In the wave of European antitrust lawsuits against Google in part Android, a representative of the XDA community reflects on the company's policy, comparing its explicit and covert strategy with the policies of the new competitors from Cyanogen.
Android and its 'openness' have been around for a long time, but recent industry events point to inherent flaws in this aspect of the OS. Whether it's bloggers, political institutions or corporations, many consider Android not open enough. Ironically, the fight for 'open Android' has moved into a phase of open confrontation, in which many players are building up their positions and trying to strengthen their market share – or at least influence Google dominance – within the most popular mobile OS in the world. For us, this situation is not something fleeting and passing, because it is said that the corporation achieved 81% of the market with a billion devices sold over the past year.
Before we dive into the question, it's worth noting that for us on XDA, users familiar with system fine-tuning, mods and custom firmware, Android is an extremely open system. For those who do not have such knowledge, Android for the most part provides a set of presets. While users can go to Google Play and download a myriad of apps, the service is operated by Google and offers significant benefits (whether through Google Services or the service itself) that other developers can't match. Thus, even a smartphone from the Galaxy line with a massive amount of pre-installed 'fuflosoft' provides more 'freedom' than, say, iPhone.
Let's clarify one more thing in advance: when we talk about freedom in the open Android, we are not talking about choices. Of course, a single scenario can have a decision space with more or less choices. But above all, freedom is the ability to make those choices without any conditions imposed, not the number of options offered. A simple example is iOS – applications, especially since the time when the App Store surpassed the corresponding Google directory: more comparatively better applications gives more comparatively better choices, but not always gives freedom to make decisions. The solution space is limited (for example, by lack of knowledge or software obstacles) to a specific device, if there is no experience in installing third-party applications and disabling unnecessary programs. Be that as it may, for the majority Android – devices freedom [of decision making] remains.
Google and antitrust lawsuit
This week, headlines vied with each other about Google's concerns in the EU over poor market strategy. More specifically, the chairman of the EU antitrust committee accused Google of manipulating web search results to generate financial returns within the company and its partners. This issue is of paramount importance to the EU, a region where Google has a 90% share of search queries. Following the investigation, the committee brought an accusation against Google (a notice of claims), according to which the company could lose up to $ 6 billion. Mediation is still in progress, although Google tried to defend itself through a statement on its blog, it still left a mark.
While the global media has focused on web searches, smartphone owners may be directly affected by the Committee's investigation Android. They argue that Google is using its position to influence OEM preinstallation of applications on their devices and that this fact is not fair to the rest of the market (especially given the underlying open source OS). According to Google, manufacturers are doing this voluntarily and in many ways this statement is true, given the dominance of Google services in mobile devices. One way or another, if Google is proven to violate EU antitrust laws, the entire market will 'shake up' the opportunity for other players to get a large share in the segment Android. Given the recent research by Cyanogen, we have an interesting scenario. Is Google involved in actions to undermine competition?
In defense of Google
As soon as it became known about the investigation, Google immediately released another statement on its blog, which justifies the position of the company. This post still has a slightly different tone: instead of convincing readers of truly selfless principles, the statement is more like an ode to the openness and diversity of the ecosystem Android. Also, the text of the statement is much less focused on the problem when compared with the past, convincingly refuting all accusations. In this post, Google explains the structure of its OS like this:
- Android is an open source operating system that can be used by anyone without any fee – yes, anyone. And not only in phones. Today people create absolutely any device based on Android: tablets, watches, TVs, cars, etc. Some devices use Google services, some don't.
- Google Play has over a million apps, and we paid over $ 7 billion to developers and content creators last year.
- Apps that directly compete with Google products such as Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft Office and Expedia are easily accessible to users Android . In fact, many of these apps come pre-installed on devices along with Google apps. A great example of such a device is the Samsung Galaxy S6, which comes with apps from Facebook, Microsoft and Google.
- Developers have a choice of platforms and about 80% of developers create applications for several different mobile operating systems ..
It is worth remembering that all of these points are true, however, none of them address the essence of the company's claims of using competitive coercion of device manufacturers to install Google apps. In the past, you've witnessed the drama of Mobile Application Distribution Agreements (MADA). In fact, last year's famous lawsuit raised the issue of the special status of Google's apps. Presumably, the basic idea is that if an OEM wants to include the Google app in the preinstalled software package, then it must include the company's entire app as well as Google services. The lawsuit also suggests outright bribery to 'subsidize' OEM devices in exchange for preinstalling Google apps.
The MADA agreement between Google and Samsung, published re / code and up to date as of January 2011, shows that something similar is taking place. We'll see:
'Unless otherwise authorized in writing by Google, (1) Company pre-installs all apps approved in the designated Territory or Territories for each Device; (2) Google search at the top of the screen and the Market icon Android must be located at least in the immediate vicinity of the default home screen; (3) all other Google applications must be placed no further than one level below the [application icon] Phone on the Device; and (4) Google search at the top of the screen should be set as the default search for all search hotspots on the Device. Whatever the above, there is no requirement for the placement of optional Google applications. '
Cyanogen in an 'open' fight
For some time now, Cyanogen's statements have been in the headlines regarding Android, in the light of the previous rounds of investments, the company seems to be ready to go out. In one of the materials, which talked about investors, their OS, their users and developers, and most importantly, their vision of the market situation, we have already described the 'weapons' that threaten the future of Google. Cyanogen believes that Android is not open enough at its current stage of development, the company adheres to the concept of a 'tyrant' in the face of Google, which holds Android with its proprietary services. Most manufacturers do not allow users to uninstall Google apps, only disable them, which is consistent with the MADA mentioned.
