Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Android Businesses Cellphones Chrome EU Google The Almighty Buck Technology

Google Warns Android Might Not Remain Free Because of EU Decision (theverge.com) 280

Posted by BeauHD from the carefully-balanced dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: The EU's decision to force Google to unbundle its Chrome and search apps from Android may have some implications for the future of Android's free business model. In a blog post defending Google's decision to bundle search and Chrome apps on Android, Google CEO Sundar Pichai outlines the company's response to the EU's $5 billion fine. Pichai highlights the fact a typical Android user will "install around 50 apps themselves" and can easily remove preinstalled apps. But if Google is prevented from bundling its own apps, that will upset the Android ecosystem.

"If phone makers and mobile network operators couldn't include our apps on their wide range of devices, it would upset the balance of the Android ecosystem," explains Pichai, carefully avoiding the fact that phone makers will no longer be forced to bundle these apps but can still choose to do so. Pichai then hints that the free Android business model has relied on this app bundling. "So far, the Android business model has meant that we haven't had to charge phone makers for our technology, or depend on a tightly controlled distribution model," says Pichai. "But we are concerned that today's decision will upset the careful balance that we have struck with Android, and that it sends a troubling signal in favor of proprietary systems over open platforms." While it may be a bluff to court popular opinion, Google is threatening to license Android to phone makers. "[I]f phone makers can bundle their own browsers instead of Chrome and point search queries toward rivals, then that could have implications for Google's mobile ad revenue, which constitutes more than 50 percent of the company's net digital ad revenue," reports The Verge.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Warns Android Might Not Remain Free Because of EU Decision More

Google Warns Android Might Not Remain Free Because of EU Decision

Comments Filter:

  • I can't remove pre-installed apps (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday July 18, 2018 @05:33PM (#56970738)
    my carrier locks them to my phone by marking them as system applications. At one point I had an Android phone with a demo of a Puzzle Bobble clone that was marked as a critical system app. Pissed me off because I wanted the 127 mb of space back (which is a hell of a lot for a Puzzle Bobble Clone). To be fair I'm an American though.

    Meanwhile I don't think Europeans are going to care if they have to pay $10 bucks for Android, and I don't think Google will be able to charge much more than that.

    • Re:I can't remove pre-installed apps (Score:4, Informative)

      by AncalagonTotof ( 1025748 ) on Wednesday July 18, 2018 @05:44PM (#56970810)

      Same here, I can't git rid of Evernote and some other apps.
      I think it's in the last Samsung update of the Galaxy Note 4. Phone is not carrier locked and never was.
      I did a complete reinstall last December. Before that, with the original rom from 2015 + periodic update, I could deactivate Evernote.
      Not any more.

      • Re: I can't remove pre-installed apps (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I don't understand all this? Can someone educate me? I use iPhone, but I understand Android is open source. Can you just download the proper Android OS from its Git and do whatever you want? I've done so in a VM and I don't understand all the upgrade lockdowns and controls everyone seems to complain about.

        • Re: I can't remove pre-installed apps (Score:5, Informative)

          by sexconker ( 1179573 ) on Wednesday July 18, 2018 @06:41PM (#56971090)

          You'd have to unlock your bootloader, then find an image that works on your phone, or wait for someone with more time on their hands to build a custom image based on Android, the drivers / firmware / etc. for your specific hardware (and possibly carrier), etc. without the bloat.

          Then you've got to wait for someone else to reintegrate the software features the OEM put into the phone if you care about them. Shit like support for dual screens on LG displays, support for Samsung's S-Pen, whatever skin your OEM used if you liked that, etc.

          Then you've got to hope and pray NFC and the fingerprint sensor work if you care about that.

          Then you find you can't log in to Snapchat and you can't play Pokemon GO because your phone no longer passes Google's "Safety Net" check.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rtb61 ( 674572 )

          Android is a Java layer on top of a Linux distribution. Google are simply waffling shite because they are stuck. Do crappy shite with the Java layer and the underpinning Linux distribution that makes it work will take over. Google are just being a pack of whiny babies are there marketing bullshit about it being a world dominating technology company, is just exposed as marketing bullshit and Google is nothing more that the people's bitch and it is being brought back under control in a much reduced marketing

      • If you can be arsed messing about with ROMs you can download the correct ROM for your phone and country from here. [sammobile.com]
        I am pretty sure they come without any "extras" (at least the S4 ROM I got had none).

