06-13-2016 03:18 PM
134 ... 23456
tools
  1. hallux's Avatar
    However, I don't see it being "bloat" to the extent that Samsung, LG and HTC (to name a few) are known for. For example, on my WiFi-only Samsung tablet (so, no carrier involvement) I have disabled the following -

    • Businessweek+
    • Twitter
    • TripAdvisor
    • Peel Smart Remote
    • NYTimes
    • Flipboard
    • Evernote
    • Dropbox


    THAT is "bloatware" and not something I see happening on the Nexus devices.
    06-07-2016 11:30 AM
  2. Larry Beberdick's Avatar
    That's ok with me. better than Samsung and Version bloatware. by the way, Android 6.01 is great. just got it on my Note 4. batter life is about doubled. What i would really like to see in the next Nexus is a note competitor, with a stylus. that way we don't have to wait for months or years after an android release to get the latest improvements.
    06-07-2016 11:31 AM
  3. LeoRex's Avatar
    So going forward, Android from Google (Nexus, Ara, and what ever else they cook up) will have a possible different view than what a current Nexus device has, which is, like I said, not stock Android, but Google's view of Android.
    I think those comments were only to reinforce that Google will be careful to only add in features that they consider useful and bring value to the consumer... which is what they've been doing all along. You have to Split apps and features here though, as I think Sundar is not referring to what apps they bundle with either the Google Play Services requirement or what they add on for the Nexus line. He's talking about system level features... stuff like Doze, or the upcoming Daydream stuff. Most all of these features end up getting incorporated into the main Android source branch, available to everyone.

    Google isn't very stingy with features. There are a VERY few select features that are only available on a Nexus phone.... just about the only one in the system feature that I am aware of is Ambient Display... and I think that is only because the feature requires some licensing from Qualcomm to use the low power processor modes. If this feature didn't need anything like that, I am quite certain it would be available for all phones.

    Now you can debate whether or not the Google apps that Google includes as bloat... but most of them are damn good apps, and the services backing them are unparalleled... What would you rather have? Google Now and Google Maps? Or Samsung S-Voice and Verizon's VZ Navigator? But as far as OS features, Google treads quite lightly... avoiding the heavy handed operating system bolt ons that we often see in OEM phones.
    06-07-2016 11:49 AM
  4. John Lafitte's Avatar
    Isn't this just vendor partition? They are encouraging all manufacturers to put there stuff here rather than baking it into OS image. I wouldn't expect Nexus devices to be any different. It's a stock experience but still has hardware and in the past carrier specific stuff in there.
    06-07-2016 01:32 PM
  5. vzwuser76's Avatar
    Then it wouldn't be a Nexus phone by definition. discussion over lol.
    Actually, no. There has never been a Nexus device that didn't include the Android Market/Playstore or other Google Services. AOSP is a starting point, pure and simple. It is the open source version that anyone can take and do whatever they want to it. That's what you see these lawsuits against Google about having access to the Playstore. Those companies want AOSP WITH the Playstore, so they can fork AOSP to their hearts content AND still have access to the Playstore. However, Google doesn't allow you to have access to the Playstore unless you also include their other core services (Gmail, maps, etc) and you also agree to limitations on how much you can modify their version of Android.

    Basically, what most people think of as stock Android is Google's Android, which includes the Playstore and their services, and is the version seen on Nexus devices.

    AOSP however probably hasn't been seen by most Android users, unless they're planning to start their own fork of Android. AOSP is like stock Android but without any trace of Google or it's services, and no Playstore.
    06-07-2016 02:36 PM
  6. akarol's Avatar
    BGR is the most Apple-centric, biased, and ignorant tech source in the Internet. Do yourself a favor, and don't go there anymore.
    tonyFate and chezm like this.
    06-07-2016 02:59 PM
  7. vzwuser76's Avatar
    There is something huge you are missing though. If a manufacture wanted to they could simply compile AOSP and not use Google services at all. Where they are being caught is that to preload the Google Play store the OEM has to be part of the Open Handset Alliance and be certified by Google. And to do all that you have to preload a list of Apps that are part of the Google play services. All of the Google Play Services go together. It is completely optional if it is to be installed. You could root your phone and load AOSP and amazon app store and have nothing to do with any Google Services.
    You hit the nail on the head there. But to expand on your point, another difference between MS and Google is that back when MS was forcing IE on PC users, people had to hunt for other search engines, with the Playstore it's all listed in one place.