In most of the previous posts, we have been skeptical about Cyanogen and their claims. Yes, their solutions are generally more 'open' than their OEM counterparts and the company attaches great importance to providing freedom and options in CyanogenMod builds, whether through flexible customization, support or simply support from the developer community. Nevertheless, the company has a number of controversial actions in its asset: during the past rounds of funding and the conclusion of partnerships, they literally 'go to bed' with some of the largest corporations from key industries, such as hardware (Qualcomm), telecommunications (Telefónica), social media (Twitter), and now Microsoft.
Patron – Microsoft, Ally – Boxer
This is where doubt creeps in with respect to Cyanogen's assurances: the agreement implies that applications Microsoft will be released with support for Cyanogen OS (manufacturer's assembly, not the assembly that we all like), and Cyanogen, in turn, will provide services Microsoft with deeper and even 'native' integration into their OS. The good news is reports about the possibility of completely removing such applications at will, the same can be done with Google applications. However, it shows the protectionism within the OS that can turn it into something completely different … especially when it gets down to business Microsoft. A small digression: doesn't it seem strange to announce the partnership immediately after the news about the beginning of the proceedings against Google and its reluctance to make Android more open? Hmm ..
– Are you following the castle?
– No, I'm just sitting at night in the car opposite your house.
Microsoft is increasing its presence in Android by bringing many of its services and applications to the platform, as well as further undisguised promotion of one in the other. Knowing the policy Microsoft, one can understand that this is not an easy attempt to increase profits: we have already studied their expansion and believe that something completely different is happening in the background. But when it comes to real suspicion, Microsoft is under the gun for the security of its software, especially after major 'vulnerabilities' have been identified (including a bug that caused Microsoft servers to act as a broker to gain access to private e-mail) found in recently released Outlook clients for Android and iOS. With regards to this situation, the developer IBM Winkelmeier said: 'I saw something incredible. Frequent scanning of my email from AWS IP. This means that Microsoft store my personal and server information (luckily, I used my private test account, not my corporate account) somewhere in the cloud! They didn't ask for my opinion. They just scanned. In theory, they can have full access to PIM information (…) '
'Information is also open!'
The news sparked a wave of doubts over the partnership between Cyanogen and Boxer, the company that supplies Cyanogen OS with its default email client. We took a look at the company's privacy policy and discovered the possibility of collecting unknown information by scanning the contents of mail … with the further dissemination of this information within the company, among partners and 'trusted' third parties, which could potentially include Microsoft. As the editor of the XDA portal pointed out, at least we are aware that Google collects information about us and we agree to this. They try not to talk about this problem, which once again points to the hidden 'face' of Cyanogen and secret activities. In an open letter to Boxer, an incredibly ironic passage was revealed: “The start of our partnership with Cyanogen marks a major shift in the mobile space. Users no longer need to use second-rate software or services that promote the interests of companies within their platforms (…) Users now have the choice – an open operating system in Cyanogen, combining best-in-class products and services in a single platform '.
Open war
The fight for open Android is not limited to Google and Cyanogen, we can expect new characters to appear in the near future. At the moment, the main acting forces are represented by this couple. I have tried to objectively show that both companies use tactics that generate distrust from the user, while both claim to have or offer 'open Android', which is actually not true. Both Google and Cyanogen offer identical solution spaces and nearly identical freedom in their versions Android, but that doesn't mean their OS versions are as open as they want them to be. We can only talk about the open nature of the platform Android itself, and not the one that the companies want to see the operating system.
Freedom, decision space and openness were once at the core Android, but this aspect is lost when the OS is used to advance corporate interests. For the most part, Google and Cyanogen are restricting Android, not necessarily negatively. I find Android from Google to be a great piece of software, mostly because of Google's services. While I know the difference between 'clean' Android and familiar user experiences, things like Google Now have intuitively and organically become synonymous with Android. I'm sure that you use Google services as much as we do, even if your custom builds don't have them preinstalled. The vision Android on the part of Cyanogen is noble, but according to the theory of forms, like many other ideas, the physical manifestations of such thoughts are subject to the influence of corporate greed and depravity, so the nobility disappears. This is probably what is happening with Cyanogen now that they have become dependent on (or lobbied for) these large companies.
Going back to MADA, Google may be playing a foul game. In fact, behind-the-scenes and not-so-honorable coercive tactics show that the company is not committed to an honest and open fight. Or, at least, it shows paranoia and fear of being left without the support of manufacturers. Both traits, by analogy with the strategies described, are typical of an authoritarian regime, so in this respect, Cyanogen's claim against the tyrant of Google may sound true. Again, it cannot be denied that people love what Google has to offer at Android, and while there is no trust in the company for collecting information and relationships with partners, Cyanogen's approach to business leaves much to be desired.
To summarize, Google's anticompetitive tactics are neither justifiable nor honorable, but the same can be said for Cyanogen's accusations against Google. Moreover, Google's main interests are in Android, which cannot be said for Microsoft, which has become the largest and most tireless partner of Cyanogen. The fight for the open Android has moved into an active open phase and no one knows how it will end. The next few years will show an interesting development, especially if investigation of Android and further accusations can resolve the OS and contribute to its further 'opening' to a simpler 'playing field'. Personally, I chose my side. And you?
Original article by Mario Tomás Serrafero
Elir: a very successful presentation of an opinion in terms of turning the plane of current events into an unexpected direction, at least for me. Is Cyanogen's intentions really pure? This is worth thinking about.