[repolfx]

But Apple hasn't been fined in the same way. So apparently if Google had kept Android proprietary, and made their own hardware, they'd be totally OK, even though there'd only be two phone makers left in the world instead of dozens like there is now?

I'm sorry but this move is garbage. I am British and I'm so glad the UK is leaving this horrible, success hating farce of a union. Google paid billions to develop Android and then gave it away for free under the Apache license specifically to encourage competition and diversity in the smartphone market. They then added a carrot of some apps and the app store if OEMs agreed not to introduce backwards incompatibilities, to avoid the J2ME problem of a hopelessly forked and buggy platform.

If they hadn't done these things, very likely Apple would have wiped out every competitor in existence.

The EU is sending a powerful message with this move: keep everything proprietary, pick a high enough price point to price out most poor European countries, and you'll be fine. Build an open ecosystem where competitors target every price point and you'll suddenly find yourself being an involuntary contributing member to the EU's budget. What a great disincentive to build products for the Spanish or German markets.

[pedroaraujo]

Apple doesn't try to tap markets that doesn't own and to force their own ecosystem into those markets. Google does. That's the fundamental difference.

It is okay for them to do whatever they want with their Nexus/Pixel devices, since they fully own them. But forcing some random DTV vendor to install Google Search, Google Social Network, Google Online Shop, Google Payment System, Google This and Google That, just because the vendor chose to adopt a free operative system into their system, it's just abuse of power and monopoly.

It automatically gives Google an advantage over the Search, Online Shop, Social Network, etc, markets. It is basically impossible to start a new video streaming business in the DTV market, for example, when you know that every single DTV system has Youtube already installed just because Google mandates so. And Youtube is "good enough" for 90% of the people.

The entire world doesn't suddenly owe something to Google just because they made something open source.

[bubblethink]

>if Google had kept Android proprietary, and made their own hardware, they'd be totally OK

Yes, why is that surprising ? They would also not get the benefit of OEMs shipping their bundle of services across the globe.

>gave it away for free under the Apache license specifically to encourage competition

It has nothing to do with increasing competition. It's anything but. That's one of the reasons for the fine. The non compete clause prevents OEMs from creating forks of Android.

[repolfx]

No, you're completely wrong. Have you even ever used Android devices? Samsung's flavour of Android is quite different to HTCs or LGs. Google doesn't prevent people creating competing forks of Android, that's the entire point of Android's design.

What their agreements require is that the forks be compatible with base Android, that is, apps should run the same on every variant of Android. It's designed to ensure app compatibility and avoid the mistakes of the past, like with J2ME where apps had to be debugged on every single phone because they were all riddled with bugs and incompatibilities.

But outside of app compatibility issues vendors can and do make big changes, everything from the appearance to the UI to the set of bundled apps - Samsung for instance replaces the browser, replaces the calendar, replaces the contacts app, replaces the home screen, replaces nearly everything. And Samsung is a Google licensee. So clearly, your understanding of what Google is doing here is not accurate.

[bubblethink]

>Google doesn't prevent people creating competing forks of Android, that's the entire point of Android's design.

Did you read the main points of the press release ? If you (say an OEM like LG) license google play, you cannot create a competing OS based on AOSP. It has nothing to do with OEMs customizing AOSP for the devices they sell. It has everything to do with, say, an OEM selling a different phone that can run Amazon's version of Android with Amazon's services. I think that's one of the reason's why Amazon's phone never caught on. Nobody other than Amazon would be able to make or sell one because everyone had licences from Google.

From the press release:

"Google has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks")."

[repolfx]

The press release is wrong, who'd have guessed. What is Samsung TouchWiz or whatever they call it these days, if not a competing OS based on AOSP. Ditto for every other Android device. Android was forked so much that for the longest time the lament of geeks everywhere was "give me a device with stock Google Android". That doesn't sound like an monopoly to me.

[dannyw]

A competing OS is one without Google Play Services (and all the requirements it imposes).

[blub]

The fact that Android was open source was a huge factor in increasing adoption and obliterating the other competition (like Symbian, Windows, etc). It's a competitive advantage, not a kind hearted choice.

