I think the throwback on HN on this decision is due to the lack of details and context on the news?
From what I've understood from the local news (I'm a South Korean), It's not about blocking handsets with forked Android (that already happens regularly AFAIK), but the requirement of shipping Google apps like Chrome and Google Assistant. The big elephant in the room here is Samsung phones, which do ship it's own custom browser Samsung Internet (BTW, with ad blocking capabilities!) and a separate virtual assistant, Bixby. That's the part where the KFTC decided was monopolistic.
I don't have a personal opinion this, but seems that the comment threads are focusing on the wrong part.
Manufacturers were always able to bundle up their fucked-up version of Android.
They were always able to ship super-custom UIs. Google never prevented that... but they did force the UIs bloat by having two separate default apps.
Also, it should be noted that Google didn't just disallow shipping Google apps to forked Android. Google disallowed shipping Google apps to any devices from vendors that ship forked Android: if your smartwatch is using forked Android your ordinary smartphone also can't have Google apps even when it's using genuine Android. The KFTC made very clear that this is a nuclear all-or-nothing option to hardware vendors and thus constitutes an anti-trust action [1].
I hate when a law or legal decision is aimed 45 degrees off like this. Letting manufacturers bundle their fucked-up version of Android is a bad thing. What we need is mandatory unlockable bootloaders so the users can load whatever they want on their devices.
What we need is control on the bootloader, with the ability to unlock, load our own keys, and relock.
We also need to clean-up the mess with all those "partitions" (some of them with critical informations e.g. calibration, IMEI, etc) so that only one partition would have all those static information (reasonably protected against overwrite, e.g. colocated with bootloader and device-tree). We should be able to re-partition the storage (like we do on PC) without bricking the device...
I know that a lot of us more tech inclined want this freedom. But grandma is never running toolchain on a computer to install custom software. What 99% of people want is cheap/free and they will give up privacy to get it. I see this as SK giving its citizens what they say they want. I wish that wasn't the case but it seems like that is the world we live in.
I recently installed LineageOS on my phone, replacing the stock MIUI. I would probably return this phone if I had no other option than to use MIUI. I much prefer the "pure" Android experience.
For many essential and security critical apps to work, like bank apps or the McDonald's app you need to hide the fact you're using a modified system, because of SafetyNet.
This hiding/bypass works for now, because it tricks Google into thinking your device doesn't support hardware attestation, and fallbacking to Basic attestation, which is easier to bypass. Google can at any time flip the switch to require hardware attestation, and your apps will stop working, with no way around it, other than flashing back the stock ROM your device came with and locking the bootloader. At that point I will probably just buy a new phone.
Sure, but your LineageOS only works because Google is forcing manufacturers to pass CTS tests (which ensure that all Android devices are actually compatible with your apps).
If that disappears, you'll end up with apps that only work on Samsung Androids and your LineageOS will stop being compatible. We're essentially going back to horrorshow of SymbianOS, where different Symbian devices weren't compatible between themselves because the OEMs kept fscking up.
(Heck, in early Android versions Samsung tended to break core APIs all the time and caused a lot of churn on developer side to workaround their per-device fsckups. Having to import phones from half a world away so you could see why the video recorder hardcrashes when you call an API is NOT FUN.).
I bought a Miui phone about a week ago. It's on miui 12.5 and it's the first time I've ever used this OS. I expected to hate it because of all the flack it gets. But honestly, it's fine. It's not that different from Android.
I did have to uninstall a load of bloatware using ADB and I added a custom launcher (Niagara).
From what I can understand, AFA meant that a manufacturer could lose their license to Google Play Services on _all_ of their devices if they produced _any_ devices using an Android fork. This is a clear abuse of market power.
The entire focus on anti-trust and moved to harm to other (big) businesses - no care about the consumer.
The Anti-fragmentation agreement google makes these folks sign HELPS consumers. Going to be a crazy situation if that goes away, the app you buy on samsung won't work on HTC etc.
If the oems get fragmented enough then it might open up more space for a smaller competitor (ie an open source project) to come fill the gaps, and I certainly wouldn't mind that. Of course it's not a guarantee but I could see it happening - the more dissatisfied the lazy tech nerd segment gets the more we would all band together and try and make the situation better, and also by the competitors becoming more fragmented it might open others up to possibilities they didn't consider previously. (And yes I am putting myself in lazy tech nerd segment at least as far as my phone goes, I've always run cyanogenmod in the past but the last phone I bought I spent a weekend trying to flash lineage and it was annoying enough of a process I ended up back on stock ROM....but I'd certainly be down to try again given the right circumstances.)