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      This exactly. It's why I switched back to an iPhone for good.

    • I agree, that's one reason why I ditched HTC in favor of a CAT S60.

    • Re:I can't remove pre-installed apps (Score:5, Insightful)

      by shel10 ( 953848 ) on Wednesday July 18, 2018 @06:15PM (#56970970)
      Pre-installed apps can not be removed. At best you can deactivate, but with every update, they come back. I've got at least 5 phone books created by these apps, and can't get to a single phone book and calendar.

    • Re:I can't remove pre-installed apps (Score:4, Informative)

      by grep -v '.*' * ( 780312 ) on Wednesday July 18, 2018 @06:29PM (#56971028)

      my carrier locks them to my phone by marking them as system applications

      Here's something to try: Debloater [xda-developers.com]. It DOES NOT REMOVE the application and free up "ROM space", however it disables and effectively removes it from use. The app won't run, the icon disappears from the menu, all that.

      It works on UNrooted phones, although you do have to have a minimum Android version (v4.4 I think) and turn on Debugging while you're using it. Works fine on my phones. You can turn things off and then back on if you want. You can PROBABLY also use it to disable the ADB debugging feature, in which case it's either Really like your Current Configuration, or it's System Reset Time. (Oops, don't do that.)

      Personally, I liked just having the icon "go away." There's only one BlockBuster left in the US -- it's a 20-hour drive for me to get there so I doubt I'll be running the vendor-forced-install app very much. Again it's not truly UNINSTALLED, just invisible. Nearly the same thing.

    • Meanwhile I don't think Europeans are going to care if they have to pay $10 bucks for Android, and I don't think Google will be able to charge much more than that.

      That won't be charged to the customer but to the phone manufacturer. And even though if users wouldn't mind to pay 10 bucks for a decent phone OS, manufacturers don't want to lose that from their margin. They will rather use some free crap OS instead and keep the price point.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

      It's 100% bluff, Google aren't going to stop giving away Android for free, they want it to be used as much as possible, remember they are paying some carriers to make sure they install it, of course they're not going to reverse that.

      50% of their ad revenue. It wouldn't make any sense to risk that.

      • On the other hand, they are being more honest than the company who said "it's impossible to remove Internet Explorer, it's an integral part of our operating system."

    • Yeah, there are a ton of apps that are clearly either non-essential or redundant, and what's worse - they come in phones/tablets that just have 16GB of storage. One can very quickly run out of space, and even in Android Marshmallow and beyond, even if one formats an SD card as an internal card, there are some apps that just insist on residing in the real internal storage, just won't move.

  • that is not a bad thing at all.
    lets see how google business model changes beyond empty threats.

  • Could they make two versions? (Score:3)

    by fred6666 ( 4718031 ) on Wednesday July 18, 2018 @05:34PM (#56970748)

    A free version, bundled with Google search and Chrome
    A paid version, without them.

    Next question, could the paid version be sold for $1000/device? What price would be considered reasonable? $50?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by zlives ( 2009072 )

      1 million dollars

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AvitarX ( 172628 )

      I'm guessing the answer is no they can't do that, since essentially they already do that.

      The issue (as I understand it) requires to either:
      1) use a bare version (no google apps including app store)
      2) have all google apps

      I honestly don't see the big deal, there are plenty of devices without the app store available (at least in my tablet shopping), but apparently vendors to be allowed to have the store without Chrome etc. Maybe with Play Services it's becoming a bigger deal though (not having Play Services re

      • Try to use an amazon tablet. If you don't install the play store, there is a limited selection of apps and nearly all the key apps require play services for notifications to work properly.

        If you install the play store, it conflicts with the amazon store over time and causes the device to occasionally slow down or restart on a regular basis.

        If you install some of the play store alternatives that attempt to get around google licensing and provide play services .....you might get 75% of the apps you need, but

        • I've been using Amazon Fire tablets for me, my wife, and kids for about two years now (at least). Yes, Amazon has their own app store (which is second-rate at best), but I've had no trouble installing apps from Google Play, just followed a simple tutorial on what to install from where and it runs side by side with the Amazon app store. I seem to recall one case where Amazon app store tried to update over a Google Play app, but in general the two have played well together. Never noticed any "slow down" and c

      • The problem is not so much that Google demand that all the apps are installed.

