EU socialists
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| nmset Apr 21, 2016 4:23 AM EDT |
What prevents the EU from building a platform of their own to compete ? I don't even want to know the details of their stupid claims, to me it's : "You're successful ? We have to control you, because we are the superior ones. We don't need to work, control is our heavenly domain !" |
| AwesomeTux Apr 21, 2016 5:19 AM EDT |
nmset wrote:What prevents the EU from building a platform of their own to compete ? Uh, Google's monopoly? Google more or less wrote Tivoization into their Android distribution agreements, except with apps instead of hardware, and you're going to complain about the EU enforcing antitrust laws? Were you also objecting to the US enforcing antitrust laws against Microsoft for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows back in the day? |
| nmset Apr 21, 2016 6:00 AM EDT |
>Were you also objecting to the US enforcing antitrust laws... I kept quiet because it was an internal American affair, and thought it was obviously unfair. Once more : What prevents the EU from building a platform of their own to compete ? They could be more open to OEMs, and they would naturally prefer to work with the EU than with Google. OEMs can right now choose Tizen/Microsoft 10 for mobile/Sailfish or whatever. But they prefer Android, their choice. The people buys Android devices, Google didn't force any one, as they don't force anyone to use their search engine. It's plain business, nothing more. |
| AwesomeTux Apr 21, 2016 7:17 AM EDT |
nmset wrote:Once more : What prevents the EU from building a platform of their own to compete ? This isn't about the EU (government) being unable to offer a platform of their own, it's about the European people's inability to compete. When every business is bundling Google's OS and their proprietary apps, it's nearly impossible for a small business to create a product in that market since the businesses using Android aren't allowed to use any one non-Google app without throwing out all of the other Google apps. A small company cannot possibly create an entire application suite that replaces all of Google's native apps that is also superior enough for companies to switch from Google's apps. A small company can, however, create a single app that is superior to one of Google's own. Google requires manufacturers exclude competing apps and services, that's the main problem. nmset wrote:But they prefer Android, their choice. The people buys Android devices, Google didn't force any one, as they don't force anyone to use their search engine. It's plain business, nothing more. And people want to be able to choose Android devices without some of Google's apps. Google is forcing companies from using one of their apps without also using the rest. Google is indirectly forcing the European people to use their apps, and thereby stifling innovation and competition. There's also the issue of "Too big to fail". I know Google's not a bank, but the premise is the same. You don't want one company to hold a monopoly on any industry. You don't want everyone using the same thing. Because when the one company goes down, everyone goes down with them. In this case, however, they're only talking about the apps. They want Google to allow businesses to distribute Android with one of Google's apps without requiring they distribute the rest as well. To allow a company to sell a phone with Google Chrome, but not Google Search, for example, so that anyone is free to create a replacement, a better app or service, and thereby allow competition. I think that's fair. |
| nmset Apr 21, 2016 7:25 AM EDT |
On my phone, there's GMail, I don't use it but a replacement, there's Maps, I don't use it, there's Google Calendar, I use a replacement... Even if all the apps are bundled, I can still use others. I see what you mean, but I don't know about the cases where it's a problem. |
| AwesomeTux Apr 21, 2016 7:38 AM EDT |
Businesses want to be able to bundle other apps with Android when they sell their device, because a better app with cool new features is a good selling point. Currently, they are unable to do that. Wouldn't you want to be able to buy a phone with the apps you prefer? Other people want to as well, and if the companies could sell such phones, those apps would get used more, have more money, and improve. The cases where it's a problem is for other, smaller companies like Yahoo!, who want to sell a phone with Yahoo! Search as the default search engine, or Mozilla or Opera Software to sell a phone with Firefox or Opera as the default browser. People are free to install whatever they want, but there's very little incentive for anyone to develop cool new apps when they know there isn't any chance of them ever ending up on new phones being sold. As I understand it, anyway. |
| JaseP Apr 21, 2016 8:13 AM EDT |
Android isn't "Tivo-ized." Android has been open-sourced, and there's nothing preventing someone from using it as the basis for creating another, similar OS,... Which others have done (Amazon, Ouya, etc.). On top of that, it is, for the most part, pretty trivial to root an Android device and replace or remove parts of the OS with whatever replacement (or none) you want. In addition, many of the bootloaders are unlocked. Some OEMs make rooting and unlocking the bootloader more difficult, but that is not the fault of Google. "Tivo-ization" requires that the open-source OS cannot be tampered with or unlocked by some sort of hardware mechanism. Google isn't doing that. OEMs are. They want their users to replace the entire handset rather than simply upgrade the one that they have. It's planned obsolescence. The phone I have uses Android Gingerbread. I've rooted it and un-installed most of the bloat-ware. OEMs hate that... They want your phone to be useless after a year or two so that you upgrade. Upgrading is largely unnecessary if Google were to be able to update any Android device, the way PC users can upgrade their OSes. |
| dotmatrix Apr 21, 2016 8:34 AM EDT |
