upvote

points

by ajross7 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby GeekyBear6 hours ago|
next
[-]
iOS was never never an OS that was open to any device maker who cared to use it.

Google made the choice to announce that Android was open to all, in an attempt to take market share from Windows Phone.

Now they want to go back on their word.

reply
upvoteby ajross4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
That may well be true. But the upthread point was that this was "anti-competitive", not "word-breaking". And in an argument about competition, Android is and remains by far (!) the most accessible platform. The restriction here is just that you can't get a license for Google's proprietary stuff if you also sell GrapheneOS, not even that you can't run GrapheneOS.
reply
upvoteby GeekyBear4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Google was already found guilty of antitrust, in part because they tried to contractually prevent device manufacturers from building devices to run forks of Android (like Amazon's Fire OS) if they also made devices for an OEM who used Google's Android.

> Alphabet's Google on Thursday lost its long-running fight against a record [€4.1 Billion] EU antitrust fine for using its Android mobile operating system to block rivals

https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2026-07-02/goo...

Now they are trying block Motorola from pre installing a different fork of Android.

They will either back down or face another enormous fine in the EU.

reply
upvoteby ajross3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Again, even accepting all that, Android remains more open to competition within its own ecosystem than it's main (heh) competitor. And being outraged in only one direction is a smell that tells me... we aren't talking about competition.
reply
upvoteby fc417fc8022 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
You're missing the point. Selling a closed device is legally permissible whereas attempting to strong arm behavior of other companies is deemed anti-competitive. So apple is within the bounds of the law (regardless of whether you approve of that) while google is not.
reply
upvoteby GeekyBear3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Apple never lied and claimed that iOS was "open" in the first place.

The important part is allowing users to make an informed choice, which requires you to be honest about what you are selling.

reply
upvoteby NetMageSCW1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Android is as open as ever (so far). Google doesn’t make or sell mobile phones for other OEMs, so their claims about Android openness can’t be applied to hardware from other OEMs being closed. Two different things.
reply
upvoteby GeekyBear52 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Blocking Motorola from selling devices that run a fork of Android isn't open at all.
reply
upvoteby microtonal7 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
To be That Guy, Apple is not allowing anyone anywhere to sell any devices with anything but MacOS/iOS.

Apple doesn't allow Apple selling Apple devices with other operating systems.

Google doesn't allow other OEMs selling the OEMs' devices with other operating systems.

Big difference.

(Yes, pedantics: I know that OEMs could sell devices with other OSes, but not being able to sell GMS Android devices would lose them most of their customers.)

reply
upvoteby ajross4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> Big difference.

Not from the perspective of competition, as I see it. Like, if you want to compete with Apple by using part of its platform for your own stuff, you can't at all. But you can with Google, just not all of it and in all ways.

Point being: this is just another platform flame. People with one kind of phone in their pocket are outraged at the maker of the other thing.

reply
upvoteby NetMageSCW1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
No, it is different. They are using their market power over Android to prevent OEMs from selling other mobile OSs.

Apple doesn’t prevent other OEMs from selling phones.

reply