It really isn't because the AFA doesn't impact hackers. It's about basically operating a cartel where a single company controls the products of a large number of other companies and illegally binds them for making their own business decisions.
Google held/holds the ability to allow or disallow all product releases Android manufacturers release, including products which do not use Google Play Services.
Tizen became critical to Samsung because Samsung couldn't release a smart fridge with Android in the background without Google's permission, even if they had no intent on it having a traditional app store... because it might constitute a fork of Android.
Meanwhile the only real android competitor is manufactured by one company who doesn't allow even the end user to install apps not directly approved by Apple.
Do you really call iOS a competitor to android?
Its like saying KIA is competitor to a Rolls Royce.
Androids range from 50USD to anything else.
Apple and Google makes phones but they’re not competitors, their market segments, user base have different opinions on what they want and do.
pcr910303|4 years ago
From what I've understood from the local news (I'm a South Korean), It's not about blocking handsets with forked Android (that already happens regularly AFAIK), but the requirement of shipping Google apps like Chrome and Google Assistant. The big elephant in the room here is Samsung phones, which do ship it's own custom browser Samsung Internet (BTW, with ad blocking capabilities!) and a separate virtual assistant, Bixby. That's the part where the KFTC decided was monopolistic.
I don't have a personal opinion this, but seems that the comment threads are focusing on the wrong part. Manufacturers were always able to bundle up their fucked-up version of Android. They were always able to ship super-custom UIs. Google never prevented that... but they did force the UIs bloat by having two separate default apps.
lifthrasiir|4 years ago
[1] https://ftc.go.kr/www/selectReportUserView.do?key=10&rpttype... (in Korean)
qutreM|4 years ago
[deleted]
causi|4 years ago
karteum|4 years ago
We also need to clean-up the mess with all those "partitions" (some of them with critical informations e.g. calibration, IMEI, etc) so that only one partition would have all those static information (reasonably protected against overwrite, e.g. colocated with bootloader and device-tree). We should be able to re-partition the storage (like we do on PC) without bricking the device...
snarf21|4 years ago
unknown|4 years ago
[deleted]
fsflover|4 years ago
Here you go: https://puri.sm/products/librem-5.
gjsman-1000|4 years ago
If I’m Snowden, knowing my boot loader could be unlocked and a key logger side loaded isn’t reassuring.
ggktk|4 years ago
For many essential and security critical apps to work, like bank apps or the McDonald's app you need to hide the fact you're using a modified system, because of SafetyNet.
This hiding/bypass works for now, because it tricks Google into thinking your device doesn't support hardware attestation, and fallbacking to Basic attestation, which is easier to bypass. Google can at any time flip the switch to require hardware attestation, and your apps will stop working, with no way around it, other than flashing back the stock ROM your device came with and locking the bootloader. At that point I will probably just buy a new phone.
izacus|4 years ago
If that disappears, you'll end up with apps that only work on Samsung Androids and your LineageOS will stop being compatible. We're essentially going back to horrorshow of SymbianOS, where different Symbian devices weren't compatible between themselves because the OEMs kept fscking up.
(Heck, in early Android versions Samsung tended to break core APIs all the time and caused a lot of churn on developer side to workaround their per-device fsckups. Having to import phones from half a world away so you could see why the video recorder hardcrashes when you call an API is NOT FUN.).
esperent|4 years ago
I did have to uninstall a load of bloatware using ADB and I added a custom launcher (Niagara).
baybal2|4 years ago
NullPrefix|4 years ago
Excuse me? McDonald's app considers itself security critical now?
amelius|4 years ago
Sparkle-san|4 years ago
flerchin|4 years ago
unknown|4 years ago
[deleted]
slownews45|4 years ago
The Anti-fragmentation agreement google makes these folks sign HELPS consumers. Going to be a crazy situation if that goes away, the app you buy on samsung won't work on HTC etc.
eredengrin|4 years ago
danschumann|4 years ago
ocdtrekkie|4 years ago
Google held/holds the ability to allow or disallow all product releases Android manufacturers release, including products which do not use Google Play Services.
Tizen became critical to Samsung because Samsung couldn't release a smart fridge with Android in the background without Google's permission, even if they had no intent on it having a traditional app store... because it might constitute a fork of Android.
forgotmypw17|4 years ago
Who controls the browser controls the platform.
Nothing has changed since the mid-1990s.
ocdtrekkie|4 years ago
Law moves so freaking slow, this is about a 2013 complaint. Dealing with tech industry crooks requires faster movement than this.
urthor|4 years ago
The article makes it clear this ruling is entirely to the benefit of Samsung Electronics.
ApolloFortyNine|4 years ago
anaganisk|4 years ago
baybal2|4 years ago