EU looking into Google's Android licensing, asks makers if they were forced to delay competing devices
1. anywherehome (Posts: 971; Member since: 13 Dec 2011)
Every android manufacturer is blackmailed by Microsoft so they are forced a little to use another OS!
It's the attack against open source!
Please to all, DON'T pay a penny to Microsoft to have a better world for living!
Microsoft is not able to compete so abuses legal action........ every one fill a complaint against Microsoft to EU commission!
I have done! You have to fight for your freedom :)
3. anywherehome (Posts: 971; Member since: 13 Dec 2011)
Here you can fill a complaint about
1) patent abuse by Microsoft
2) uncompetitive abusing dominance of Windows
3) blackmailing android manufacturers
4) corrupting almost every gov in the world
ec.europa "dot" eu/eu_law/your_rights/your_rights_forms_en.htm
10. Henrik (Posts: 138; Member since: 18 Feb 2012)
A 10 year old kid writing misinformed, simplified and uneducated letters to the politicians, is cute and understandable. A grown man doing the same, is just pathetic. I'm sure they'll listen to you.
25. blazee (Posts: 198; Member since: 02 Jan 2012)
What is he misinformed about? And if you think that's childish then must also think miscrosoft and Nokia are a bunch of sour children.
31. anywherehome (Posts: 971; Member since: 13 Dec 2011)
Please, write about facts not about yourself ;-)
20. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 5178; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)
Not too mention Apple how they FORCE HTC for delaying their phones
2. mousesports (Posts: 154; Member since: 28 Feb 2013)
let them fight , is theyr money .. And if microsoft have right why not ? We have to be corect and dont steal from others ... noobs
4. taz89 (Posts: 1772; Member since: 03 May 2011)
Really don't get this one, yes android is free to use but no one is forced to use it. Plus you can use it and do whatever you want and not use Google apps ie like Amazon tablets or the old nook tablets.. you have the option to be either part of the open alliance which has its rule and if you don't agree with that you have the option to do your own thing.. Am pretty sure nothing will come of this.
6. SIGPRO (Posts: 317; Member since: 03 Oct 2012)
Android is not free, manufacturers needs to buy licenses!
8. taz89 (Posts: 1772; Member since: 03 May 2011)
You sure? I thought android aosp was free to use which why things like paranoid android an cm exist.. Do you know what they need to licence? I know Samsung HTC etc pay Microsoft for certain patents but other than that I summer it was free top use android cause amazon didn't have to pay Google am sure.
9. SIGPRO (Posts: 317; Member since: 03 Oct 2012)
Like EXkurogane says Android is open source and not free.
Google did it smart, they lowered the license cost's so companies paid less license cost's for Android. That's why it got so big, if microsoft did the same with WP Android share would be a lot smaller now. it's just monopoly, now it's Google with Android after a few years it will be another company....this is how these companies role it's only about the money!
12. taz89 (Posts: 1772; Member since: 03 May 2011)
So can I ask what it is OEMS have to licence? Cause for years I been reading comments and article that the only reason android is popular is because it's "free".
15. roscuthiii (Posts: 1602; Member since: 18 Jul 2010)
Android is free... it's when you want acces to Google's services like the Play Store that must be licensed.
17. taz89 (Posts: 1772; Member since: 03 May 2011)
That I knew... which is why don't see anything wrong here, if you don't agree with Google you can still use android like Amazon is.
7. EXkurogane (Posts: 863; Member since: 07 Mar 2013)
Since when android is free? It's only open source but not free.
13. duder52 (Posts: 27; Member since: 14 Jun 2013)
Can you explain where you are getting your information from that it's not free? It states in the AOSP that manufactures must get licensed/certified to use android and the play store. It then says that the cost of licensing is free. Furthermore, a cnet article explaining this lawsuit also says android is free for manufacturers to use, which is part of the reason why there are lawsuits. Free is considered "below cost". The only costs I'm aware of is a $5 fee certain manufacturers like HTC I believe must pay to microsoft to use android due to patent licensing issues.
18. EXkurogane (Posts: 863; Member since: 07 Mar 2013)
Android is a Free and open-source software.
