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.
replyGoogle 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.
reply> 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.
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.
replyYou'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.
replyApple never lied and claimed that iOS was "open" in the first place.
replyThe important part is allowing users to make an informed choice, which requires you to be honest about what you are selling.
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.
replyBlocking Motorola from selling devices that run a fork of Android isn't open at all.
reply