When Android was launched is was just another unknown piece of software, poor performance, lack of features, etc.

They can't both reap the profits of open source and then reject any disadvantages (such as with their anti-fragmentation clause).

They have the option at any point to go closed source and face the huge shitstorm that will follow.

[sveme]

Isn't it great that you're heading for a hard brexit, then? If the competition is no level-playing field anymore, how should a local company be successful?

Your points have been addressed above already, if Apple had a dominant market position, the EU would have handled things differently. And Apple has been fined by the EU before as well.

[cageface]

As Apple fans always rush to point out, Apple owns most of the really profitable users, so if I'm developing a new app or website I have to play by their rules and can only rely on technologies and protocols Apple supports.

Raw numbers don't tell the whole story here.

[repolfx]

Obviously, the EU deciding to terminate all cooperation with the UK because of an ideological "all or nothing" approach is a tyrannical and cult-like way to run international relations.

However if the alternative is having to deal with the EU Commission then yep, I guess hard brexit is the next best alternative.

The reason the EU doesn't have any local mobile companies isn't do to with Android or Google's licensing terms. The EU had a very successful mobile firm and it shot itself in the foot over and over so badly it disappeared, because its own competitor(s) to Android just weren't good enough. Nokia was hopelessly out-engineered by Silicon Valley and in hindsight it would have done better to admit that, and become an Android OEM itself. It wouldn't have had to cut any deal with Google. It already had Ovi Maps and its own app store infrastructure. It could have done an Amazon and adopted Android without any strings attached.

[bkor]

> However if the alternative is having to deal with the EU Commission then yep, I guess hard brexit is the next best alternative.

They're currently headed towards not really exiting the EU. Once they looked into the details they determined that the drawbacks were outright lies (350M GBP/week) and the benefits are huge. It might even end up as a paper exercise.

[sveme]

OT, but what kind of Brexit would you have wanted?

[repolfx]

Well it's hard to say that because the EU is the wrong way to organise European cooperation from the start. European cooperation should be done the way it used to be, as many multi-lateral agreements and organisations that are only loosely affiliated or not at all.

But most of the European political elite want to unite the continent under a single government instead. Given that, the best kind of Brexit would be one where the UK is no longer a part of this, and can sign various unlinked bilateral treaties to continue cooperation in the areas where there is agreement, and discontinue in areas where there are disagreement.

This makes perfect sense - agreement on everything is rarely possible, so collaboration on the areas where people do agree is the best you can do. It's also exactly what the UK has proposed repeatedly. However the EU refuses to allow it, exactly because if people were offered that alternative the EU and associated gravy train would cease to exist tomorrow.

[sveme]

Well, I personally am in favour of the way the EU acts as a permanent umbrella to organise cooperation and according to the latest polls, the majority of people in most countries are in favour of that too. Otherwise, with each country acting on its own, they would be picked apart by the much larger players, the US, China and Russia.

Maybe the UK media points a wrong picture of the mood in the EU, but I seriously doubt that it would cease to exist if your alternative would be put forward. But that's something all Brexiteers tell themselves repeatedly, over and over, like a mantra.

[repolfx]

I'm sure it would cease to exist. The EU has lost every referendum on further integration held in, what, the last 15 years? The EU political elites are notorious for telling countries that voted wrong to vote again, or just ignoring them.

If every population that's asked rejects the EU's vision what on earth makes you so sure that a comprehensive alternative wouldn't be popular?

Also there's no such thing as "picked apart" in the sense you mean, i.e. outside of military strategy. Nobody is picking North Korea apart despite that it's a world pariah. If a country doesn't want to collaborate with another country or accept its terms, it doesn't have to - the idea that cooperation is a form of warfare is exactly the mentality that the EU has, and is why it's so desperately dangerous and problematic as an organisation.

[riffraff]

it seems likely that if Android wasn't "free" it would not have gained almost 100% of the market share in licensable mobile OSs, so there would still be the same amount of phone makers, but with more OS fragmentation.

Which is as it was before, of course.