Google Faces Enormous Forces in Fight Over the Future of Android | Hacker News Reader

Google Faces Enormous Forces in Fight Over the Future of Android

wired.com

50 pointssimas59 comments

I can't fathom why Google is named in this, but not Apple? Android can be released with whatever software you want on it... see chinese phones, or the kindles... You just cant bundle it with google services or play store if you also try to bundle third party services. Its a choice, not a forced decision, and users can install those later if they want. On iOS, apple tells you what you can install, how it can be used, and they can change those rules on a whim and destroy businesses - and a core value of their app ecosystem is that you are not allowed to create apps that compete with them, see the new removal of Pebble apps since the release of the Apple Watch....

The EU is backwards as hell...

As far as I can tell. Google's only current issue is Search. This is just a Wired clickbait article by the sounds of things.

The EU is investigating Android as well.

In the article it states the EU announced they were investigating Android in addition to the Google Search investigation they've been doing for some time. I think the article does a pretty good job of describing the context for the Android investigation announcement.

Probably because Apple doesn't care to get its stuff on Android, whereas all those other companies do.

Apple probably wants Android to be the way it is–owned by Google. If Google is forced to open up, then they might too.

I think the argument is that Apple's software isn't available to anyone so it only effects Apple's phones.

On the other hand by giving Android away from free Google pushed all other mobile OSes out of the market. Why develop your own for hundreds of millions of $ when Google has one you can use, developed faster than you can, with more features and apps.

Basically, Google dumped their product at a price point no one else could compete with and strangled out Palm, WinMo, Symbian, etc. taking over the non-Apple smartphone OS market. (ignoring mismanagement that may/did happen at those companies).

It also helped kill off cross-platform app solutions, like Java Micro Edition and Qualcomm BREW. (BTW, this is one of the big bones of contention between Oracle and Google -- Google used Java to help build Android, but did so in such a way as to make their apps incompatible with J2ME apps.)

> but did so in such a way as to make their apps incompatible with J2ME apps

"in such a way" like just using Java Standard Edition?

Android's implementation of Java is a subset of Java SE, not the whole thing:

http://www.zdnet.com/article/java-vs-android-apis/

Java SE is incompatible with Java ME, hence the OP comment

My understanding is Google also blocks hardware vendors from working with alternative android based OSes. They accomplish this by threatening the hardware vendors with not licensing Google's android version with Google's apps if they release another android phone with say Kindle OS.

That seems to fall under anti-trust behavior to me. (I'm not a legal expert). Using your strength in one market (search, email, youtube...) gain and protect market share in another (Mobile OS).

Is that really the case? HTC is releasing Nexus devices and Windows phone at the same time, and they also released the "Facebook phone." I can't imagine they'd be jeopardizing their Android business over Windows phone or FB Home if that were a real concern.

Windows Phone isn't covered by the deal, which only extends to forks of AOSP, not wholly different mobile OSes. The Facbook Phone, IIRC, was just Android with the Facebook launcher in place of the default Launcher, the underlying OS was still Google's approved version of Android.

I'm no expert on this, but from what I remember, if you produce an android phone running normal stock android, then you cannot make another phone and fork the OS. So while HTC can make Nexus and windows phones, they cannot make Nexus and their own phone running their own port of android that ditches all of Googles apps. It's Googles way of locking Hardware manufactures in and preventing competition. Hence lawsuits.

I thought Facebook Home was more invasive than it apparently is.

You are correct.

Good stuff from Ben Evans about this http://ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2015/3/15/android-taxonom...

I'm not an expert as well, but I can see how this causes confusion in the market. If a handset maker provides two phones both running Android to the market, one has the expected Google services another with possibly subpar services. This does look negatively upon google and not the handset manf. because Android is associated with Google for the most part. Imagine if HTC had released the same exact phone with two competing versions of Android. I actually think its a disservice to the market, especially if there is more financial incentive for a manufacturer to push the version of Android that is not Google's.

OHA members can't make non compatible Android versions but they can sell Android devices without Google Services

> My understanding is Google also blocks hardware vendors from working with alternative android based OSes.

What right do manufacturers have to reproduce google's code? It's not like those manufacturers can make iOS devices either.

Google granted them that right when they chose the copyleft Apache License v2.0 for the majority of the Android stack which permits such reproduction.

The Google apps, Gmail, Maps, etc, are closed source, and cannot be redistributed.

https://source.android.com/license.html

Didn't manufacturers grant google the right to extortion when they licensed g-products? Unless manufacturers are children without the ability to consent to terms I don't see why I should care about their arrangement.

I think the counterpoint is that since Google controls Android, their slow move to a model where the other parties in the Google ecosystem are compelled to adopt Google services vs. whatever services they want to provide.

The Apple model is different. They live or die on the full platform. If Apple fails to execute, people leave the platform. They don't compel the behavior of other parties in the market.

Whatever Apple forbids in their devices doesn't matter under market laws, as long as, their market share keeps under a certain threshold.

Currently Apple's market share in Europe is insignificant when compared with Android's.

HN complains in that regard always miss the way market laws work.

Yet I bet iOS still makes a lot more money than Android even in Europe. Market share doesn't mean anything if the money isn't there.

Given that there are countries (eastern europe) where there are hardly seen, I doubt.

Profit is not only sold Apps. The companies selling handsets also might be quite happy with Android's share.

As for the overall Apps, unless one fits into the top 1% apps, there is hardly any money to be made.

The real winners of app markets are the consultant companies doing apps on requests, trainings, certifications and all those companies selling multi-platform programming solutions.

The stuff with Pebble does seem obviously anticompetitive.

