The platform is NOT sold. AOSP is open source... What OEMs do with it is up to them.
I suppose you can produce this document?
Common sense would dictate if Google could make OEMS provide updates they would already be doing that. Right?
I suppose you can produce this document?
Common sense would dictate if Google could make OEMS provide updates they would already be doing that. Right?
Yes. AOSP is available as 'open source'. As a giant code drop, as far as I can tell. And the steering party for Android is .. that Ad company. Even 'Nexus devices' aren't able to boot using AOSP last time I checked (Nexus 7, the ~newer~ version), so that is really bullshit. It looks like "Have fun with our current state, and really - nothing will work on your devices anyway because you need a ton of binary blobs matching our kernel".
Android is about as close to open source in my world as .Net was via 'the reference source' a couple years ago. "Source available" vs. "Open Source".
My point is AOSP being open source means any OEM could base an OS on it and be fully open sourced.
I understand there is barriers to doing that like most mobile hardware is not open but that is NOT Google's fault.
Google gets to approve or veto every Android device every OEM sells. And that's just for starters. If you're an Android OEM that has access to the Play Store, Google has an incredible amount of control over your company.
These are the leaked 2011 MADA agreements, but the new ones are far more strict: https://oasis.sandstorm.io/shared/A9MKYwaMtKZ1p5xC5KQlknXDP4...
Thanks man... I hear they also keep martians at Roswell.
>Google gets to approve or veto every Android device every OEM sells.
100% Wrong... The only thing an OEM really needs to do is include certain Google apps and have them presented in a certain way to use Play services.
"Unless otherwise approved by Google in writing Company will preload all Google Applications approved in the applicable Territory or Territories on each device." under 3.4
AOSP passes the compatibility test and the second quote applies to devices with Google Services
"Company shall not Launch any Device incorporating the Google Applications until it has obtained Google's approval as set forth in (a), (b), and (c) below.", see section 4.3
OEMs can't release an open source only Android distribution. WRONG Google must approve any OEM Android phone. WRONG Samsung can't produce a forked version of AOSP. WRONG
Your only proof about any of this is quoting a clause about Google apps? LOL Yes, OEMs can only use Play services if they include certain Google apps and they need to be presented in a certain way. I already said that many comments ago. The agreement stops say Samsung from using Google Maps but naming the icon Dumbfuck Maps. Google only approves the implementation of their apps NOT the phone.
Dude, go home. You don't know what you are talking about.
You can ship a phone running AOSP without any further agreement with Google.
You cannot ship an "Android" phone. "Android" is a trademark of Google and you can only use it with permission. Moreover, you cannot ship a phone that includes the Play Store or Google apps, nor one compatible with the increasing array of apps that require Play Services, unless you make an agreement with Google.
If you take away the name and ecosystem, you've lost the vast majority of the value of Android. Users will see your phone as if it is running its own, incompatible operating system. Why would they buy this? Why not buy a Windows phone instead?
Case in point: Amazon tried making a phone based on AOSP -- the Fire phone. They made their own apps, their own app store, etc. It was a flop. They gave up. If Amazon can't make it work, why would anyone else expect they can?
So, to realistically sell an Android phone, you have to make an agreement with Google. And that's how they keep control.