Hacker News Reader

Comment by ewzimm | Hacker News Reader

I have seen so many people blame Amazon for not including Google Play, but this is really Google's decision. In order to use Google Play Services, you need to make all of Google's services default and unremovable. This was done specifically so companies like Amazon could not include it on devices meant to push competing services. Even though I use plenty of Google software, I am more than happy to see them have competition. They honestly do not have enough, and I am glad Amazon is working to offer an alternative to total Google control on Android. Android is fine now, but increasing centralization is not going to benefit anyone but Google. Acquiescing and becoming just another company pushing Google services would be a terrible move for Amazon.

View on HN

I'm surprised that so few other people on this comment thread seem to get it. Google Play and the associated Services ecosystem exists for the sole purpose of forbidding exactly what Amazon is trying to do. Amazon's sole purpose for this phone is as a way to get phone customers into their ecosystem first, and Google's stuff exists to get people on the Google ecosystem first. A first-party device with Google Play and Amazon services is Not. Gonna. Happen.

"Google Play and the associated Services ecosystem exists for the sole purpose of forbidding exactly what Amazon is trying to do"

Er... are you sure android apps for gmail, calendar, drive, youtube, maps etc. and not to mention, the play store for android exist for the sole purpose of blocking third parties? Surely they have their own utility to users... no?

Why. Not.

Does Google forbid 3rd party app stores on a device with full Google Services installed?

I actually wouldn't be surprised if that were the case. They already don't allow third-party app stores (like Amazon's app store or F-Droid) on the Play Store last I checked; in both cases, you have to enable app installation from "untrusted sources" and download/install the APKs manually.

A bit more on this:

Android licencing means that no company is allowed to ship both Google Android and non-Google Android. This means that to ship Google Android on the phone they (Amazon) would have to ship Google Android on all Fire tablets too.

In addition under the licence Google apps need to be both installed (you have to have all of them, you can't pick and choose) and placed in particular prominent locations (so the Play Store needs to be on the first home screen). This would almost certainly mean that Google's store(s) would be have as good if not better positions than Amazon's own stores on the device. More than that there are restrictions around app stores which compete with Google play which would, at the very least, restrict Amazon's ability to pre-install and operate their own app store.

Given that Amazon's reason for making these devices in the first place is to sell content - videos, music, books and apps - stock Android is to all intents and purposes a non-starter for them.

See here: https://www.theinformation.com/Google-s-Confidential-Android... for more information.

I don't understand why that would be a problem. Pre-installing Google's stuff is a fair price to pay for getting a full-up Android OS for free.

Amazon's goal should be for it's apps and services to be fully competitive with everyone else's regardless of what phone they are on - iPhone, Nexus, Galaxy, Fire, shouldn't matter. I really don't see what the problem is with having Amazon's apps and services installed on the phone by default right alongside the ones from Google. Let the user decide. If users tend to prefer the Google stuff to Amazon's then they're not going to buy an Amazon locked-in Fire phone anyway.

Amazon's problem is that their apps don't come pre-installed on anyone else's phone by default. Making their own Fire phone solves that problem. It doesn't solve the problem of making Amazon's apps actualy competitive with everyone else's. That problem can only be solved by actualy making their apps good and desirable. If they aren't, locking Fire phone users into them isn't going to help sell any Fire phones and therefore isn't going to help gain exposure for Amazon's apps anyway.

I agree with you, and my point is simply this: AMZN should just sell a Nexus clone and be done with it. Does GOOG actually discourage phone makers from using their services? I don't think so.

Nexus is a reference design. So, I'll just copy Nexus but bundle Amazon Prime with it. What's not to love? So AMZN has to bundle their Amazon App or whatever on the phone; that's a given.

Unless, of course, GOOG has decided to actually make money off the Nexus phones, as indicated by their Nexus 6 pricing. But that's just opening up a market for a less expensive clone to be the logical replacement for the Nexus 4/5.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com