Besides that here's the difference:

Apple's hardware and software are exclusive to each other.

Google is being accused of interacting with hardware manufacturers in an anticompetitive way, in nearly an identical fashion to how Microsoft interacted with hardware manufacturers leading to their anti-trust loss.

The GMail app is the new Internet Explorer. You can't get the GMail app through proper channels unless your phone manufacturer play's Googles game to their liking. Likewise phone manufacturers aren't free to sell the phones as they want, they either lose out on market-dominating Google applications or lose on their freedom of choice.

The difference between this and Apple is that there are huge complicated business deals between Google and hardware manufacturers. Apple app store kicking out or modifying the behavior of apps can be seen as anticompetitive, but it is fundamentally different.

Apple is deciding what to sell in their store in an anticompetitive way, Google is controlling it's buyers in an anticompetitive way.

The second is seen as generally worse.

Microsoft, by the way, has a big hand in pushing this.

Google and Apple are in very different markets, for the purposes of this sort of investigation.

We often think of Apple and Google as direct competitors because they are the ultimate owners of their software platforms. But the structures of their mobile businesses are largely mirror opposites:

Google sells software to companys that make phone hardware. They are a supplier.

Apple makes software and buys phone hardware from other companies. They are a purchaser.

"Anyone can use Android without Google"

Really? Then why can't I uninstall Google Plus, Play Music, Play Newstand, etc? These are "system" apps. Remember when Microsoft made IE a system app? That didn't end well.

can't agree more

By "anyone" here, they mean manufacturers. And even you could flash your phone if you wanted to, unless restrictions have been placed (which is done by the carriers, not by Google).

OK that makes a lot more sense, thanks for clarification.

Isn't this a choice by manufacturers along with the bloatware they install in system ? I know with many roms you can get minimal Gapps and install everything else as regular downloads.

Nope. And no, semi-legal ROMs aren't authoritative on that.

I can remove all of Google's proprietary software. Just because you may not know how doesn't mean you're not allowed to learn.

well I can root my phone .. but that revokes the warranty .. which is like saying that I'm allowed to learn but cannot apply that learning

the only reasonable option is to disable them

You can build a ROM without them.

There's a difference between "you can" and what's actually convenient for an user.

And the "anyone" they're talking about isn't end-users it's device manufacturers.

Android itself doesn't require the use of Google plus. Look at cyanogenmod or a phone setup for you:

https://oneplus.net/

> It’s the EU’s biggest antitrust action against an American tech company since it levied charged against Microsoft and its Windows operating system in 2000, which eventually resulted in huge fines for the company and notable changes to its technology. This time, the tables have turned, but the case is playing out in similar ways.

Er, the investigation they just announced is the biggest antitrust "action" since Microsoft? Oh Wired, you remain as lazy as ever.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. It's been over 5 years since the Google search investigation first became public knowledge[1], and it'll be another few years before it's resolved. Compared to web search, the mobile market is going to be changing far, far faster over the next 5 to 7 years.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/technology/19antitrust.htm...

There is no mention of Android in that 2010 article. The Android issue is the new announcement. Scale claims are Wired's.

> There is no mention of Android in that 2010 article

That's what I said?

> It's been over 5 years since the Google search investigation first became public knowledge[1]

What comes around goes around.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/technology/companies/25goo...

Google should be thinking in terms of switching android away from Java toward either Objective-C, which is very popular, or C++. This would be a very large and costly change but the longer they wait the higher the costs rise. Furthermore the fact that Google is not using Objective-C means that two teams are always needed for mobile development in most companies... Whereas if they use Objective-C one team could code for both android and iOS.

Alas like most people who work in tech Googlers have trouble questioning assumptions.

Moving Android development to Go makes the most sense, if they plan to abandon Java, which I doubt.

Finally, people often make the mistake of thinking that programming languages are the problem in mobile development (or in GUI development in general, frankly). You can pick up a programming language fairly quickly, even in a weekend to a reasonable level if you're good enough. Learning a UI framework, however, that takes time - no matter your skill level.

Objective-C, which is very popular? Give me a platform (apart from iOS and OSX) where Objective-C is popular? Why not the other way around?

More likely Google is going to push toward Chromium and web-as-platform. This can be somewhat timed as hardware vendors switch over to Google-free Android. This will be the second move to undermine Apple.

This should work for most everything short of things that must have very low latency like VR. Keep an eye on Google's continued expansion in to telecom.

Chrome as a platform, yes. Web as a platform, no. The come from the latter and are going to the former.

This sounds plausible. Has there been any examples of Google pushing against comparability standards with other browsers?

> This can be somewhat timed as hardware vendors switch over to Google-free Android.

Is this happening?

After having stiffed Microsoft, the EU has turned its attention to Google. Business as usual. You are talking about an organization that can't even balance its own budget, going about left and right extorting money from whoever seems to have a lot of it. Sooner or later Appple will be next.

> You are talking about an organization that can't even balance its own budget, going about left and right extorting money from whoever seems to have a lot of it.

What are you talking about?

The EU are simply going after a business with lots of money. Most of the organizations complaining about Google are big companies most of which have been targetted and fined, or will be fined by the EU at one time or the other. The EU takes its turn extorting them one after the other.

It isn't as though in all these complaints it is just business as usual. In the form of Oracle you are talking about a company with feels APIs should be copyrighted, and in Microsoft you are talking about a business which gobbles up patents for licensing like there is no tomorrow. None of the major complainers are boy scouts themselves, and neither is the EU for that matter.

Ah, you're just talking nonsense

Reply on news.ycombinator.com