
Android KitKat ships without browser app. OEMs have to license Chrome - cpeterso
http://www.unwiredview.com/2013/11/21/android-4-4-kitkat-ships-without-browser-app-oems-have-to-license-chrome-or-build-their-own/
======
drzaiusapelord
This is fud. Browser is still in AOSP. Pretty sure this is it here:

[https://android.googlesource.com/platform/packages/apps/Brow...](https://android.googlesource.com/platform/packages/apps/Browser/+/kitkat-
release)

Obviously you can create the gui for a browser to access the webkit renderer
if you didnt want this.

Anyway, this is meaningless. No one ships commercial phones without the Play
store and Chrome will be just another app bundled with the deal.

~~~
Timmmmbob
Yes, the truth is that the AOSP Browser is now abandonware - Google have
stopped developing it in favour of Chrome, and likely won't accept non-
security patches for it.

I don't think this matters much anyway. Firefox is a more than capable
browser. Possibly better than Chrome on Android. It's certainly smoother.

~~~
shooper
Also, the Open Handset Alliance terms may prohibit OEMs from replacing Chrome
with, say Firefox.

From [http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-
on-...](http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android-
controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/3/)

>Any OEM hoping to license Google Apps will need to pass Google's
"compatibility" tests in order to be eligible. Compatibility ensures that all
the apps in the Play Store will run on your device. And to Google,
"compatibility" is also a fluid concept that an Android engineer once
internally described as "a club to make [OEMs] do what we want." While Google
now has automated tools that will test your device's "compatibility," getting
a Google apps license still requires a company to privately e-mail Google and
"kiss the ring" so to speak. Most of this is done through backroom agreements
and secret contracts, so the majority of the information we have comes from
public spats and/or lawsuits between Google and potential Android deserters
(see: Acer).

>Another point of control is that the Google apps are all licensed as a single
bundle. So if you want Gmail and Maps, you also need to take Google Play
Services, Google+, and whatever else Google feels like adding to the package.
A company called Skyhook found this out the hard way when it tried to develop
a competing location service for Android. Switching to Skyhook's service meant
Google would not be able to collect location data from users. This was bad for
Google, so Skyhook was declared "incompatible." OEMs that wanted the Google
Apps were not allowed to use them. Skyhook sued, and the lawsuit is still
pending.

~~~
zmmmmm
They would certainly prohibit them "replacing" Chrome with FireFox, but the
suggestion that they would stop an OEM shipping an alternative browser on a
phone is such a ridiculous piece of FUD it's laughable.

~~~
UVStaska
Mmm. I'm sorry, but how is "prohibiting them to replace Chrome with Firefox"
compatible with "not stopping OEM shipping alternative browser" ?

~~~
notatoad
because "not stopping OEMs from shipping an alternative browser" is what
they're doing now, and "prohibiting them to replace chrome with firefox" is
the theoretical evil they could technically do if they choose to in the
future, not actually happening now, and probably will never happen.

This whole thread is so full of FUD. Google is not blocking firefox. There's a
whole bunch of green-named people who have decided to sign up for an account
and pretend that google is going to block firefox. There is no evidence that
google is even considering this, and no valid arguments as to why google might
want to do it. it's bullshit.

------
d0nk
This seems a bit odd to me. The browser is still in the AOSP source
(platform/packages/apps/Browser) and has 4.4_r1.2 tags. It was also included
in a self-built rom for my Nexus 4 without doing anything to explicitly
include it.

Even if google doesn't ship a browser in the source they provide to OEM's, the
source for the AOSP browser is still readily available and trivial to add to
the build.

------
ozten
If only there was a free, completely open source browser with more than 4.5
stars in the Google Play store which could be bundled without any business
deals...

Bonus points for a cool project codename like Fennec.

~~~
mbennett
If only there wasn't an agreement prohibiting such replacements.

Bonus points for calling it the "Open" Handset Alliance agreement.

[http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-
la...](http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-lawsuit-
motorola-samsung/)

~~~
icebraining
Then don't sign the agreement? You can still use Android on your products.

~~~
mkr-hn
It works! The lack of an agreement between Amazon and Google has yet to be a
hindrance on my new Kindle Fire. All but one of the apps I wanted is in
Amazon's store, and that one app was available as an .apk.

------
nostrademons
Speaking solely as a web developer: good riddance, the pre-KitKat stock
Android browser is a piece of shit. It relies on an old fork of Webkit that
has none of the features of the modern web, no GPU support, and a lot of
outright bugs (like it would flip back to the first frame of a CSS3 animation
right before the animation completes, creating an ugly flicker).

Without this change we'd be left with Android Browser & clones as the IE6 of
the mobile web. I'm hoping all the OEMs build their own browsers off the
Chromium WebView that ships in KitKat; then at least we only have to worry
about Chromium and Mobile Safari.

~~~
fidotron
But speaking as an Android user, Android Chrome is a slow piece of crap, (with
that horrible text resizing thing going on) while the stock browser actually
works.

~~~
nostrademons
I've been using Android Chrome as a user since it was in beta; it's been my
default browser for at least a year now. I had far more problems with Android
Browser than Android Chrome.

(They are working on speed though; not much attention has been paid to
performance optimizations besides using the GPU for animations.)