        The problem is that Google demand that the phones ship with their apps as the default app. So a vendor can't install Firefox and set it as the default browser. Neither can they install "Here Map" as default mapping application.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      If they want to to pay another few billions to the EU every month, sure.

  • Two things (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Wednesday July 18, 2018 @05:35PM (#56970754) Journal

    First, Android is not free. You pay for it with your personal information. If it's free as in "open", then Google should license it as such instead of fucking around.

    Second, if Android is worth anything, people will pay for it with money.

    Third (bonus), I do not want my operating system to be an "ecosystem". I want it to be an operating system and get the fuck out of my way.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      First, AOSP is, it's licensed under a combination of GNU 2.0 (Linux kernel) and Apache 2.0. The problem is the Google Apps package that's required to access Google's app store.

      Second, the people wouldn't, the manufacturers would

      Third, that's what AOSP is for.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by PopeRatzo ( 965947 )

        First, AOSP is, it's licensed under a combination of GNU 2.0 (Linux kernel) and Apache 2.0. The problem is the Google Apps package that's required to access Google's app store.

        So, it's free, but with restrictions. Which doesn't sound like "free" to me.

        Second, the people wouldn't, the manufacturers would

        The manufacturers don't pay for shit. Where do you think the money comes from? Every penny, at every step in the development and manufacturing process of an Android device is coming from consumers. This i

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • Same with taxes...consumers pay all taxes.

            Depends on how they're structured. It can be done so only profits are taxed. This is the right way, since profit itself is nothing but a tax on productivity. This is why capital gains taxes are so important.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by schnell ( 163007 )

              Same with taxes...consumers pay all taxes.

              Depends on how they're structured. It can be done so only profits are taxed.

              I'll wait for you to logically trace your statement back through where profits come from, which is revenue; and where revenue comes from, which is consumers.

              You do get that - at least in the US - only profits are taxed today already? Is there something you are proposing differently that somehow does not get passed back to consumer revenue? If so, the Nobel economics committee is eagerly awaiting your paper.

              Utterly unrelated point: Dear PopeRatzo: I have seen your posts for years on Slashdot and disagreed wi

              • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

                by PopeRatzo ( 965947 )

                I'll wait for you to logically trace your statement back through where profits come from, which is revenue; and where revenue comes from, which is consumers.

                The money is from consumers, but it's not taxed until it is transformed alchemically, into profits.

                My point is, that the notion that "rising taxes means rising prices" is provably not true. That's where you're going with this, right? "Consumers pay all taxes as higher prices." The problem is that you will learn in any economics course that just is no

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jrumney ( 197329 )

          First, AOSP is, it's licensed under a combination of GNU 2.0 (Linux kernel) and Apache 2.0. The problem is the Google Apps package that's required to access Google's app store.

          So, it's free, but with restrictions. Which doesn't sound like "free" to me.

          Third, that's what AOSP is for.

          You mean the "free, but with restrictions" AOSP?

          AOSP does not include the restricted Google Apps package.

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • Make sense?

            OK, I think I get iit. If I understand correctly, in making the AOSP open, they only gave away the parts of Android that nobody really cares about. But now,, according to this article, if the EU forces Google to unbundle the parts of Android that people actually care about, it might decide it doesn't really want AOSP to be open after all. Or is that wrong and AOSP would still be free and Google would start charging somehow for Chrome and Google search?

            OK. I'm confused again. Can you give some

            • "If I understand correctly, in making the AOSP open, they only gave away the parts of Android that nobody really cares about."

              Google had to maintain many versions of their apps because handset makers don't bother to update phones which are no longer selling, nor in fact do they typically update phones which ARE selling (why dick with a profitable product?) So they moved a bunch of the functionality those apps depended upon into Google play services. But work-alike apps don't require that, so as long as you

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by djinn6 ( 1868030 )
              The play store and all of the bundled apps are currently free (as in beer). Google can start charging for that. ASOP is free (as in libre), and Google cannot charge for that. What's so difficult about this concept?

      • Re:Two things (Score:5, Informative)

        by tepples ( 727027 ) <tepplesNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday July 18, 2018 @06:53PM (#56971150) Homepage Journal

        The real problem is that a single manufacturer isn't allowed to build both phones with Google Apps and phones with only AOSP.