    What these companies want is to have access to the Playstore without having to follow any of Google's rules governing their version of Android. Those companies, like many here in this thread, confuse AOSP and the stock version of Android seen on Nexus devices as the same thing. Google's services, including the Playstore, are not open source, and never were. They are Google's property and they are proprietary. Google maintains AOSP and then licenses it's own version of Android to OEMs who want the whole package. But it's through their services, especially the Playstore, where Google makes its money off Android. What these companies are essentially asking for is for Google to maintain the Playstore and Android for free. If they take away their revenue source, what's in it for Google?

    Something else is that these companies can include their own versions of Google's services, even making them the default options. On a Samsung device with Touchwiz, you can use the device just fine without touching any Google services. In fact, up until I got my Droid Maxx 2013, I had never used the chrome browser. I always used the stock browser that came on the Samsung and HTC devices I owned up until that point (usually labeled "Internet"). So there's no reason for these companies to sue Google, unless they want to make certain they're absolutely cutting Google out of the revenue stream.
    06-07-2016 02:59 PM
  8. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    You hit the nail on the head there. But to expand on your point, another difference between MS and Google is that back when MS was forcing IE on PC users, people had to hunt for other search engines, with the Playstore it's all listed in one place.

    What these companies want is to have access to the Playstore without having to follow any of Google's rules governing their version of Android. Those companies, like many here in this thread, confuse AOSP and the stock version of Android seen on Nexus devices as the same thing. Google's services, including the Playstore, are not open source, and never were. They are Google's property and they are proprietary. Google maintains AOSP and then licenses it's own version of Android to OEMs who want the whole package. But it's through their services, especially the Playstore, where Google makes its money off Android. What these companies are essentially asking for is for Google to maintain the Playstore and Android for free. If they take away their revenue source, what's in it for Google?

    Something else is that these companies can include their own versions of Google's services, even making them the default options. On a Samsung device with Touchwiz, you can use the device just fine without touching any Google services. In fact, up until I got my Droid Maxx 2013, I had never used the chrome browser. I always used the stock browser that came on the Samsung and HTC devices I owned up until that point (usually labeled "Internet"). So there's no reason for these companies to sue Google, unless they want to make certain they're absolutely cutting Google out of the revenue stream.
    No no. The issue is exactly the same as what MS did. Google is forcing a bundle of pre-installed apps on all devices that have Play Store. Not only are they doing that, but they are also forcing prime placement of icons for said apps on the main home screen. That's ok for Nexus, but not for other OEM devices IMO.

    I think what OEM's would want is to setup their homescreens exactly how they want and also to choose what apps are pre-installed out of the box.

    It's to the point that you can't really be a successful Android OEM without the Play Store, so that's Google's way to force things on OEM's. OEM's don't have a choice, they need Play Store to be successful (with very few exceptions). So they have to go along with what Google wants.
    Laura Knotek, Ry and Hemlocke like this.
    06-07-2016 04:34 PM
  9. anon(9072051)'s Avatar
    No no. The issue is exactly the same as what MS did.
    I can't go along with the word "exactly." Unless you're speaking strictly from an engineer's perspective, in which case, I'm out.

    But Microsoft's strategy was at rock bottom a direct hit placed on Netscape Navigator, which had cornered the market on web browsing in the 90s. That strategy worked-- they quite literally killed off Netscape--and ended up in an anti-trust action because of it. While Google's approach to its own apps and Play Store may be similar to MS's bundling tactic--which is doubtless at the bottom of the EU's own hopes for an anti-trust payday--the direct consequences of Google's actions are nowhere near as malicious or destructive.

