
Google’s iron grip on Android: Controlling open source by any means necessary - Tehnix
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/
======
okket
Previous discussion from 11 hours ago:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17581988](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17581988)
(38 comments)

~~~
kyrra
Also discussed 5 years ago (when the article first came out)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6582494](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6582494)

------
nradov
Not to worry. If history is any guide, Google will eventually miss a
disruptive innovation and some other company will become the dominant player
in the next new range of computing devices. It could be augmented reality
headsets, but who knows, another form factory always eventually arrives.

~~~
noncoml
Right, even Rome did eventually fall, but it might not be in your lifetime.

~~~
nradov
In my lifetime there have already been 3+ major platform shifts where the
dominant player lost control. I'm in good health so I expect to live through a
couple more.

------
notatoad
Google's "iron grip" seems to consist of making APIs in their open-source
product so that as many user-facing parts of the operating system as possible
are provided by user-installable and interchangeable apps, instead of
something baked deep into the operating system.

I'm not following how that counts as an "iron grip" or monopolistic behaviour.

------
bla2
It's so weird to me that Google gets all this flack when they made Android
open source, while Apple gets none of it and kept iOS closed source and super
locked down.

Given that, it's somewhat understandable that they're moving to a more closed
model, sad as it is.

~~~
xevb3k
I think I’d rather have a closed source operating system that is sold for
profit than an open source one funded by advertising.

I don’t think either situation is ideal however, but the iOS motivation seems
better aligned with my interests.

~~~
bla2
How is Android funded by advertising? The google services running on it are
funded by advertising, but you don't have to use those.

~~~
xevb3k
Android is funded as a vehicle for those services.

Last time I checked, the license fees Google receives did not fully cover the
development of Android.

------
asfasgasg
I don't really understand the argument here. Google once provided more OSS
with Android, so they are obligated to do so forever? That's not really how
OSS works. If you decide you don't want to give away quite as much of your
code for free, that might be unfortunate (depending on your perspective), but
it's not _wrong_.

A more correct formulation of the title would be "Google's Totally Normal Grip
on Google Apps: How Google Decided It Was in Their Best Interest To Give Away
A Lot But Not Quite As Much As Before Free Value."

~~~
shakna
> While Android remains free for anyone to use as they would like, only
> Android compatible devices benefit from the full Android ecosystem. By
> joining the Open Handset Alliance, each member contributes to and builds one
> Android platform—not a bunch of incompatible versions.

If you use an Android fork, as enabled and allowed by Open Source, you aren't
allowed to use Google anything anymore. That's the deal.

~~~
notatoad
>If you use an Android fork

Specifically, if you use an android form that doesn't pass the compatibility
test suite. There is no vendor that distributes stock android, not even
google. Every OEM maintains a fork from the base android distributed by the
android open source project.

The thing you aren't allowed to do is fork android in a way that prevents
users from installing android apps.

