, I hope you will realise one day how much your employer is hurting our societies and realise that you were right there helping and defending them.
P.S: I have wrongly focused too much on OSS instead on the gratis + subsidized by ads part. I am willing to concede the point regarding OSS being a plus for manufacturers in light of what you said, if you claim that Google was willing to share all the sources with manufacturers while keeping the project closed. This would basically have given them all the advantages, assuming they had a solid contract in place. I'll keep this in mind when discussing this in the future, thanks.
Sorry, that was a cheap shot on my part, i apologize.
FWIW: I am the type of person who if i felt what you say was true, i would just quit. So i suspect we just have different perspectives on reality here. Which is fine.
I think you also would find i am not in general a fan of corporations and corporate form. For example: I think LLCs shouldn't exist (They aren't needed to promote innovation), and in general, that corporations exist to serve society and not the other way around. I think that's definitely gone off the rails in the past 100 years or so.
But this thing we are talking about, even looking back with the benefit of hindsight, i would say it was a good thing for society overall.
My employer in general, well, again, I think our perspectives are just different. On what my employer does, it's motivations, etc.
And as Google was trying to sell that phone (with keyboard and no touchscreen) and OS to carriers Apple launched the iPhone. At this point Rubin and Google changed course and made their phone and OS less Blackberry and more iPhone because they were smart enough to realize that was the future.
The only way to make it work, to convince carriers and fight Apple, was to keep it open source. Or to sign it away to the carriers :).
Rubin himself said that the iPhone was the thing that made them reconsider their entire strategy and come up with the first Android phone as we know it.
If you're curious about the story there's a good book with all the behind the curtain details: Dogfight: How Apple and Google Went to War and Started a Revolution.
There was nothing forcing Google to semi-open source Android. The competitive advantage of Android was that it was free not open source. Microsoft has licensed a closed source operating system to OEMs for decades.
The gist is that free wasn't enough. Right around the launch of the iPhone carriers didn't want to buy into anything that they didn't own. So carriers and OEMs got free reign to modify Android as they saw fit, not just get it for free. Which is why Rubin's Sidekick phone was only sold because T-Mobile agreed to rebrand it and sell it. And as far as anybody knew it was made by T-Mobile, not a Danger. Carriers controlled the industry and it was only the first iPhone that made a dent in that.
How was Apple, a brand new entrant in the phone market, able to keep carrier crapware off of their phones from day one? The first Android phones came after the iPhone.
Google on the other hand came with a proposition that kept shifting, and some uncertain partnerships with OEMs. I guess Rubin and Google just saw this as an opportunity to fast track Android's evolution and decided to keep it open. Just as Rubin always intended as per his own words.
As some apparent insider sources in Google said, open source gave carriers and OEMs confidence that Google wouldn't have absolute power over the Android ecosystem. Which is basically exactly what Google has now.
The push to accept Android actually came (ironically) from the threat of Apple. They managed to upend the traditional model and have a relationship directly with the users (customers would switch carriers for the iPhone). This didn't make AT&T happy in the long run. On the other hand the iPhone was also an AT&T exclusive. Which didn't make other carriers happy. And on the third hand other OEMs had nothing to compete with. In about 2 years both carriers and OEMs had started embracing Android because it gave them some peace of mind: they could customize phones, they could brand them, and the customer relationship would still be with the carrier. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. And that friend happened to be Android. And it was just the openness mentioned above that probably made the difference between Android and Windows.
Again, it's simply not. You are confusing having access to source with being open source. The partner were happy with closed source.
They did care somewhat that they had source. They definitely did not care if anyone else did, and didn't want anyone else to.
"If you're curious about the story there's a good book with all the behind the curtain details: Dogfight: How Apple and Google Went to War and Started a Revolution."
I literally was in the room, so i don't need the book :)
And while I wasn't "in the room", Rubin said it himself in multiple interviews: he wanted to make an open source OS, not with access to source in order to appeal to exactly what the carriers wanted.
In fact every time Rubin talked about this he referred to Android as it was since its phone OS inception as open. It's always "his idea to create an open source OS for phones".
I'll just assume that one of you is embellishing his story. And in all honesty it could be either way, founder stories tend to get beautified over time.
Android wasn't developed to fend off Apple. It was developed to fend off Microsoft.
Andy Rubin was already in Vegas at CES to show off Android to carriers and device makers (back when it was going to be a Blackberry knockoff) when Steve Jobs was on stage to demo the iPhone.