    Also, as I mentioned earlier, Google's "bundling" activities have led to obvious improvements in the Android user experience; there's no way that was true of MS's bundling of IE, which was, at the time, a much weaker browser than Navigator.
    06-07-2016 06:52 PM
  10. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    I can't go along with the word "exactly." Unless you're speaking strictly from an engineer's perspective, in which case, I'm out.

    But Microsoft's strategy was at rock bottom a direct hit placed on Netscape Navigator, which had cornered the market on web browsing in the 90s. That strategy worked-- they quite literally killed off Netscape--and ended up in an anti-trust action because of it. While Google's approach to its own apps and Play Store may be similar to MS's bundling tactic--which is doubtless at the bottom of the EU's own hopes for an anti-trust payday--the direct consequences of Google's actions are nowhere near as malicious or destructive.

    Also, as I mentioned earlier, Google's "bundling" activities have led to obvious improvements in the Android user experience; there's no way that was true of MS's bundling of IE, which was, at the time, a much weaker browser than Navigator.
    We don't actually know if Google's action are less malicious or destructive since they have effectively prevented any direct competition. Samsung could have probably made that case years ago with the Skyhook GPS services disaster that was directly caused by Google, but they chose to not go after Google.

    I do agree that the MS bundling was to go after the market leader, and it did indeed work. I just see the Google strategy as preventing anyone else from becoming a potential market leader. The placement of the Google folder and search bar widget effectively monopolizes the main home screen. That is prime real estate and is VERY valuable.

    Sure, it will be difficult to legally prove any of this, but the beauty of it is I'm not a lawyer, so I don't need hard facts to realize that Google is operating in a gray area and is effectively "twisting the arm" of OEM's when it comes to passing CTS.
    06-07-2016 07:02 PM
  11. grover5's Avatar
    I can't go along with the word "exactly." Unless you're speaking strictly from an engineer's perspective, in which case, I'm out.

    But Microsoft's strategy was at rock bottom a direct hit placed on Netscape Navigator, which had cornered the market on web browsing in the 90s. That strategy worked-- they quite literally killed off Netscape--and ended up in an anti-trust action because of it. While Google's approach to its own apps and Play Store may be similar to MS's bundling tactic--which is doubtless at the bottom of the EU's own hopes for an anti-trust payday--the direct consequences of Google's actions are nowhere near as malicious or destructive.

    Also, as I mentioned earlier, Google's "bundling" activities have led to obvious improvements in the Android user experience; there's no way that was true of MS's bundling of IE, which was, at the time, a much weaker browser than Navigator.
    Well said.
    06-07-2016 08:00 PM
  12. vzwuser76's Avatar
    No no. The issue is exactly the same as what MS did. Google is forcing a bundle of pre-installed apps on all devices that have Play Store. Not only are they doing that, but they are also forcing prime placement of icons for said apps on the main home screen. That's ok for Nexus, but not for other OEM devices IMO.

    I think what OEM's would want is to setup their homescreens exactly how they want and also to choose what apps are pre-installed out of the box.

    It's to the point that you can't really be a successful Android OEM without the Play Store, so that's Google's way to force things on OEM's. OEM's don't have a choice, they need Play Store to be successful (with very few exceptions). So they have to go along with what Google wants.
    On OEM devices, most have supplanted Google's services. Look at Samsung's Touchwiz Devices for example. For most every Google app there, Samsung has a competing app installed as the default. The have their own browser, note app, S-Voice, file manager, etc. Yes, Google's apps are installed, but they're in the background. And in some cases they're even installing Microsoft apps as the defaults.

    As far as prime placement on the home screen, that makes little difference since most people dump whatever is on the home screen right away and put on what they use most. It's not like these apps are locked to the home screen.

    That's true, but who made the Playstore what it is today? Was it the OEMs, or was it Google? These OEMS are getting Android for free, and have access to the Playstore as long as they follow a few simple guidelines. So they get that for nothing, but getting a fully functioning and popular OS for free isn't enough, they want to dictate what happens with it as well. My question is, who is putting out the money to maintain Android, who's putting out the money to advance Android, and whose putting out money to maintain the Playstore and keep it secure? Is it the OEMs or Google? And Amazon seems to have no problem with their forked version of Android with their own App Store. So why would it be any harder for OEMs to do their own App Store?

