[pcr910303]

I think the throwback on HN on this decision is due to the lack of details and context on the news?

From what I've understood from the local news (I'm a South Korean), It's not about blocking handsets with forked Android (that already happens regularly AFAIK), but the requirement of shipping Google apps like Chrome and Google Assistant. The big elephant in the room here is Samsung phones, which do ship it's own custom browser Samsung Internet (BTW, with ad blocking capabilities!) and a separate virtual assistant, Bixby. That's the part where the KFTC decided was monopolistic.

I don't have a personal opinion this, but seems that the comment threads are focusing on the wrong part. Manufacturers were always able to bundle up their fucked-up version of Android. They were always able to ship super-custom UIs. Google never prevented that... but they did force the UIs bloat by having two separate default apps.

[lifthrasiir]

Also, it should be noted that Google didn't just disallow shipping Google apps to forked Android. Google disallowed shipping Google apps to any devices from vendors that ship forked Android: if your smartwatch is using forked Android your ordinary smartphone also can't have Google apps even when it's using genuine Android. The KFTC made very clear that this is a nuclear all-or-nothing option to hardware vendors and thus constitutes an anti-trust action [1].

[1] https://ftc.go.kr/www/selectReportUserView.do?key=10&rpttype... (in Korean)

[fennecfoxy]

Idk I can somewhat see their reasons. Forked Android isn't necessarily secure: a customer who owns the phone might get hacked or suffer some problem and who will they blame? Not Samsung or Xiaomi etc. They'll blame Google.

If you're signed into Google etc on your phone and that is compromised, it appears to the average person that Google messed up.