>I've rooted it and un-installed most of the bloat-ware. I was under the impression that a rooted device no longer receives updates. Rooting a device is not what most 'normal' users are going to do. Most users are simply going to use the phone as is and install a few extra things as needed. Rooting also probably officially voids the warranty on the device. Android is 'open source like or lite' ... so to speak. see this old Ars article: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/ I realize for some people here Ars is controversial because of politics.... It seems to me that 'Tivoization' is a good way to put it. |
| AwesomeTux Apr 21, 2016 8:41 AM EDT |
Android is partially open source, the Google apps are not. That's software Tivoization. Users can do whatever they want, including rooting the device and removing the Google apps. Manufacturers, however, cannot do that if they want to sell a device with "true Android." To many people Android isn't really Android without the Google apps, and they won't buy a device without those apps. Most people would probably buy a device with some Google apps, but not others, but not a device without any Google apps. Therefore having Google apps be pre-installed and Google Search be the default search engine as requirements to use the Android trademark, is for manufacturers effectively forcing them to include Google's proprietary parts of Android. Therefore, Tivoization through software rather than through hardware. |
| jdixon Apr 21, 2016 8:42 AM EDT |
> It seems to me that 'Tivoization' is a good way to put it. Not really. It's a completely different problem. |
| nmset Apr 21, 2016 9:03 AM EDT |
All these complaints against Google can be served to Apple and iOS. The latter has a pretty good market share, though less than Android, less... now... a few years back, Android's market share was marginal. At any time, Apple was not blackmailed by any means. We are in the same situation when the EU was after Microsoft about choice of browsers, Apple was not charged at all. In another domain, a well know database vendor has got a free ride since ages, with marginal competition, so good for them, the EU was never upset. This is to say : what animal are these bureaucrats chasing ? |
| JaseP Apr 21, 2016 10:05 AM EDT |
Quoting: I was under the impression that a rooted device no longer receives updates. Rooting a device is not what most 'normal' users are going to do. Most users are simply going to use the phone as is and install a few extra things as needed. Rooting also probably officially voids the warranty on the device. It's a Gingerbread phone,... It's not getting any updates,... if it ever did. Warranties are usually 90 days on less than the top of the line phones,... And if you read the rest of my comment, you see I put the blame squarely where it belongs,... the OEMs,... Not Google. Tivo-ization is a specific thing. It involves locking a device so that it can't be modded (except by the manufacturer, and usually for a charge to unlock a "feature." Many times a "feature" that's already built into the device, but for an "unlock code."). It's not Tivo-ization if you can use an alternative (and there are alternatives for all of Google's apps,... They generally suck,... But that's a different issue). |
| dotmatrix Apr 21, 2016 11:08 AM EDT |
>It's a Gingerbread phone You do realize that 'rooting' an Android phone is not something Google intended. The process involves using an exploited vulnerability in the design of the OS. Of course you know this, because you've done it... but due diligence for a reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooting_(Android_OS) And, of course, Gingerbread is easier to 'root' than Marshmallow due to Google -- and not any OEM -- turning the 'root' security screws a bit tighter. Simply put: The argument that "I can root my Andorid phone and change things" is not a valid argument against Google attempting to channel users to its own services in Android through the use of its 'monopoly' market position. You can argue that since there are competing devices presented to a purchaser, that Google's Android product is not a monopoly. But, it is seems like a stretch of reality to argue that within the Android landscape, Google is not seeking to actively limit a clear user choice of apps and data services. The technically minded users are going to use whatever they wish. However, most users are simply going to use what is presented. And this is the problem. The EU's browser choice screen was for the general non-techie computer user, and it did indeed change what people used at least a little. It could also be argued, and was argued, that the order of browser choices was a limiting factor... most users would just pick the first one on the list. Most technology users are not that much 'into' technology and could care less what software/firmware or whatever is being used. However, disinterest should not be exploitable for market control, because uniform control leads to problems with a market economy. |
| mbaehrlxer Apr 21, 2016 11:36 AM EDT |
companies do not want to replace all of googles core apps, but they way want to improve or replace one or two of them. and exactly that they are not allowed to do. it's an all or nothing deal. and i believe that includes google play. so, if a company does anything on android that google doesn't like, they will loose access to google play, and that will likely annoy a lot of users. when samsung came out with their first android watch, google forced them to stop or samsung would have lost all licences to android. it would have meant to replace all apps on all their android phones, and probably never get access to them again. there is no option to mix and match. there is no freedom to fix this or that bit here. there is no: let's build this phone with the standard google apps, and that phone with cyanogenmod and see which one sells better. there is only 'do what google says' or give up any of googles core apps entirely for all products. you and i may not care about google play or other google apps, but i am sure many people do, and as a result, there is no option but to follow what google wants. this is not tivoization in the sense that users are locked out from making changes to their device. (i guess that's happening too, but that's a different matter) this is google circumventing the intention of Free Software and Open Source. (and it is why i no longer consider android a Free Software or Open Source project) and the way i see it, the EU is not only trying to stop a monopoly, but it ends up also fighting for software freedom. greetings, eMBee. |