    The worst part is, if they'd gone the Microsoft route (in terms of mobile OS) did and charged a licensing fee, they wouldn't have an issue. But because they offer it for free with caveats and have a majority of the market share, this is an issue for people. I would like to know what LG, Motorola, Sony, HTC, or the Chinese OEMs would be doing if Android wasn't free for them to use. Samsung is the only one who has even attempted to build their own OS, and they're getting know here fast. But maybe they should he allowed to cut out Google's revenue stream. Of course then what's Google's incentive to maintain or advance Android or the Playstore. Why make sure that the Playstore stays malware free when you're working for free.

    To me this is like complaining about a free lunch.
    chezm likes this.
    06-07-2016 08:46 PM
  13. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    On OEM devices, most have supplanted Google's services. Look at Samsung's Touchwiz Devices for example. For most every Google app there, Samsung has a competing app installed as the default. The have their own browser, note app, S-Voice, file manager, etc. Yes, Google's apps are installed, but they're in the background. And in some cases they're even installing Microsoft apps as the defaults.

    As far as prime placement on the home screen, that makes little difference since most people dump whatever is on the home screen right away and put on what they use most. It's not like these apps are locked to the home screen.

    That's true, but who made the Playstore what it is today? Was it the OEMs, or was it Google? These OEMS are getting Android for free, and have access to the Playstore as long as they follow a few simple guidelines. So they get that for nothing, but getting a fully functioning and popular OS for free isn't enough, they want to dictate what happens with it as well. My question is, who is putting out the money to maintain Android, who's putting out the money to advance Android, and whose putting out money to maintain the Playstore and keep it secure? Is it the OEMs or Google? And Amazon seems to have no problem with their forked version of Android with their own App Store. So why would it be any harder for OEMs to do their own App Store?

    The worst part is, if they'd gone the Microsoft route (in terms of mobile OS) did and charged a licensing fee, they wouldn't have an issue. But because they offer it for free with caveats and have a majority of the market share, this is an issue for people. I would like to know what LG, Motorola, Sony, HTC, or the Chinese OEMs would be doing if Android wasn't free for them to use. Samsung is the only one who has even attempted to build their own OS, and they're getting know here fast. But maybe they should he allowed to cut out Google's revenue stream. Of course then what's Google's incentive to maintain or advance Android or the Playstore. Why make sure that the Playstore stays malware free when you're working for free.

    To me this is like complaining about a free lunch.
    You're confusing "default" with "also installed" as the user still has to select a default app.

    Who made Android (and by extension, the Play Store) what it is today? Surely Google with the millions and millions and millions of devices they sold.....oh wait, that was mostly Samsung. :P We could argue over whether the chicken or the egg came first, but the Play Store would literally not matter without hardware being sold. Also, the developers are what really made the Play Store what it is. Google is but a shepherd and enabler for them. Amazon's app store is so successful that apps are updated just as often and quickly as they are on the Play Store, right?

    Don't forget, Google is not the only contributor to AOSP. It's inaccurate to give them sole credit for AOSP being what it is today when so many partners and contributors have also helped with that.

    Re: Prime placement on the home screen - I believe it was HTC (may be wrong on the OEM) that said most people don't leave the main home screen and the vast majority don't customize it. Assuming that's accurate (no reason to believe it's not since they base business decisions off of this) then yes, the placement of widgets and folders out of the box is extremely important.
    Laura Knotek likes this.
    06-07-2016 09:08 PM
  14. vzwuser76's Avatar
    You're confusing "default" with "also installed" as the user still has to select a default app.

    Who made Android (and by extension, the Play Store) what it is today? Surely Google with the millions and millions and millions of devices they sold.....oh wait, that was mostly Samsung. :P We could argue over whether the chicken or the egg came first, but the Play Store would literally not matter without hardware being sold. Also, the developers are what really made the Play Store what it is. Google is but a shepherd and enabler for them. Amazon's app store is so successful that apps are updated just as often and quickly as they are on the Play Store, right?