>On the day Jobs announced the iPhone, the director of the Android team, Andy Rubin, was six hundred miles away in Las Vegas, on his way to a meeting with one of the myriad handset makers and carriers that descend on the city for the Consumer Electronics Show. Rubin was so astonished by what Jobs was unveiling that, on his way to a meeting, he had his driver pull over so that he could finish watching the webcast.
“Holy crap,” he said to one of his colleagues in the car. “I guess we’re not going to ship that phone.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/the-d...
Google did change Android from being a Blackberry knockoff to being an iOS knockoff after seeing the iPhone demo, but Android was already long in development, because Google then feared Microsoft would engage in exactly the sort of behavior that Google was just found guilty of.
>Google executives were convinced that if Windows on mobile devices caught on, Microsoft would interfere with users’ access to Google search on those devices in favor of its own search engine. The U.S. government’s successful antitrust trial against Microsoft in the 1990s made it difficult for the company to use its monopoly on desktops and laptops to bully competitors. It could not, for example, make Microsoft’s the default search engine in Windows without giving users a choice between its search engine and those from Google, Yahoo, and others.
However, on smartphones, few rules governed how fiercely Microsoft could compete. It didn’t have a monopoly there. Google worried that if Microsoft made it hard enough to use Google search on its mobile devices and easy enough to use Microsoft search, many users would just switch search engines.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/the-d...
It was a response to Oracle, and their tight grip of Java and the devices supported by it.
At the time, Java owned most devices and Oracle had tight licensing requirements (you could either GPL all your code or pay Oracle a nice fee). Android created a (semi) compatible runtime that allowed companies to side-skirt Oracles licensing requirements. This of course brought a huge lawsuit from Oracle to Google (touching on fundamentals legal issues on whether large APIs are copyrightable), but Google seems to have come out on top.
Android effectively unlocked Java from Oracle, turning it into a (sort-of) open platform, while gaining access to their huge developer base.
Google's fears turned out to be unfounded (given the way things turned out) but it was Microsoft that they feared.
Back then, MS clearly had the desktop (this was well before the widespread adoption of Chrome). Oracle/Java had a shaky but real lead in devices. The answer to desktop domination / MS was Chrome and taking the lead on new web standards that Google could control.
But the answer to device / Oracle domination was Android. If Google didn’t wage that battle, every Android advertisement would have a “powered by Oracle” slogan in the bottom corner.
Hindsight may tell us that Microsoft turned out to be a paper tiger, but as the article I cited points out, it was Microsoft that Google feared a the time.
I think they just began to feel what a big impediment it will be for them in the future. 2.* android is what IE6 was to Windows.
A lot of app authors still intentionally target 2.* era APIs because they clientele lives in countries where "Chindroid" is dominant.
Google really, really, really disliked the idea of an OEM installing Skyhook and setting it as the default location service on their devices.
Ultimately, Skyhook sued and won a settlement from Google. IMHO, pretty ugly behavior from Google.
https://www.engadget.com/2011/05/10/internal-emails-reveal-g...
https://www.geek.com/mobile/google-emails-reveal-anti-compet...
More interestingly Google internally recognized that Skyhook's ability to locate the user's device may have been superior when Google's Steve Lee wrote, in an internal Google email:
Skyhook's accuracy is better than ours
http://www.businessinsider.com/google-skyhook-emails-2011-5#...
The apologists and hand wavers do a disservice to good faith discussion on open source and are more interested in moats, which is a legitimate objective but then build your own moat. Don't posture about being open. That's just corrupt.
Here is a quick test of value. Will Linux be affected in the slightest if Google dropped Android and moved to Fuschia today? It will not even be noticed.
Same with Google's use of Linux in the rest of their infrastructure. Will Linux be affected in the slightest if Google stops using Linux? Again no.
So Google is actually benefiting hugely from Linux and adding little to no value back. Open source licenses need to learn from this to prevent their abuse. Even better a new clause which forbids the use of open source for surveillance and stalking is sorely needed. Or if this is the result people will simply not be motivated to contribute.
Sure, it _might_ be OSS as well, but in the end, they'll be the ones to call the shots, and sure enough they won't include any of the secret sauce. Hopefully also for good by forcing providers and manufacturers to give some reasonable support to their phones and not be lazy with security patches, or better yet, completely lifting that kind of "responsibilities" off them.