Pichai saying that #Android is an open platform...for mobile carriers.

Hmm, that sounds about right. open to preinstall any kind of crapware you can and cannot imagine.

@MatejLach how is that different from any other open system (say, GNU/Linux) though?


The difference in my mind is whether something is open for any kind of purpose, (GNU/Linux), or whether there's plenty of handicaps in the system itself, so they're not opposed to not being "open" (Android) - they're specifically targeting carriers for this "openness"

Can GNU/Linux be (mis)used for anything because oh how open it is? Sure.

By default however it does not specifically target carriers and presents itself as a vehicle for their crapware.


The PinePhone for example (GNU/Linux) is way more open than any Android I ever used.

@MatejLach PinePhone is a hardware device; Android is an OS.

You can criticize Android in that it's not as open to users as GNU/Linux (say, it doesn't give you root access by default). But if you're talking openness to vendors, GNU/Linux provides just as much opportunities for the vendor to preinstall crapware — see the whole Canonical/Ubuntu/Amazon/Snap shitshow. So *that* is not a fair critique of Android.

@bugaevc #Android specifically dictates certain hardware requirements in order to get certified by Google and allow the Play Store on.
Android is far from a pure software platform.

As for Ubuntu installing crap I mentioned that due to GNU/Linux being open, sure it can be misused. But the GNU project isn't making stuff with a plan to go to OEMs and carriers and say "look, our software allows you to preinstall adware for your customers".

Google specifically markets Android to OEMs that way.


@MatejLach @bugaevc I'm actually impressed, as much as I dissaprove, by how effectively Google closed off Android with their take-it-or-leave-it terms...

Sign in to participate in the conversation

For people who care about, support, or build Free, Libre, and Open Source Software (FLOSS).