------
skyjedi
Browser is still in AOSP,
[https://android.googlesource.com/platform/packages/apps/Brow...](https://android.googlesource.com/platform/packages/apps/Browser/+/kitkat-
release)

------
forgottenpass
Are the additional terms for licensing Chrome beyond what was already needed
for OEMs to get the Play Store? Unless there are and they're onerous in
particularly new way, this feels like a non-issue getting attention because
the business agreements around Android are relatively public compared to other
OSes.

~~~
shooper
>this feels like a non-issue getting attention because the business agreements
around Android are relatively public compared to other OSes.

Are they? Where can we see them?

The page at [1] about the Open Handset Alliance contains a lot of noise about
openness etc. but there are no details of the agreements or how much it
actually costs for a Google apps license.

I remember everyone was surprised when Google forced Acer to pull phones based
on Aliyun OS because of the OHA agreement, which IIRC, is under NDA and
secrecy.

[1]
[http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/oha_overview.html](http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/oha_overview.html)

~~~
Oletros
What has to do OHA with Google Apps?

------
Aissen
One thing that isn't in the article: Chrome for Android is proprietary
software. Yes it uses the chromium project as an engine, but all the UI bits
are proprietary.

This leads to ridiculous procedures if you want to recompile libchromeview.so
and replace it in your app:
[http://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/AndroidBuildInstructi...](http://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/AndroidBuildInstructions#Rebuilding_libchromeview.so_for_a_particular_release)

------
AdmiralAsshat
All the more reason for OEMs to start shipping with Firefox instead.

~~~
chimeracoder
> All the more reason for OEMs to start shipping with Firefox instead.

I would love it if OEMs started to do this.

Unfortunately, I bet that most OEMs will just license Chrome, and if they
decide not to do that, my money's on them creating half-assed proprietary
browsers built around WebView before they turn to Firefox.

Which is a shame, because Firefox for Android is young, but shows great
promise.

~~~
freehunter
Firefox for Android is slower and has more bugs than Chrome for Android, but I
use it and love it solely for the add-on support. LastPass on mobile devices
_sucked_ until I found you can install the add-on in Firefox and use your
normal browser. Adblock is nice for cutting down on mobile data use, too.

~~~
darkstalker
Don't know what are you talking about, Firefox on Android is currently the
fastest browser there. Chrome is slower and buggier on every new update.

~~~
freehunter
My main slowness/bug with Firefox for Android is the sluggish scrolling. When
I move my finger, there's a small but noticeable delay before the page starts
moving. I don't have this problem with Chrome on my Nexus 4.

Like I said, I prefer Firefox for its desktop-like features. But in my
experience, Chrome has a faster response in the UI.

------
berdario
Not only the browser in AOSP is based on chromium, but it's also used as the
webview engine itself...

[http://blog.chromium.org/2013/11/introducing-chromium-
powere...](http://blog.chromium.org/2013/11/introducing-chromium-powered-
android.html)

as much as I despise Google for closing up a lot of bits of android, this
doesn't seem much of an issue...

also: every OEM worth its salt should just build their android from the AOSP
(or some fork)'s sources

------
neltnerb
Funny, this is exactly what Microsoft was sued over =) Good on Google for pre-
emptively removing vendor lockin for browser choice.

------
ville
Maybe they learned from Microsoft that is not good to ship a browser with an
OS?

~~~
gcb1
google is worse than microsoft when it comes to web control.

the only reason for this is so they can decouple the browser from the system,
so they can update the browser faster.

or do you think they like that all those pre 4.1 devices (90%+) cant run their
tracking-cookie-substitute or whatever?

~~~
UnfalseDesign
Decoupling an app from the OS to update it faster is the reason they pulled
the YouTube app from being shipped with iOS.

~~~
kllrnohj
The YouTube app that was being shipped in iOS previously was written by Apple,
not Google. Google's YouTube app was _never_ bundled with iOS.

------
Zigurd
Before Chrome became the Android browser id led a dual life, as Chrome,
Google's commercial product that includes some licensed IP, and Chromium, an
open source project.

I expect that licensing Chrome in Android is necessary for the same reasons
there are parallel projects and products for other platforms.

------
billyjobob
Chromium is a free software version of Chrome for PCs. Is there an Android
version of Chromium? If so, wouldn't OEMs just ship that instead of licensing
Chrome?

~~~
kllrnohj
Sort of. Chromium is actually the _base_ for Chrome, and that's true for
Android as well. However while Chromium on PC has more or less the complete
browser UI, the Chromium for Android does not. All the hard stuff is there in
Chromium for Android - blink, V8, graphics, webgl, etc... - but the UI isn't.

In Android 4.4 the WebView sits on top of Chromium, so if an OEM really wanted
they could continue to use their own browser skins that sit on top of WebView
like they previously shipped and it will now magically use Chromium under the
hood. So really there's no story here.

------
driverdan
Is Google making companies pay for software they offer as a free download in
the Play store? How does that make any sense?

~~~
jcl
Companies also have to pay for the Play store.

------
thrillgore
It's the IE/Netscape lawsuit all over again.

~~~
icebraining
Google is actually doing the opposite of what Microsoft did: they're _un_
bundling the browser from the OS.

Which is not to say it's a good thing, just that it isn't the same at all.