    • Well, you're one of few. Android has struggled to make inroads into real profit because Apple has a more solid ecosystem. As Android has increased the solidity of its ecosystem, that struggle has eased and high-end Android models are starting to compete though none yet commands Apple's profit percentages. If the ecosystem returns to its earlier fragmentation, the gains will be lost.

      The market has made it clear that ecosystem is everything.

      Google should split Android off and fully divest themselves of it. Th

      • Well, you're one of few.

        Yes, that's true. I'm one of the proud, too.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Well, you're one of few. Android has struggled to make inroads into real profit because Apple has a more solid ecosystem.

        Here is a hint: The whole "mobile phone" thing is critical infrastructure. If you make more than modest profits off critical infrastructure, you are doing it wrong.

        • Mobile phones may be. Smart phones are not. There are still plenty of people that get along with simple mobile phones.
          • ..and many of those people pay significantly less than $10/month, let alone what the people under the monopoly are paying.

    • Re:Two things (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 18, 2018 @06:09PM (#56970944)

      Google calls it free and open source but then puts all restrictions. Samsung cannot sell any phone with forked version of Android (on any model) otherwise they won't get Google Playstore. All manufacturers have to bundle Google provided apps and make Google as default search engine. How is that for an open source free OS? It got the popularity based on this and it used this as its defense against Oracle for using Java lang for app development. Theoretically, it may be free and open source but Google is using its monopoly to make it "my way or no way" and essentially controlling competitors using non-monetary tools. EU is right in restraining Google from using its monopoly to bundle all the apps. Remember, Google supported verdict against MS which restricted MS from using its OS monopoly to distribute browser.

    • Glad to see you got the insightful mod you deserved, even though your writing is kind of sloppy. In terms of improving your presentation, perhaps you should focus on your Subject: line? That one was not helpful, and less so since your strongest point was your third one, which you apparently added at the end...

      Minor disagreement with your first point, because I think we also pay with money, if less directly. If the companies (AKA corporate cancers) were failing to extract our money, then they would not be pa

      • If the companies (AKA corporate cancers) were failing to extract our money, then they would not be paying the google for the advertising.

        Naturally. In a consumer economy, all the money comes from consumers. Every penny. Investors wouldn't stick around if they didn't believe consumers would eventually pay for everything and then some.

        That's the whole idea of a consumer-based economy. We pay all the bills.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by shanen ( 462549 )

          Yes, but the part that really pisses me off is the FAKE money they "generate" on top of it. Sticking with the example of the google, the stock price is a total fantasy based on dreams of how much of the consumers' money they can someday control, but the google's CFO-side gamblers can use that fantasy to gamble with vast sums of FAKE value, for example buying other companies and technologies on the dreams of yet more profit.

          At some point the house of stock certificates has to crash. And once again the taxpay

          • And once again the taxpaying consumers will be on the hook to pick up the pieces because the YUGE corporate cancers are "too big to fail".

            The solution is to vote in people that wont bail out the bad decisions of others. The media wont like it and will do everything they can to stop it. They will label these people as evil. They will tell you not to vote for them, helpfully informing you that they have no chance to win and to please don't waste your vote.

            If by some miracle you do elect someone like that in spite of the media opposition, the media will then work non-stop, even for years, to ruin that person that wont bail out the corporation

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Indeed. For Linux distros, this works reasonably well already. The only sane thing is to eventually go to the same model. That would also fix the update-problem that Android has.

    • Excellently put. At the end of the day, this whole situation reveals .. problems... with the Google/Android business model: your first point. To your second, perhaps they would pay for it with money, but now that the precedent of "free" has been set it will be hard to get to that I think. See: online news publications.

    • Android is certainly free. Play services and Google apps are not. While the vast majority of non-Chinese Android users use these apps, Android is still useful without them.

      • Android is certainly free. Play services and Google apps are not. While the vast majority of non-Chinese Android users use these apps, Android is still useful without them.

        OK, I accept that. But now in the context of this story. What is Google talking about making "not free" if the EU unbundles Chrome?

        And how does it work, taking something that is free and making it not free? Do they just say, "Android is ours and we're changing the license"? I'm genuinely curious.