    Don't forget, Google is not the only contributor to AOSP. It's inaccurate to give them sole credit for AOSP being what it is today when so many partners and contributors have also helped with that.

    Re: Prime placement on the home screen - I believe it was HTC (may be wrong on the OEM) that said most people don't leave the main home screen and the vast majority don't customize it. Assuming that's accurate (no reason to believe it's not since they base business decisions off of this) then yes, the placement of widgets and folders out of the box is extremely important.
    No, I'm talking about my experience with a Samsung device, the Galaxy S3. On that device, Chrome browser wasn't even installed, but they had a browser named "Internet". When you double pressed the home screen to bring up the voice assistant, you got S-Voice, if you wanted Google Now you had to mess with it a bit to make it work. There was no Google Photos, but there was Samsung's own Gallery app. In fact IIRC, the prominent Google apps on the S3 were Gmail and Maps. And like I said earlier, on both the Samsung Fascinate (Verizon's Galaxy S) and more recent devices, they're putting a mini Microsoft app suite on the device.

    When I said they made the Playstore what it is, I'm not talking about how many apps, I'm talking about keeping it secure, so it isn't just some third party app market where you have just as good of a chance of getting an app laded with malware and getting a decent one. And without a shepherd, that is what you'd have. Of course developers make the apps, but not all of them are reputable and there are those that would use access to our devices to steal from us. Without Google to manage the Playstore, who would be doing that, Samsung? Amazon's may not be as successful as the Playstore, but they've proven you can successfully fork Android and make a go with your own App Store.

    I never said they were, but they are a big part of it, and I'd imagine without their money Android wouldn't be where it is today. When most OEMs invest in developing Android, it's for the benefit of their own UI skins. Some do offer their improvements to AOSP, but the big players are only spending for themselves, not the benefit of the platform.

    So it's prime placement due to apathy and sloth? I mean seriously why do we have to keep making legal arguments that deal with the least capable of the userbase. We can't let Google out their apps on the home screen because lazy people will only use those apps. That sounds very familiar to Apple's argument about the look of the original Galaxy S. Their contention was it looked so similar to the iPhone that people would buy it thinking it was an iPhone. Never mind the fact that it didn't have an Apple logo on it and said Samsung in big letter on the face of the device and scroll the box.

    I bring this up again, because you didn't answer it in your last post. Those Google apps that are bundled is how Google makes money on Android (besides directly with the Nexus hardware). So take away their revenue stream (because let's face it, if one OEM gets to supplant Google's services, they all will) then what is their reasoning to put any money into Android? But let's look at the benefits for OEMs going with Android. They get a fully fledged OS for essentially nothing and they get an app store that is maintained and kept secure for free. In exchange for that, they get their apps preinstalled so they can make money through ads. So you think they should lose that revenue stream but still be involved in maintaining Android and the Playstore? The problem is for some of these companies, it's not just about placement or default, some are asking for no Google apps to be installed in any shape or form, except for the Playstore that is. Today Google may not be solely responsible for the development of Android , but if it weren't for them, these OEMS would've either had to build their own OS which would come out of their own pocket, or use Microsoft's which costs them more and is far more restrictive on what they can change in the software and what hardware they can use.
    06-08-2016 12:07 AM
  15. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    No, I'm talking about my experience with a Samsung device, the Galaxy S3. On that device, Chrome browser wasn't even installed, but they had a browser named "Internet". When you double pressed the home screen to bring up the voice assistant, you got S-Voice, if you wanted Google Now you had to mess with it a bit to make it work. There was no Google Photos, but there was Samsung's own Gallery app. In fact IIRC, the prominent Google apps on the S3 were Gmail and Maps. And like I said earlier, on both the Samsung Fascinate (Verizon's Galaxy S) and more recent devices, they're putting a mini Microsoft app suite on the device.

