uninstalling (as opposed to "removing")
"uninstalling" is not opposed to "removing"; the only thing Google allows for it's apps is "disabling" them and that's very different from removing (or uninstalling)
Google will appeal the €4.34bn fine imposed in July by the European Commission, according to a report. In July, the Commission determined that Google illegally used Android to maintain its search monopoly. It requested Google provide remedies. Companies have the right to appeal against competition judgements to the General …
What difference does it make? You can complain about wasting a little space, but phones these days are not exactly low on storage so why do you need to actually remove an app?
Of all the reasons to complain about how Google operates Android, this is WAY down in the noise.
Been experimenting with cheap phones (<50 euro) you can 'seemingly' purge google / facebook from. Alacatel U3 seems ok. Still using Netguard to lock everything down. Firefox-Klar to replace Chrome. Signal to replace all messengers. ProtonMail to replace gmail / hotmail / outlook / facebook mail...
I solved the google problem on my Nexus5 simply by installing UBPorts UbuntuTouch.
It is still a bit raw as a user experience but getting better every week and if you make sensible comments at least someone will listen to them. The process is supposedly reversible but I have found that Touch works well enough that I am not tempted to go back to Android and revealing all my personal info to Google. If they ever get Halium working I may even be able to make use of all the sensors such as barometer, compass etc.
And the biggest problem for manufacturers is, if they build a phone without Google Services (i.e. AOSP), they cannot sell any phones with Google services. So the user cannot decide, whether he wants, say, a Samsung phone with only Samsung services or a Samsung phone wiht Google services.
"9bn...an expense few new startup search engines would be able to afford."
A few? Name even 1. Just state the truth, no "startup" search engine can afford that. I can't even think of 1 so called startup engine, period.
The term "startup" implies a time frame, for instance the startup time of a daemon or automobile. I know it's more of a post-trendy marketing term, but even by the marketing term I can't think of 1 new search engine that isn't close to a decade old, if not older.
To provide a search function as good as Bing let alone Google requires a huge expense and a lot of time to populate the search engine. No new startup can hope to compete as a general search engine.
All that the court cases can do is to decide if Google or Bing is the dominant search engine. (My firm preference is for Google.)
Perhaps what Google should have done is to explicitly say that Android is not free but is paid for by the inclusion of the Google apps.
"All that the court cases can do is to decide if Google or Bing is the dominant search engine."
I would say that the ruling against Microsoft for browser tying should set precedent here: upon first trying to search the web, the end user be presented with a series of search engines (in random order), and choose the one they want.
In an ideal world, there would be rankings for categories such as "quality of results" and "privacy" displayed for each as well...
... ah well, I can dream. Until then, I'll use DuckDuckGo...
"... ah well, I can dream. Until then, I'll use DuckDuckGo..."
The school, where I work, has just blocked DuckDuckGo as it's been branded "malicious". I now have to use Google or Bing. This decision has struck me as slightly obtuse and now perhaps from an educational perspective even more so.
Google may reportedly pay Apple $9bn to ensure it is the default search engine in the iPhone, or $12.85 per device, according to a research note from Goldman Sachs – an expense few new startup search engines would be able to afford.
Hmmm, so Apple sold their metrics data to Google in effect because that's what Google is after so it can advertise to Apple users. Blame Apple for whoring it's users, not Google.
Let's be honest here how many companies could actually fulfil a proper requirement for search as it requires huge back end processing and bandwidth. It costs a lot to build such infrastructure and the size of the investment would make the deepest pocketed VC wince.
Where is the European competition in these tech markets to compete with Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, Lenovo etc ?
Can't speak for the OP, but that $12.85 per user is remarkably little, and shows how little Apple actually value the privacy of their customers. Admittedly most would be using Google anyway, but as a point of principle it seems deeply unethical for Apple to tout their walled garden as secure and private, so much better than Android, and then they go and hold the gate open for Google in return for a paltry few shekels.
This will be that supply chain schmuck's doing.
All the original case and fine is the EUSSR's way of getting more money because they are running out of Europeans money. Like all good socialist regimes the EUSSR relies on spending other peoples money - never that of the Commissars and with the loss of the UK taxpayers money they have to fine someone else with deep pockets they can dip into.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018