>I like to think I'm a proponent of open source as I try to contribute but to be honest I don't actually think it really matters for Android to be independent of Google services because as far as I can tell, most people like Android with Google services?

People like Google services, but they're less enthusiastic about Google's data collection practices. My father, who is now retired from a career in semiconductor manufacturing and programming, was unaware of Google's practice of monitor users' credit cards [0] and was visibly uncomfortable when he was made aware of it. Google's terms of service were effectively changed in a manner that harmed him, but he has no recourse.

Google services are frequently useful, but let's not pretend that there are other good choices. Google offers their apps for free, and has immediate access to approximately one billion Android devices by mandating an app's inclusion. That's an impossibly high barrier for all but the largest companies.

[0]: http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-google-a...

> I like to think I'm a proponent of open source as I try to contribute but to be honest I don't actually think it really matters for Android to be independent of Google services because as far as I can tell, most people like Android with Google services?

That's exactly why it should be independent of Google services–it makes it too easy to make changes to benefit those who use Google services and harm those who don't in the name of "but it's great for most people…"

Thank you for stating your opionion here.

Actually, I think removing Google services by default is not what we have in mind here. So we are okay that most users like Android as it is. Well, I think many of them just don't know which information Google collects and if they would learn about, some would not want to share that information either, but that is something everyone has to care for themselfs.

We just want the options to opt-out of every Google service easily and use alternatives (without having to flash custom roms) and to have up-to-date kernels and drivers. So having closed source drivers actually reduces the security (missing updates after a few month) and life time aspects of the product (the device). With the Android market domination Google has, it could easily force the hardware manufacturers to produce devices with open source drivers.

You might be a Google employee, but you do not seem to be an Open source proponent. That's you prerogative, but you completely miss the point of the discussion if you ask why should users want to be independent from proprietary services. Sure, 99% don't want that and would click any colored and shiny button if it promises them a free Justin Bieber ringtone, but this is not the topic of the thread.

Cloud services are probably the thing that is the farthest away from being open-source non-proprietary software... and he is working on cloud services, so I can understand where he comes from...

While I understand what you were getting at, we actually do open source some of our software as well as contribute to an early open source project so I wouldn't say it's the FARTHEST away..

The software that you are open sourcing, is it software that allows you to access the back-end or are you actually releasing software that could allow someone else to start his own cloud service?

We have an incubator project for Kubernetes as well as software to access the backend.

I don't think our team is releasing software to let others start their own cloud service if I understand you correctly. Are you thinking of something like what GitLab does? If so our team isn't doing that sorry!

I prefer software that is open source. I like to contribute my time, effort, and money to open source software as well, at least that which I find useful and interesting.

I guess I'm not an open source proponent but just whatever you would call the above?

What would you consider to be an open source proponent? Someone who believes all source code should be open source?

> That's you prerogative, but you completely miss the point of the discussion if you ask why should users want to be independent from proprietary services

Well don't just leave me hanging.. what is the point of the discussion? Please do enlighten me.

> Sure, 99% don't want that and would click any colored and shiny button if it promises them a free Justin Bieber ringtone, but this is not the topic of the thread.

Isn't it? I mean the comment was literally asking for an opinion which I gave. I'm not sure I understand why this is off topic? Most businesses would be unbelievably successful if their product appealed to 99% of people.

From a cursory scan of the comments, it looks like people are frustrated about not having control over their devices. Right now, iOS and Android control the user, restricting freedom and choices. For example iOS won't let me record my screen while the Netflix application is running. Clearly this is to protect DRM interests, but the principle is that Apple has ultimate control over how my iPhone behaves. I cannot provide a false GPS location to apps. I can't lie about battery level. I can't lie about notification permissions or fool applications. We need to be able to lie to our devices to have freedom and control them.

So back to how this relates to an Android being tied to Google Play: you as the user don't have ultimate control over your device. And that means you don't fully own your device.

That's my perception of the main issues with control from Apple and Google. Lots of great software and hardware being produced, but we need to have more power over the operation of our gadgets.

There doesn't seem to be any point to this discussion for GP to miss because the premise was plainly incorrect. As multiple people have pointed out, Android itself is completely independent from proprietary services. If you buy a Google-flavored Android device (which is a spectrum itself), your device will come with proprietary services on it. That doesn't mean you have to use them, nor does it mean you have to have a Google-flavored Android build. You're free to use apps that use Pushy or some other third party push messaging service, OpenStreetMap or some other map provider, Bing or some other search provider, Fastmail or some other mail provider, etc.

> I like to think I'm a proponent of open source as I try to contribute but to be honest I don't actually think it really matters for Android to be independent of Google services because as far as I can tell, most people like Android with Google services?

Yeah but what about people who aren't most people? Are you saying they don't matter? That doesn't sound very open source.

Those people by definition aren't Googles customers. And Google is the one developing the OS. Maybe Apple will be more open to developing an OS for people that hate them? :)