Google does not control whether OEM's are allowed to sell Android phones. Does Google control the sale of all of those Chinese branded phones that don't ship with Google Play Services? Or how about the Blackphone or the Copperhead phone? The MADA simply states what is required if your phone wants to ship with Google Play Services and Apps.

>Google would like you to blame the manufacturer, but you need to realize the fact that you even can blame the manufacturer is a design flaw in the OS which Google designed.

This sentence makes so sense. Google cannot update an OS that they did not create. The OEM rolled the OS so only they can update it. How exactly does Google update an OS from an OEM they don't even have the source for? It's the OEM's responsibility and if that OEM doesn't do their job in updating their OS then maybe it's time to start looking for an OEM that does do their job.

There's a confusion here between the Android's clone of the GNU libraries (to escape the GPL3 license) which is open source, plus the linux kernel, also open source; and the NOT open source Google Android OS which is much more than this, including a Java engine and a helluva lot of other parts including but not limited to the app store. China's Android-ish phones use the replacement library functions Google built and the Linux kernel. The Chinese could go all GPL3 and ignore any Google/Android contribution at all if they cared to - they don't because they too want to get away from the GPL3 license (with it's software and hardware patent grab and anti-tivoization clause that forbids locking down the phone, even for security purposes.)

1. Note my use of the word "effectively". Unless you're in China, where Google does not operate, there is no such thing as Android without Google Play Services. (Attempts to sell Android devices without Google Play outside of China have, for the most part[1], been dismal failures.) And Google has to give their written approval for the release of each and every device or software update of Android with Google Play Services.

2. Google created the OS. In fact, OEMs are forbidden from forking Android, and therefore, cannot "roll their own OS" from Android, without violating their agreement with Google. Yes, they sprinkle some of their own apps and drivers in, but this is a design flaw in Android: Google needs to be updating their own software independently of manufacturer-specific components.

I know for a fact you and I have had this discussion before.

[1]Someone will mention the Kindle. The Kindle does not compete with Google products, as it is perceived in the market as an e-reader more than a "tablet". And Google barely even does tablets anymore anyways.

> Google created the OS. In fact, OEMs are forbidden from forking Android, and therefore, cannot "roll their own OS" from Android, without violating their agreement with Google. Yes, they sprinkle some of their own apps and drivers in, but this is a design flaw in Android: Google needs to be updating their own software independently of manufacturer-specific components.

Forbidden from forking Android? Every OEM version of Android is a fork. What Google does not allow is for an OEM to distribute a version of Android that does not pass the Android Compatibility Test Suite.

>therefore, cannot "roll their own OS" from Android

Do you know how OEM's "roll their own OS"? They take the AOSP source code that Google drops and then they add all of their source code and then build and distribute their own version of Android that only they can update.

>Yes, they sprinkle some of their own apps and drivers

I'm not sure you really understand all of the changes OEM's make to Android if all you think they do is "sprinkle some of their own apps and drivers in"

>this is a design flaw in Android: Google needs to be updating their own software independently of manufacturer-specific components.

No it's not. Google does not build Android for the OEM's. They create their own version of Android and therefore are ultimately responsible for updating it. Once again, Google cannot update an OS they did not build.

>Google barely even does tablets anymore anyways.

Android is still the marketshare leader in tablets.

> They take the AOSP source code that Google drops and then they add all of their source code and then build and distribute their own version of Android that only they can update.

Yep that's a insanely huge design flaw, coherent with: "Google needs to be updating their own software independently of manufacturer-specific components."

So an OEM being allowed to build their own OS is a huge design flaw?

Is Debian also responsible for Ubuntu's security flaws?

It isn't "their own OS". It's Google's OS, which is explicitly and directly controlled by Google's contracts, which you continue to pretend do not exist. It is a single platform, and it is by no means an open source one. If it was, it wouldn't require the explicit approval of a single corporate entry to distribute it or any updates to it.

Yes, it actually is. An OEM builds their own OS from source. Google does not own their OS. Also, why are you claiming that I'm pretending that the MADA contract does not exist? If an OEM wants Google Play Services and Apps then they must agree to the terms in the MADA. It appears you have an problem separating the Android OS the OEM builds and the Google Apps and Services that are given to them.

As I recall, Google tried a laxer approach early in Android's history, and the quality results were pretty disastrous.

Why do we fault the company for taking steps to pull Android as a brand together?

I actually really loved the choice and freedom we used to have and Android, and thought it was a valuable trade off for platform unity. Now we have a very homogenous platform that is still horribly insecure... The worst of both worlds.

Google uses their agreements with OEMs to force them to bundle apps and including Google's branding, and protect their business, but refuses to use those agreements to ensure even basic security for their users.

I don't think I follow. In what sense is Android horribly insecure? More interestingly: in what sense is it horribly insecure that it wouldn't be if we lived in a world where Google didn't have the market agreements to, say, force security patches for pieces of the Android OS core that were broken?

Because we already lived in that world, and it was less secure than the one we live in now, to my memory. Security issue in one of the Android libraries that are now part of Play Services? Good luck; wait for your OEM to update your OS.