In the context of free and open-source software, "free" refers to the freedom to copy and re-use the software, not in terms of price. A license is still needed if implemented in products.
14. sprockkets (Posts: 669; Member since: 16 Jan 2012)
So how much do I pay to download it from google's server?
There are no licensing costs for Android, period. Anyone who says otherwise is pulling it out of their ass.
19. EXkurogane (Posts: 863; Member since: 07 Mar 2013)
Read comment 18 - you are FREE to copy and re-use the software, But when you mass produce it as a product, you need a license in order to have access to Google's services like the Play Store. Go read up on Free and open source software in wikipedia, or any other source.
So, indirectly, you still need to pay for to license Android if you are making products with that OS. It is not free in terms of price. Even those cheap $100 Chinese phones can access google Play, which means they still paid for the license.
21. MartyK (Posts: 651; Member since: 11 Apr 2012)
19. EXkurogane --Read comment 18 - you are FREE to copy and re-use the software...
you need a license in order to have access to Google's services like the Play Store.
OKAY you just SAID it is free!! now if you want to use GOOGLE services you need to license...
Android= Free.. ..Google Services = License..
22. duder52 (Posts: 27; Member since: 14 Jun 2013)
Android is free mass produced or not. CNET confirmed this that it's all free for manufacturers to use. The problem is microsoft and nokia are upset because google is giving it away below cost I.E. FREE. Please back up your claim with more substance and correct me where I may be wrong, but I don't see anything anywhere about licensing fees. Nothing on wiki, nothing in the aosp. The only place I see anything about google play costing any money for a manufacturer to use is from you. All I see is a manufacturer must get licensed if they want to include the play store with the OS, and a license can be free. I see nothing about a licensing cost, everything points to free. I think the other part of this lawsuit is google is not granting licenses for google play unless manufacturer's do the things that are mentioned in the lawsuit. Perhaps phonearena can clear up if there are any licensing fees.
23. protozeloz (Posts: 5191; Member since: 16 Sep 2010)
according to your way of thinking the amazon kindle and the nook tablets should be paying for android services... android is free but Google services are not... is that so hard?
26. sprockkets (Posts: 669; Member since: 16 Jan 2012)
Good. Now point out how much people pay for Google services when I can download gapps for any ROM and have it work without paying Google.
The part where people have to *pay* is still out of their asses. You have to meet certain guidelines and such, but no one has any proof it costs *money*.
5. EXkurogane (Posts: 863; Member since: 07 Mar 2013)
Gawd, android fanboys are going to defend Google, as if Google is innocent. Both Microsoft and Google are screwed up in some ways.
I'll let the results of these investigations speak for themselves.
11. taz89 (Posts: 1772; Member since: 03 May 2011)
I know all these companies are corrupt one way or another.. I just personally can't see anything wrong here unless some things come out later on that we don't know about.. At the moment with what I know which is of you use android you can do what Amazon did and cut out Google or still use Google apps but pay licence fee to Microsoft for certain patents that android uses of Microsoft.. Like I said ATM I don't see Google in any trouble but who knows maybe things will come out in the future that will change that.
16. roscuthiii (Posts: 1602; Member since: 18 Jul 2010)
Don't get your knickers in a twist. Posts in reply to yours are just correcting misonformation up to this point. Not to say some fanboy won't come in sputtering a diatribe defending his brand o' choice at some later point though.
28. Googler (Posts: 813; Member since: 10 Jun 2013)
Not really. If Google is manipulating the licensing fees for whatever reason, they need to pay the consequences. If this is just more of the "Scroogled" smear campaign of Microsoft, they need to pay as well for false accusations. Courts will have to figure this one out.
30. moroninc (Posts: 141; Member since: 14 Jul 2012)
most of these "android fanboys" like open source... so when you say license fee, ofcourse we are naturally curious. I just think Google is more friendly than the rest of the pack, they all have flaws but Microsoft is just a plain old grouch and Apple is just bitter
29. thecorrescode (Posts: 15; Member since: 28 Mar 2013)
So, Microsoft is arguing that Apache License 2.0 is anti-competitive... How pathetic...
33. networkdood (Posts: 4749; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)
When it involves Microsoft, you have to laugh at the hypocrisy if Microsoft.