this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2026
893 points (99.2% liked)
Technology
86110 readers
3316 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And once again, Apple gets a pass for doing the same thing, only worse.
Apple don’t do anything remotely similar. Apple don’t let other manufacturers use iOS. What are you even talking about?
Right. Google gives away AOSP to any manufacturer. Apple doesn't let ANYONE else use their OS. Yet Google is the one who gets in trouble for being "restrictive".
I'm not upset that Google is getting called it for this, they are not innocent. I just want Apple to be held to the same standard.
Apple is not required to share their OS with anyone. Nor is Google.
The problem is: Google shared it voluntarily, because they knew a lot of people and companies would contribute to its development for free. It was a calculated business move that happened to create an open mobile OS.
Now that Android has been polished by the community and has a gigantic market share, Google is trying to use that to eliminate any competition, and to close the OS down. It's trying to rewrite the entire agreement, while keeping all of the benefits it received over the years, and giving nothing back. Essentially a bait and switch scheme.
If Android was never open to begin with - this wouldn't be an issue. But then Android would still be stuck in 2016, and nobody would be using it.
iOS uses freeBSD and OpenBSD components. Isn't that the same thing?
It's a closed source derivative. BSD license allows it.
They've never said their OS is free and open to everyone. It's never been a community project.
Not really. They are independent, pre-existing open source projects. Anyone may use the code in their own projects, within the licenses' rules.
Whereas Google basically started the entire project, benefitted from unpaid contributions, and now wants to close it, after creating a near monopoly, in huge part thanks to it being open.
Apple isn't closing or restricting BSD-related projects, because they aren't theirs, and they existed before Apple included them in its own software.
I have mixed feelings about mega corporations using open source code for free, but the licenses allow it and the developers don't mind, so it's not my place to make a fuss.
AOSP has become unusable over the years because Google bundles more and more core functions with its proprietary Google Play Services.
Source: I've been around long enough to remember independent devs making versions such as Gingerbread or Marshmallow usable.
Lineage, graphene, calyx are pretty good tho. Much better than the android that comes with today's stock phones.
And yet most people install gApps. Because Android without Google Play Services doesn't do everything you expect of your phone. This is intentional design to sell you on an "open" ecosystem that doesn't work without Google.
Is MicroG not a viable alternative? How about apps utilizing unified push notifications if Google play services is a concern?
All of them exist as long as Google wants. We should hammer this point into our heads.
You don’t understand what you’re talking about.
Google gave their OS away to everyone to use, but then forced everyone that did to include all of their products and services and make them non-removable. That’s the part that is anti-competitive and abusive.
Apple don’t let anyone use their OS. They aren’t required to. As such, they’re not forcing other companies to include Apple services if they want to use iOS.
Understand?
How can one be considered abusive and the other not, if companies are free to choose not to use android, just like companies can't use Apple's OS? Both have the same result, the company not using the OS. Google's position is more permissive than Apples, yet Apple's isn't considered abusive.
One is abusing their market position, the other isn’t.
Android is basically the only choice for phone OS’s, and they are abusing that fact by forcing their services on every phone.
I still strongly disagree. "No, you can't use this at all" is more abusive than "ok, we'll let you use this if you agree to something else". If you didn't agree with the terms, you are no worse off than the other choice. Android is the "only choice" exactly because Apple won't share.
You’re wrong then.
The issue only exists because Google are letting others use their operating system, but are abusing their market position where they own 90% of the market, to force their services which makes other products unable to compete. Samsung for example have their own messaging app, but aren’t allowed to not have Google’s messaging app installed. They have their own calendar app, but Google forced them to have Google calendar.
That is abusing their market position and is textbook anti-competitive behaviour.
Apple made their own product, for themselves and no one else. That’s not abusing anything.
I think Bradley means that Apple should also be forced to open up their OS to other manufacturers?
Even suggesting that they should be forced to let others use it is absurd.
So if Google said that companies can no longer use Android, you would be satisfied?
Way to miss the point.
If Google stopped letting others use Android, and they could only use AOSP, then they wouldn’t be being anti-competitive because they’re not forcing their services on those using Android. This really isn’t hard to understand.
If you let others use your product and you are the market leader, you can’t abuse your market leader position to be anti-competitive or you’ll get fined.
Google can’t stop others using AOSP, and you know what? Yes, I would actually like it if Google would stop letting others use their Android versions, because then we might actually get some competition and out of this duopoly.
Google also used anti-competitive measures to prevent windows phone from being successful, but that seemed to be let go cause people hate Microsoft and actively didn’t want another mobile OS for some bizarre reason.
Europe sucks ass and makes everything worse and more expensive. Now Google will have to show every human 3200 additional ads to make up for that money lost. And if anyone wants to tell me Europe doesn't suck ass, tell me about the people you're killing by banning AC and about how you can be locked up for certain types of speech or if you try to defend yourself against an attacker. I've lived there twice, never going back. Yes Europe likes Apple more than Google and they targeted them intentionally because they love collecting huge fines/revenue from things they are biased against. But ultimately they're only making Google worse, not making anyone's experiences better.
In Apple products it's a feature tho. Like it's literally why people buy into it. Why would anyone fine them for that?
The feature is to offer a default that most users like. Not allowing users to change the default is an anti-feature.
Take a correction for Lemmy being hell bent on software freedom and openess. With which I overall agree, but lemmy is not reflective of majority of users.