EU finally gets a clue
The probe centres on the use of exclusive contracts which enable phone firms to run Google’s own apps and not necessarily on demands they bundle in a complete set of Google apps such as Search, Maps and Gmail and its Google Play app store on phones.
-EU antitrust Chief, Margrethe Vestager
Let’s get this part straight: Just because you release the source code for a project, doesn’t make that project, ‘open’…ok Schnookums? Android was an open source project once…back when it belonged to Android INC. and now-exiled Andy Rubin (Androids baby-daddy) had dreams and aspirations of making a mobile operating system for the masses.
But that was a long time, and a ****-load of advertising revenue ago. I don’t know the real reason Andy isn’t a part of the Android project anymore. Perhaps only he knows. I would like to think he found his testicles and let Schmidt, Page and Brin know just how bad Google screwed up the deployment of a great mobile operating system. And in that conversation, Schmidt finally let Rubin in on a Google secret: Google never cared about making Android the best mobile operating system in the universe…just the most popular one. Google’s Android was never about developing and deploying mobile technology to the user. Google’s Android is about using mobile technology to harvest data from the user. Android is simply the platform Google uses as the mechanism to stay engaged with users everywhere and all the time. This engagement is crucial to Google’s existence. No engagement, no private user-data mining.
Que the Mountain View standard response
Anyone can use Android with or without Google applications. Hardware manufacturers and carriers can decide how to use Android and consumers have the last word about which apps they want to use.
-Mark Jansen, Googler from Google
What Jansen says is not accurate but he is not wrong. Android exists in 2 configurations: You either have all of the proprietary closed-source Google applications and services running on your handset or you can’t have any at all. That’s why Amazon had to fork Android. Amazon didn’t want their Android device pre-loaded with all the Goo-Garbage that Mountain View requires from every Android OEM. So Google denied Amazon the use of the PlayStore.
You would think that all you would need to do to get Android up and running on a compatible device is:
- Build a compatible handset
- Compile, package and build a ROM from the source
- Run and pass the Android Compatibility Test Suite
You should have an Android build like the ones you see at the #1 Android device and Google culture distributor: WalMart. But Google is ‘unable’ to automatically license Google Play. That’s because Android was never intended to be free for anyone. The Google is the decider. How do they decide? I think it has something to do with ability or willingness.
How could you be unable to automatically license your app distribution portal that is only to be used on your cl
open source mobile operating system on a compatible hardware platform as indicated by the compatibility test battery you created to qualify hardware platforms for Android distribution?
Maybe they just spelled, ‘unwilling’ differently.
Irrespective of the intent (which ironically is the most important factor here) you have to give Google the props for ‘selling’ Android to both users and OEM partners under the guise of ‘free’. Google did this like a boss. Revenue from selling desktop Search user data was coming to a close due to the death of the desktop computer. Google is dead without Search, So they bought something they could use to put Search in the pockets of the users they strip-mine data from…so they bought Android, hobbled and stipulated it to the point of mediocrity so that the source code could be deployed but is worthless until you Contact the Google and discuss the, ‘variety of reasons’ with them.
Why would Google do this?
Last year, there were 11 billion reasons why Google does this.
Our concern is that by requiring phone makers and operators to pre-load a set of Google apps, rather than letting them decide for themselves which apps to load, Google might have cut off one of the main ways that new apps can reach customers.
-EU antitrust Chief, Margrethe Vestager
She is talking about the PlayStore denial/approval criteria. You can read more about it here:
The effort required for a forked Android distribution to be a successful and thriving strategy for a business is nothing to be dismissive of. Just ask Amazon. It is difficult. There is much that needs to be reconstituted to get it to the point of features and functionalities it has on the devices you see for sale, like the ones on the Google PlayStore. Some of you might be surprised when you learn that it is designed to be that way. One might even say that Android forks are designed to be hobbled like crippleware, so they fail. Does Google ‘change’ android if a branched fork scenario occurs? That depends on what you believe ‘Android ‘ is, or more importantly – what it is not.
Google doesn’t allow the PlayStore to be distributed on any deployed build of android without authorization. That is the gatekeeper mechanism: Without an application repository, you don’t have developers building anything for your users. Without a library of solid applications you probably won’t have many users, and without users buying applications, there isn’t a viable business model for sustainability if you are a business with a core competence of deploying modifications of Operating System firmware.