  • removing preinstalled apps? (Score:5, Informative)

    by roc97007 ( 608802 ) on Wednesday July 18, 2018 @05:35PM (#56970756) Journal

    From TFA: "can easily remove preinstalled apps"

    Wait, what? I can easily remove *updates* to preinstalled apps, (which Google Play then nags me to update every time it runs) but barring rooting my phone and reinstalling the OS (assuming I can find a clean copy somewhere) how is this done? Or is this an unusual definition of "easily"?

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It's as easy as removing IE from win 95.

      • It's a lot easier than removing IE from Windows 98. Unless you're telling about one of the much later releases of Windows 95.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by aleck7 ( 4913657 )
      He has misspoken probably.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by _merlin ( 160982 )

      On my Galaxy S3 it was impossible to uninstall any preinstalled apps, but in my S8 it's possible to uninstall most of them (Flipboard, Facebook, Google Duo, and a bunch of other stuff). Can't remove Google Chrome, GMail, or Google Maps and a few other Google things though.

    • (which Google Play then nags me to update every time it runs)

      You need to go to the app information screen and select "disable". This will uninstall updates and basically mark the app as non existant as far as the OS is concerned. You don't get free space back because they sit on a separate read-only partition, but you do recover the space from the updates, won't see the app work or any ability to launch it, and Google Play will not think its installed let alone ask you to update it.

  • How about this. Sundar Pichai to give me 100 dollars for each app which comes preinstalled on my phone and I can't uninstall?
    I'll be a rich man in no time.

  • Wait . . . So Android is Free? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DickBreath ( 207180 ) on Wednesday July 18, 2018 @05:42PM (#56970794) Homepage
    So is Google suggesting that Android is "Free" or "free"?

    I think it is neither one. Google moved all the good stuff into the Google play services and out of plain jane open source Android.

    Plus the arm twisting agreements where an OEM cannot make a Google Services Android phone and also make an open source or alternate firmware Android phone. Geee, that reminds me of Microsoft not allowing OEMs to sell their PCs with any other OS on them in the 1980's even if there was market demand at that time.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Octorian ( 14086 )

      Plus the arm twisting agreements where an OEM cannot make a Google Services Android phone and also make an open source or alternate firmware Android phone. Geee, that reminds me of Microsoft not allowing OEMs to sell their PCs with any other OS on them in the 1980's even if there was market demand at that time.

      This part irritates me far more than any conventional bundling they may be doing. It basically says that, if you want to build an alternative smartphone platform, you have to be both phone manufacturer and OS developer. This is an extremely high barrier.

      Remember folks, everything done via "the web" on regular computers is done via "platform-specific apps" (that will *never* give a damn about your non-Android/iOS platform) on mobile. So no, you really cannot make a viable competing platform unless you can ru

      • This part irritates me far more than any conventional bundling they may be doing. It basically says that, if you want to build an alternative smartphone platform, you have to be both phone manufacturer and OS developer.

        You can start work on the OS right now. You dont need to be a manufacturer. This statement of yours makes no sense at all.

        What Google is doing is wrong, but it doesnt have the effect that you are claiming. The effect is to lock manufacturers into Googles Services if they ship anything with Googles Services. The OS is actually irrelevant. Amazon for instance, could license out their services along the same lines, even though they also use Googles OS.

    • I think it is neither one. Google moved all the good stuff into the Google play services and out of plain jane open source Android.

      And that's at least partly the phone manufacturers own fault. They moved it into Play services. But that just proofs that it was part of the plain Android first. But with the phone manufacturers not doing any updates for even the most gaping security holes, moving the stuff to Google managed play services was the was to make sure that phone owners would get security updates. From Google if not the manufacturers.

      Plus the arm twisting agreements where an OEM cannot make a Google Services Android phone and also make an open source or alternate firmware Android phone. Geee, that reminds me of Microsoft not allowing OEMs to sell their PCs with any other OS on them in the 1980's even if there was market demand at that time.

      Yes... that's highly disturbing from a monopoly abuse point of view. But the easiest to fix.

  • Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)

    by HeckRuler ( 1369601 ) on Wednesday July 18, 2018 @05:49PM (#56970842)

    "If phone makers and mobile network operators couldn't include our apps on their wide range of devices, it would upset the balance of the Android ecosystem," explains Pichai,

    Utter fucking bullshit. No user WANTS this junk on their phone. The "ecosystem" he's talking about is the kickbacks they get for dumping a load of garbage onto people's phones. It's anti-competitive and removes power from the people. Fuck your business deals. Let people choose what they want to run.

    • Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)

      by shess ( 31691 ) on Wednesday July 18, 2018 @05:59PM (#56970908) Homepage

      "If phone makers and mobile network operators couldn't include our apps on their wide range of devices, it would upset the balance of the Android ecosystem," explains Pichai,

      Utter fucking bullshit. No user WANTS this junk on their phone. The "ecosystem" he's talking about is the kickbacks they get for dumping a load of garbage onto people's phones. It's anti-competitive and removes power from the people. Fuck your business deals. Let people choose what they want to run.

      To be clear, the "choice" here is between Google forcing carriers and phone vendors to have certain apps on the phone, versus carriers and vendors placing their horrible in-house apps on the phone. You aren't going to get to choose either way. At least with Google's version you'll have more-or-less production-ready apps with relatively long-term support.

      • Exactly. I use a Pixel because my previous Samsung forced Samsung's crap apps, and I had to go to the Google product to get decently integrated software. If it doesn't all work nicely with the assistant, it is useless. Who wants to have to look at their phone to use it?

      • This basically sums up why google took the approach they did. Too many manufacturers and carriers screwing around with sub-par apps that destroyed the name Android.

        If google really want to fix this, they should strip the core of the OS, that the user can't uninstall down to the basics. Let the manufacturer and telco install their bundled crapware, but *always* leave the user the option to clear it all out. Then provide a standard google / android set of apps, that the user can easily choose to install one

  • easily remove pre installed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sakono ( 4659761 ) on Wednesday July 18, 2018 @05:53PM (#56970868)
    is a load of bull. i've had and have a phone with twitter and a couple other apps that i cannot uninstall. it will not get ride of them.
    • That is not Google's doing. That is the device manufacturer. This ruling is in favor of increasing that. It will not free you to take apps off. It will free the device manufacturer's to take bribes from companies other than Google to force other companies apps on the user. This is so that you can be forced by some device manufacturers to use Bing or some other competitor instead of Chrome, not to remove all app locks.

  • They're just crying cause they have to play fair, and the exec bonus payments will be smaller this year.

  • Better solution: REAL competition with less profit (Score:4, Insightful)

    by shanen ( 462549 ) on Wednesday July 18, 2018 @06:00PM (#56970912) Homepage Journal

    There is a better solution by using a PUBLIC standard for Android without the google's monopolistic control over it and with REAL competition driving REAL innovation at every level and in every part of the Android platform, not just the low-margin commodity hardware. The only problem is that it would reduce the google's profit.

    Whoops. I forgot that would be a religious violation. "There is no gawd but profit, and the EVIL google must become gawd's #1 prophet!"

    Actually, it isn't clear if the google is the most evil of the inhuman corporate cancers that are destroying our lives for the greater glory of profit maximization. However it is absolutely clear that the problem of profit maximization is a FAKE problem because there is NO possible solution. There is always a bigger number for a more maximum profit.

    Here's my simpleminded solution: A progressive tax on corporate profits based on market share. The data is already there for public corporations that are required to open their books. As a company's taxes increase, it would eventually become MORE profitable to reproduce by fission.

    ADSAuPR, atAJG.

    • There is a better solution by using a PUBLIC standard for Android without the google's monopolistic control over it and with REAL competition driving REAL innovation at every level and in every part of the Android platform, not just the low-margin commodity hardware. The only problem is that it would reduce the google's profit.

      And I even came up with a name for it! What about AOSP?

      Android core without any Google tie-ins, free to use for manufacturers.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by shanen ( 462549 )

        Two basic interpretations seem possible for your so-called reply:

        (1) You misunderstood or could not understand what I wrote. In these and related cases, the appropriate response is to ask for clarification. I acknowledge that I often write densely, even tersely.

        (2) You deliberately misinterpreted what I wrote. Various possible motivations and tactics might apply, but why would I care? In this case you've already negated your credibility even without a better form of EPR than Slashdot offers. I dismiss you t

  • Google's Android wasn't open or free to begin with (Score:5, Informative)

    by slack_justyb ( 862874 ) on Wednesday July 18, 2018 @06:07PM (#56970938)

    Okay I think we should all be frank in that Google charging a fee for Android isn't some massive surprise here. The "open" nature of Android was sketch in rose color light and non-existent if you want to be honest. Google via Android has been pretty hostile to forks and fragmentation. Google has wanted to keep a firm thumb on their baby and they've done an incredibly good job at it.