    When I said they made the Playstore what it is, I'm not talking about how many apps, I'm talking about keeping it secure, so it isn't just some third party app market where you have just as good of a chance of getting an app laded with malware and getting a decent one. And without a shepherd, that is what you'd have. Of course developers make the apps, but not all of them are reputable and there are those that would use access to our devices to steal from us. Without Google to manage the Playstore, who would be doing that, Samsung? Amazon's may not be as successful as the Playstore, but they've proven you can successfully fork Android and make a go with your own App Store.

    I never said they were, but they are a big part of it, and I'd imagine without their money Android wouldn't be where it is today. When most OEMs invest in developing Android, it's for the benefit of their own UI skins. Some do offer their improvements to AOSP, but the big players are only spending for themselves, not the benefit of the platform.

    So it's prime placement due to apathy and sloth? I mean seriously why do we have to keep making legal arguments that deal with the least capable of the userbase. We can't let Google out their apps on the home screen because lazy people will only use those apps. That sounds very familiar to Apple's argument about the look of the original Galaxy S. Their contention was it looked so similar to the iPhone that people would buy it thinking it was an iPhone. Never mind the fact that it didn't have an Apple logo on it and said Samsung in big letter on the face of the device and scroll the box.

    I bring this up again, because you didn't answer it in your last post. Those Google apps that are bundled is how Google makes money on Android (besides directly with the Nexus hardware). So take away their revenue stream (because let's face it, if one OEM gets to supplant Google's services, they all will) then what is their reasoning to put any money into Android? But let's look at the benefits for OEMs going with Android. They get a fully fledged OS for essentially nothing and they get an app store that is maintained and kept secure for free. In exchange for that, they get their apps preinstalled so they can make money through ads. So you think they should lose that revenue stream but still be involved in maintaining Android and the Playstore? The problem is for some of these companies, it's not just about placement or default, some are asking for no Google apps to be installed in any shape or form, except for the Playstore that is. Today Google may not be solely responsible for the development of Android , but if it weren't for them, these OEMS would've either had to build their own OS which would come out of their own pocket, or use Microsoft's which costs them more and is far more restrictive on what they can change in the software and what hardware they can use.
    What Google apps display ads?

    Gmail
    Google Search

    Any others?

    I suspect a large quantity of Android revenue is from the Play Store itself. As such, it makes sense that Google would want to position it in a way that basically makes it "required to compete" in the marketplace.

    I'm not saying that the Play Store isn't required to have a good experience. It is. Apps are integral to the experience you have. Google is using that fact as a means to impose its will on OEM's with regard to other apps being bundled and dictating home screen placement of folders and widgets.

    Galaxy S3 is a very old device to use for the purposes of this discussion. On the S7 Chrome is pre-installed and a long press of the home button brings up Now on Tap.

    You don't get to say "people should stop being lazy" and dismiss the research that company put in to see how people use their phones. The average user is the target for OEM's.
    06-08-2016 12:37 AM
  16. vzwuser76's Avatar
    What Google apps display ads?

    Gmail
    Google Search

    Any others?

    I suspect a large quantity of Android revenue is from the Play Store itself. As such, it makes sense that Google would want to position it in a way that basically makes it "required to compete" in the marketplace.

    I'm not saying that the Play Store isn't required to have a good experience. It is. Apps are integral to the experience you have. Google is using that fact as a means to impose its will on OEM's with regard to other apps being bundled and dictating home screen placement of folders and widgets.

    Galaxy S3 is a very old device to use for the purposes of this discussion. On the S7 Chrome is pre-installed and a long press of the home button brings up Now on Tap.

    You don't get to say "people should stop being lazy" and dismiss the research that company put in to see how people use their phones. The average user is the target for OEM's.
    Not just about apps displaying ads. Data gathered in certain apps are used for targeted ads, along with making a better experience in things like Google Now or Google on Tap. If you get rid of most of their services, Google Now will suck because it has nothing to go off of. The same reason why Cortana on Android isn't as good as it is on WM, because it doesn't have as deep integration to gather information from.