| AwesomeTux Apr 21, 2016 11:37 AM EDT |
JaseP wrote:Tivo-ization is a specific thing. It involves locking a device so that it can't be modded (except by the manufacturer... This is exactly what Google is doing through its requirements that Google Search be default, and that their proprietary apps be pre-installed by the manufacturer in order to gain distribution rights of Google's other proprietary apps and the Android trademark. They are requiring manufacturers add software that only Google is able to change. JaseP wrote:It's not Tivo-ization if you can use an alternative Not true. Being able to remove the software doesn't make it not Tivoization, in fact to qualify as Tivoization the users must be able to remove the original software, but not be able to modify the original software and reinstall it to the device. Users were able to remove Tivo's Linux OS from the device, they weren't able to change it. Tivo took open source software, and made the system not recognize "unsigned" versions of the same software. Tivo was the only one who could change it. Google is requiring manufacturers add basically the same thing. Anyone can modify Android, but not the Google apps. Which myself and others would argue is the most important software on the system. |
| nmset Apr 21, 2016 12:38 PM EDT |
A layman's cartoon : OEM : Hello Google, we wish to licence Android but we don't want your apps. Google : We rely on our apps for exposure, market share, making benefits, that's why we spent countless dollars to build Android. Are you serious ? insane ? joking ? We don't maintain Android for you, but for us. We licence it as is, that's our business plan. I present it this way to picture what may be Google's standpoint. Another picture : OEM : Hello Apple, we want to sell devices with iOS. By virtue of encouraging competition defended by the EU and perhaps USA antitrust laws, you are summoned to distribute iOS source code, apps, hardware specs, you don't have the right to be the only one building and selling iStuff. Apple : ??? !!! |
| JaseP Apr 22, 2016 12:28 AM EDT |
Quoting: Not true. Being able to remove the software doesn't make it not Tivoization, ... Dead wrong. Tivo-zation is the locking in hardware of the system software. Do some research... Or let me do it for you... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization |
| AwesomeTux Apr 22, 2016 2:41 AM EDT |
JaseP wrote:Dead wrong. Tivo-zation is the locking in hardware of the system software. Do some research... Or let me do it for you... Proper definition: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Tivoization Free Software Foundation wrote:Some devices utilize free software that can be upgraded, but are designed so that users are not allowed to modify that software. Therefore, not being able to upgrade or remove the software isn't the problem, it's being able to do these things but not being allowed to do so with modified versions of the same software. The FSF would classify software that can't be upgraded, removed, nor changed as "firmware", which they have no problems with being non-free in those cases. My definition is 100% accurate. From a manufacturer's perspective, Google is forcing them to either sell their phone running only software that Google has approved (signed), or not sell the phone as Android. |
| cybertao Apr 22, 2016 2:43 AM EDT |
Vendors could provide their own builds without depending on or supporting Google, there's probably marketing restrictions around Android™ though. But that relies on the vendor to provide their own app store. Which isn't a problem for some manufacturers (there's the likes of f-droid and Amazon). But if you want Gmail and Google Maps then you need the Google Play service. It's possible to side-load apps and there are a number of ways to download them from the Play store without having it installed on the device. It's just easier for them to go with the flow and outsourcing to Google. Which might be a good thing. If every brand had to provide their own store and services then each would likely be promoting their own cloud service and have a variety of deals with different service providing for things like maps (which might be Google anyway), competing stores, etc. And a solid reason for all vendors to ensure side-loading is disabled. Installing Cyanogenmod is always an option available for those who care - those who don't care would wonder where Google Maps and Play are if it was a factory install. :/ |
| dotmatrix Apr 22, 2016 8:50 AM EDT |
I know I'm a real geek when I make comments on the Internet regarding the precise definition of Tivoization. Whatever the case may be, I still do not trust Google, nor Apple, nor Microsoft, nor Blackberry with my data and privacy. I will continue to avoid the use of a smart phone or mobile platform until I can secure the device's root file system with my own key -- generated and stored off the device. Not to worry though... I imagine the Raspberry Pi 'kit-culture' will give rise to the '3g/4g comms kit culture'. It may be short lived though, because it's likely the government will shut it down -- probably through the FCC. |
| 750 Apr 24, 2016 5:46 PM EDT |
Heh, socialists... |
| jdixon Apr 24, 2016 8:42 PM EDT |
> Heh, socialists... Saying EU socialists is a bit redundant, I'll grant. Socialism is the dominant governmental form in the EU, whether they call themselves that or not. |
| 750 Apr 25, 2016 5:16 PM EDT |
Social democracy != socialism outside of Randian wank circles... |
| jdixon Apr 25, 2016 7:39 PM EDT |
> Social democracy != socialism outside of Randian wank circles... If you say so. I'll just settle for comparing the various platforms and policies involved, which others have already done on several occasions. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!