    When Google began moving a lot of the OS level functionality out of the OS and into the Google Play Services, that was a clear sign that Google was done being "open". Pretty much you have a Linux kernel and a Google supplied display environment and not much more when you remove Google Play Services and Play Services is closed sourced and kept under insanely strict "can and cannot" rules for its use. Of course that hasn't stopped anyone from freely pushing around the APK for it. But for legit or widely distributed variants of Android, if you don't agree to Google's demands, you can't use Play Services legally and this pretty much has ended every actual open-source implementation of Android and pretty much rendered AOSP dead in all but name. Play Services is the leash to which Google retains control over Android vendors.

    I for one would just like it for Google to just stop pretending that it's OS is somehow different from closed source projects. Yes, it has a Linux kernel, but that's pretty much it and the kernel is really paired down for the hardware it runs on. Outside that, everything else in Android, pretty much the other 90% of the OS is closed sourced. I'm seriously shocked that they haven't put more steam behind Fuchsia and the replacement for the Linux Kernel. It's no surprise that no one in Google really likes working with the Kernel devs anymore. They're cantankerous and capricious on their best days and devs at Google would like to think that they've got better things to do than to argue why their patch should go mainline.

    Google propped itself up on actual "open" but now that they are where they are, they're more than happy to spit liquor into the eyes of open source and move on. I'm just tired of them pretending to give a damn, I'd actually have a bit more respect for them if they'd just be frank about it and pull the plug on being "open" or "friendly" to developers. They are neither at this point and they have so much money they don't give a damn about it anymore.

  • Don't fall for the attempt to divert from issue (Score:5, Informative)

    by alfino ( 173081 ) on Wednesday July 18, 2018 @06:21PM (#56971004)

    Android is Free, but Google has woefully neglected it for years. Or rather, they meticulously worked on pulling all functionality into Play Services, while blinding the public into thinking that they are so great in doing open-source.

    If they take Android non-free (what does this even mean?), it won't actually make much of a difference to the status quo. I'd hope for the EU to not take any of this, and simply double the fine if they do.

    Fuck you, Google.

  • Doesn't sound that bad to me if it includes security updates.

  • google confirms EU ruling (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bloodhawk ( 813939 ) on Wednesday July 18, 2018 @06:30PM (#56971034)
    Statement from Google pretty much confirms the EU is correct in that Google is forcing its services to lock out the market and make money. Personally I have no problems if Android doesn't remain free and it means a couple of dollars more on the cost of my devices, would happily trade that for a more open environment.

    • Statement from Google pretty much confirms the EU is correct in that Google is forcing its services to lock out the market and make money. Personally I have no problems if Android doesn't remain free and it means a couple of dollars more on the cost of my devices, would happily trade that for a more open environment.

      This! What would an non-free Android license cost per device $1? $10? My last phone was $1400, I'll happily pay $10 extra to not have to put up with this shit.

      • You realize this "more open" here means only that phone will potentially come without google apps like Chrome, but instead with some weird "$manufacturer browser" and "$manufacturer mail" instead, right? You as a user will not be getting any real benefits, those will go to manufacturers and carriers as you will be stuck with all the crapware they install in the same way you are now.

  • You know it's always a lie -taxes, fines, whatever - the pols always say we're going to punish/tax that other guy to get the stuff to give you, all fair like - but in reality, there is no "other guy" - it's we who pay, every single time. So if Google loses revenue and has to charge for android to make up for it, who pays? Only the EU citizens? Don't make me laugh...So many people have zero clue how the world works in reality. As it said in the hitchiker's guide (to paraphrase): The government is only

  • Sure fire way light fires necessary to get more alternatives to Google play's malware developed.

    As for charging for Android... this is without a doubt the most hilarious idea I've heard all day.

  • In my option the bundling of Google apps is less of an issue than Google's blocking of installing apps. When I was working for Garmin I developed an Android vehicle head unit but I could not preinstall Google Play Store because we installed our own navigation app that was customised to suit the on road limitations of the target vehicle. I would have liked to give end users an easy ability to install apps on the system but because we installed a nav app that could do things that Google nav app can not we w
  • Yeah, yeah, yeah. We should all believe exactly what Google is telling us about Android because they're good people and always tell the truth, right?

Slashdot Top Deals

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Close