    If they were making the majority of their money on the Playstore, it wouldn't matter if they had their other apps on board, because the majority of their revenue would be left alone. They didn't position it in a way that makes it required to compete, Apple did. When they made the Appstore such an integrated part of their business model, it meant that any other platform needed one as well to be taken seriously, which is why WM is struggling so much. Google didn't create the Playstore to force people to use their services, they created it to compete with Apple. And if any of these OEMS wanted to build their own OS they would need one as well. So here again, they got one for free that they don't have to lift a finger to keep in terms of maintenance and security.

    So what you're saying is that Google should just let OEMs have everything they have built and worked on in Android. Should they also maintain the Playstore for free as well? I mean seriously these guys are getting a running OS that they can change to a point where it's noticeably different to set themselves apart or do nothing to it, for free. All they have to do is preinstalled a few apps. If Google hadn't come along with Android, how many of these companies would be competing against Apple? Where would Samsung, HTC, LG, Motorola, or Sony be? A few might've been WM OEMs, a few might've given their own OS a go, but I'd guarantee half of them would've gone under by now.

    That may be, but this discussion has been going on since before the Galaxy S3 was out. I would imagine on the S7 that was part of the agreement where Google sold Motorola to Lenovo, since Samsung was ready to jump ship and go all in on Tizen. But it also doesn't change the fact that they did install a large group of Microsoft apps on their flagship devices as well.

    So like I said earlier, what's your solution, that Google should just let their OEMs do whatever they want. If Google wants to make money off their services, they'll have to be content to limit that to their Nexus devices? If that was the case and I were Google, I'd stop my involvement with the OHA and make what we currently have as stock Android be a forked version, Playstore and all. If any OEMS want to partner up, make it he like Microsoft did and set strict hardware and software regulations and license this forked version of Android. Leave AOSP to the OHA and it'll be up to them to update it.
    06-08-2016 07:57 AM
  17. tonyFate's Avatar
    When you start citing BGR as a source is when your post becomes irrelevant. BGR is the worst ever. It's like they have an issue against Android & Google. Most of their articles are bashing everything but iOS & Apple. Most of their articles are one or two days late from when they are released from other sites.
    06-08-2016 09:10 AM
  18. andrew_ackley's Avatar
    God I hate BGR. All of their articles are stupid clickbait and Android bashing. Their bias its so obvious its disgusting. I like both platforms and I don't understand it. All they care about is # of clicks for advertising.
    06-08-2016 09:25 AM
  19. ACE-In-Hole's Avatar
    Unfortunately real journalism is dead. Most of these sites have resorted to click bait articles whether they are targeting Apple, Google or anyone else.
    06-08-2016 09:37 AM
  20. tnt4's Avatar
    God I hate BGR. All of their articles are stupid clickbait and Android bashing. Their bias its so obvious its disgusting. I like both platforms and I don't understand it. All they care about is # of clicks for advertising.
    Unfortunately real journalism is dead. Most of these sites have resorted to click bait articles whether they are targeting Apple, Google or anyone else.
    Unfortunately even AC has gone down this route somewhat as well - most sites have actually (like you said), even the good ones. Fortunately AC doesn't target/bash like BGR and some other sites do, but there's so much SEO fluff mixed in with the occasional good content by the quality writers here, it's become a bit of a watered down mess... quantity over quality. That's not meant to bash anybody, just an observation of the trend over the past couple of years here. There are few sites that haven't taken the bait and gone down this path. It must be really lucrative.
    06-08-2016 09:55 AM
  21. tr-1's Avatar
    I think it's interesting that people are unwilling to entertain the idea that Google could introduce features on the Nexus line that would qualify as bloat. I saw Now On Tap used as an example. The number of times that I've purposely used that feature can be counted on one hand. Maybe it's because it just wasn't that good (and maybe it's gotten better), or maybe because I forget it's there. I can't say for sure which is more likely. Some people would call that the definition of bloat.

