Google uses its position to make using Android without Google services increasingly more difficult.
Google has been working over the last several versions to unbundle things from the core OS and put them into other packages-- the camera, keyboard, launcher, Chrome, and of course play services. Im not seeing how this makes it MORE difficult to use android without google services when all their effort is in modularizing it.
Unlike its competitors, Google allows you to unbundle all of the google-centric services from your phone and use whatever cloud APIs or App stores you want. In what way could they possibly be more open?
. You need to have a sufficiently large market share that your actions distort the market to be considered a problem
I think we all get THAT, but Google is more open in just about every category than their competitors. Im failing to see how accusing them of using "closed-ness" makes sense when theyre more open than ANY of their competitors and are directly providing the groundwork for at least one of their competitors (Samsung) through that openness.
Theyre abusing Open Source in the same way that Red Hat is abusing Open Source: They dare to have a business model involving open source.
Im not sure if everyone here is trolling or what, but this is absurd. Of the 3 major OS vendors out there, lets do a comparison.
App stores:
* iPhone, WinPhone, dumbphones: proprietary app store, no alternative way to load apps
* Android: Use any app store you want. Side load through a bootloader, or USB, or via downloading the apk directly.
OS:
* iPhone, WinPhone, dumbphones: Closed source and generally protected from modification by copyright (and possibly DMCA)
* Android: About 3 zillion open source mods exist to the AOSP ROM, which is widely used by the recent spate of high-end chinese phones by Oppo, One-plus, Xiaomi, etc
User control:
* iPhone: Generally stuck with stock keyboard (replacement keyboards are extremely limited and cannot be used to type passwords), launcher, browser
* Android: You can replace the launcher, the keyboard, the browser. Your replacement browser doesnt have to use Webkit, or blink, or anything.
Location:
* (iPhone?) WinPhone: you do not appear to be able to rely just on the GPS for location. From what I'm reading, you have to rely on Wifi-based location services, or a combination of that and GPS
* Android: If you really want, you can rely just on the GPS for location and skip the lookup to Google's SSID database.
Can someone explain how any of the complaints given here do not apply threefold to any of Google's competitors?
Google provides a map service. You dont have to have it installed AFAIK, and the app vendor does not need to use Google's API-- they could use Bing maps or another one, which some apps do.
Your complaint is about an API choice made by a dev, to choose the easiest and best mapping API out there (AFAIK-- others have always seemed worse to me but maybe Im wrong). That is not a google choice.
The same is true for a lot of other banks. Google has intentionally made sure that they control the app distribution channel,
* WinPhone: Apps MUST be downloaded from the Microsoft Store
* iPhone: Apps MUST be downloaded from the App Store
* Android / AOSP: Alternative stores are explicitly allowed, though off by default. Apps may be sideloaded through a bootloader, through USB, through the official play store, or through third party app stores like Amazon's or F-Droid.
How, exactly, is Google the bad guy here?
The point is that Google tries their hardest to make all apps depend on Google's "services"
Utter bull. Go get any of the plethora of AOSP-based ROMs, and you can use any app you want.
Of course, MOST free apps get revenue from ads; and ads generally are going to rely on a cloud service, and that has to be provided by an ad provider-- hence play services. EVERYONE does this, though, Google isnt alone here.
Thats because its a cloud service intimately tied to your Google account. If you dont want that, you should probably use another app designed differently.
It seems quite strange ti criticize Google for making an app that utilizes the Google ecosystem, rather than an app which directly competes with it. Perhaps we should criticize Microsoft for selling Microsoft Exchange as a service for Microsoft Windows, rather than implementing it directly on Red Hat.
To me, that's contrary to the constitutional separation of church and state
Im convinced that no one actually knows what this means. It refers to the ban on the government formally instituting a state religion; it doesnt mean they cannot recognize the existence of religions or recognize them as tax exempt or that politicians have to be atheists.
MS is still evil. Not long time ago we had a story here on Slashdot on locked [slashdot.org] Windows 10 computers where you can not change the OS anymore.
As I recall, Microsoft no longer requires anything one way or the other for machines badged "runs windows" regarding changing OS. Its up to the OEM to determine whether they will allow that.
In fact, this somewhat mirrors RedHat's stance, doesnt it? Does RedHat REQUIRE OEMs sell servers that allow an OS change? How is that even their business?
>having no idea what you're talking about
>throwing out NSA and MITM like theyre relevant here
Intel provides more support and documentation for their hardware than anyone else of consequence. Their graphics drivers are very widely considered the best for linux, and they contribute a huge amount to kernel dev.
If Intel hardware isnt working right, there are serious problems.
Poe's law strikes again! I truly have no idea if you're trolling or actually being serious.
You do realize IE, GDI+, and command interpreter vulnerabilities are not Windows vulnerabilities, right?
Oh, whats that, a double standard is used?
Retirement means that when someone says "Have a nice day", you actually have a shot at it.
