Right. Google gives away AOSP to any manufacturer. Apple doesn’t let ANYONE else use their OS. Yet Google is the one who gets in trouble for being “restrictive”.
I’m not upset that Google is getting called it for this, they are not innocent. I just want Apple to be held to the same standard.
Google gave their OS away to everyone to use, but then forced everyone that did to include all of their products and services and make them non-removable. That’s the part that is anti-competitive and abusive.
Apple don’t let anyone use their OS. They aren’t required to. As such, they’re not forcing other companies to include Apple services if they want to use iOS.
How can one be considered abusive and the other not, if companies are free to choose not to use android, just like companies can’t use Apple’s OS? Both have the same result, the company not using the OS. Google’s position is more permissive than Apples, yet Apple’s isn’t considered abusive.
I still strongly disagree. “No, you can’t use this at all” is more abusive than “ok, we’ll let you use this if you agree to something else”. If you didn’t agree with the terms, you are no worse off than the other choice. Android is the “only choice” exactly because Apple won’t share.
The issue only exists because Google are letting others use their operating system, but are abusing their market position where they own 90% of the market, to force their services which makes other products unable to compete. Samsung for example have their own messaging app, but aren’t allowed to not have Google’s messaging app installed. They have their own calendar app, but Google forced them to have Google calendar.
That is abusing their market position and is textbook anti-competitive behaviour.
Apple made their own product, for themselves and no one else. That’s not abusing anything.
Europe sucks ass and makes everything worse and more expensive. Now Google will have to show every human 3200 additional ads to make up for that money lost. And if anyone wants to tell me Europe doesn’t suck ass, tell me about the people you’re killing by banning AC and about how you can be locked up for certain types of speech or if you try to defend yourself against an attacker. I’ve lived there twice, never going back. Yes Europe likes Apple more than Google and they targeted them intentionally because they love collecting huge fines/revenue from things they are biased against. But ultimately they’re only making Google worse, not making anyone’s experiences better.
Apple is not required to share their OS with anyone. Nor is Google.
The problem is: Google shared it voluntarily, because they knew a lot of people and companies would contribute to its development for free. It was a calculated business move that happened to create an open mobile OS.
Now that Android has been polished by the community and has a gigantic market share, Google is trying to use that to eliminate any competition, and to close the OS down. It’s trying to rewrite the entire agreement, while keeping all of the benefits it received over the years, and giving nothing back. Essentially a bait and switch scheme.
If Android was never open to begin with - this wouldn’t be an issue. But then Android would still be stuck in 2016, and nobody would be using it.
Not really. They are independent, pre-existing open source projects. Anyone may use the code in their own projects, within the licenses’ rules.
Whereas Google basically started the entire project, benefitted from unpaid contributions, and now wants to close it, after creating a near monopoly, in huge part thanks to it being open.
Apple isn’t closing or restricting BSD-related projects, because they aren’t theirs, and they existed before Apple included them in its own software.
I have mixed feelings about mega corporations using open source code for free, but the licenses allow it and the developers don’t mind, so it’s not my place to make a fuss.
And yet most people install gApps. Because Android without Google Play Services doesn’t do everything you expect of your phone. This is intentional design to sell you on an “open” ecosystem that doesn’t work without Google.
Apple don’t do anything remotely similar. Apple don’t let other manufacturers use iOS. What are you even talking about?
Right. Google gives away AOSP to any manufacturer. Apple doesn’t let ANYONE else use their OS. Yet Google is the one who gets in trouble for being “restrictive”.
I’m not upset that Google is getting called it for this, they are not innocent. I just want Apple to be held to the same standard.
You don’t understand what you’re talking about.
Google gave their OS away to everyone to use, but then forced everyone that did to include all of their products and services and make them non-removable. That’s the part that is anti-competitive and abusive.
Apple don’t let anyone use their OS. They aren’t required to. As such, they’re not forcing other companies to include Apple services if they want to use iOS.
Understand?
How can one be considered abusive and the other not, if companies are free to choose not to use android, just like companies can’t use Apple’s OS? Both have the same result, the company not using the OS. Google’s position is more permissive than Apples, yet Apple’s isn’t considered abusive.
One is abusing their market position, the other isn’t.
Android is basically the only choice for phone OS’s, and they are abusing that fact by forcing their services on every phone.
I still strongly disagree. “No, you can’t use this at all” is more abusive than “ok, we’ll let you use this if you agree to something else”. If you didn’t agree with the terms, you are no worse off than the other choice. Android is the “only choice” exactly because Apple won’t share.
You’re wrong then.
The issue only exists because Google are letting others use their operating system, but are abusing their market position where they own 90% of the market, to force their services which makes other products unable to compete. Samsung for example have their own messaging app, but aren’t allowed to not have Google’s messaging app installed. They have their own calendar app, but Google forced them to have Google calendar.
That is abusing their market position and is textbook anti-competitive behaviour.
Apple made their own product, for themselves and no one else. That’s not abusing anything.
So if Google said that companies can no longer use Android, you would be satisfied?
Europe sucks ass and makes everything worse and more expensive. Now Google will have to show every human 3200 additional ads to make up for that money lost. And if anyone wants to tell me Europe doesn’t suck ass, tell me about the people you’re killing by banning AC and about how you can be locked up for certain types of speech or if you try to defend yourself against an attacker. I’ve lived there twice, never going back. Yes Europe likes Apple more than Google and they targeted them intentionally because they love collecting huge fines/revenue from things they are biased against. But ultimately they’re only making Google worse, not making anyone’s experiences better.
Apple is not required to share their OS with anyone. Nor is Google.
The problem is: Google shared it voluntarily, because they knew a lot of people and companies would contribute to its development for free. It was a calculated business move that happened to create an open mobile OS.
Now that Android has been polished by the community and has a gigantic market share, Google is trying to use that to eliminate any competition, and to close the OS down. It’s trying to rewrite the entire agreement, while keeping all of the benefits it received over the years, and giving nothing back. Essentially a bait and switch scheme.
If Android was never open to begin with - this wouldn’t be an issue. But then Android would still be stuck in 2016, and nobody would be using it.
iOS uses freeBSD and OpenBSD components. Isn’t that the same thing?
It’s a closed source derivative. BSD license allows it.
They’ve never said their OS is free and open to everyone. It’s never been a community project.
Not really. They are independent, pre-existing open source projects. Anyone may use the code in their own projects, within the licenses’ rules.
Whereas Google basically started the entire project, benefitted from unpaid contributions, and now wants to close it, after creating a near monopoly, in huge part thanks to it being open.
Apple isn’t closing or restricting BSD-related projects, because they aren’t theirs, and they existed before Apple included them in its own software.
I have mixed feelings about mega corporations using open source code for free, but the licenses allow it and the developers don’t mind, so it’s not my place to make a fuss.
AOSP has become unusable over the years because Google bundles more and more core functions with its proprietary Google Play Services.
Source: I’ve been around long enough to remember independent devs making versions such as Gingerbread or Marshmallow usable.
Lineage, graphene, calyx are pretty good tho. Much better than the android that comes with today’s stock phones.
And yet most people install gApps. Because Android without Google Play Services doesn’t do everything you expect of your phone. This is intentional design to sell you on an “open” ecosystem that doesn’t work without Google.
Is MicroG not a viable alternative? How about apps utilizing unified push notifications if Google play services is a concern?
All of them exist as long as Google wants. We should hammer this point into our heads.