    I think the potentially bigger issue would be if Google starts putting things in Nexus that only work on Nexus and aren't available to other OEM partners. Frankly, that part of what I took away from what he said. The other, as stated above, is tighter hardware/software integration. Meaning that there would be far more under the hood things that are specific to the Nexus device in question that basically don't matter to other OEM's.
    Now On Tap is not really "bloat" since it's pretty much just a "shortcut" to Google's contextual search that is already built into your phone. Just because you don't use some shortcuts or core features of OS doesn't make them bloat. I don't use the "Print" support in Android or even Tap-To-Pay but it's certainly not bloat.
    And what's the problem if Nexus has features that only work on Nexus and not other OEMs? Google will support them and this is all I care about. Who care's what other OEMs have or don't have? If anything, it will bring more competition to stagnant segment
    06-08-2016 10:17 AM
  22. mavrrick's Avatar
    @Kevin oQuinn and @vzwuser76

    Something else that you both are missing is that just because the Google Suite of apps is needed for the Playstore to be loaded doesn't mean it isn't accessible to a user of a device if it doesn't come with it. If either of you are familiar with loading of custom roms or Cynogenmod you would also be familiar with the fact there are many occasions that the Google services suite is loaded by the user after the fact. There is nothing preventing a manufacture from providing a phone without Google services and allowing users load it. I have a GK802 Mini PC stick that i loaded the Gapps APK on. I have load the Gapps apk on my old captivate when running cynogen mod. I most recently loaded it on a laptop i put REMIX OS on.

    Here is the better question. Would users want it without google services? I suspect no. in that reguard it is foolish to complain about the presense of google services when we also demand their presence to buy a product. Part of the problem is these apps are in many ways tightly integrated. So it isn't like trying to buy office and not wanting word. It is like buying Outlook and not wanting to have it have a contact list because you only use it for email.
    06-08-2016 11:11 AM
  23. slave's Avatar
    So Kevin, what's our solution then? We force Google to provide a product and service for free so other people can make money?

    That's the answer? You punish success by making them work for free? Get out of here with that crap.
    tr-1 likes this.
    06-08-2016 11:18 AM
  24. D13H4RD2L1V3's Avatar
    Now On Tap is not really "bloat" since it's pretty much just a "shortcut" to Google's contextual search that is already built into your phone.
    I really like using Now on Tap. It's actually very helpful when you need to look up on stuff quickly without switching to the Google app.
    From now on, Nexus phones will come with the bloatware-screenshot_20160608-035158.png
    06-08-2016 11:21 AM
  25. Ry's Avatar
    @Kevin oQuinn and @vzwuser76

    Something else that you both are missing is that just because the Google Suite of apps is needed for the Playstore to be loaded doesn't mean it isn't accessible to a user of a device if it doesn't come with it. If either of you are familiar with loading of custom roms or Cynogenmod you would also be familiar with the fact there are many occasions that the Google services suite is loaded by the user after the fact. There is nothing preventing a manufacture from providing a phone without Google services and allowing users load it. I have a GK802 Mini PC stick that i loaded the Gapps APK on. I have load the Gapps apk on my old captivate when running cynogen mod. I most recently loaded it on a laptop i put REMIX OS on.

    Here is the better question. Would users want it without google services? I suspect no. in that reguard it is foolish to complain about the presense of google services when we also demand their presence to buy a product. Part of the problem is these apps are in many ways tightly integrated. So it isn't like trying to buy office and not wanting word. It is like buying Outlook and not wanting to have it have a contact list because you only use it for email.
    Does the license for the Google apps allow for them to be redistributed and sideloaded?

    Posted via the Android Central App on the Moto X Pure Edition
    06-08-2016 12:41 PM
134 ... 23456

Similar Threads

  1. What is the blue pulsing ring radiating from my home button on my screen?
    By AC Question in forum General Help and How To
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-18-2017, 03:14 AM
  2. Transferring mp3s to Galaxy S6 from Windows 10?
    By AC Question in forum Samsung Galaxy S6
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-02-2016, 10:04 AM
  3. Prevent screen from powering off setting?
    By sc-eauser in forum Android 5.0 Lollipop
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-02-2016, 09:34 AM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-02-2016, 09:03 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-02-2016, 09:01 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD