Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google contract prevented Motorola from setting Perplexity as default assistant

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 206 posts

Re: Google contract prevented Motorola from setting Perplexity as default assistant

#91

Post by jsiepkes »

bitpush wrote: post #78
jsiepkes wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't even install the resulting binaries of an opensource Android build on a phone because of gaps. And even if you could (or fill in the gaps) Google poisoned the ecosystem by ensuring almost all Android apps require Google Play services. Which aren't open source and you realistically need for all Android apps. So no, Google made sure there is no open source Android. There are just some (incomplete) source dump…

Gapps were ever open source. Android, the operating system, is what's open source. Are you saying because Google Maps isn't open source, the operating system is useless?

I'm not talking about the Google Maps app or the YouTube app here. I'm talking about the API's which Google Play services offer which all apps use. API's which for example allows your app to get the location of the user. Or allows your app to be updated.

Simply said probably none of the apps you installed on your phone are going to work without Google Play services installed. Google Play services are closed source. Which is why manufactures like Samsung need to sign a contract with Google and can't simply "install opensource Android". Samsung could live without Google Maps being installed and they could even live without the Google play store but they can't live with none of your apps (like your bank app, your Netflix app, etc.) working.

Re: Google contract prevented Motorola from setting Perplexity as default assistant

#92

Post by 62342342 »

paxys wrote: post #39
mkhalil wrote: post #24

Did anyone read this article? The headline is misleading. It clearly states in the first line: > "Google’s contract with Lenovo Group Ltd.’s Motorola blocked the smartphone maker from setting Perplexity AI as the default assistant on its new devices" They didn't block Perplexity AI from Motorola's devices, the agreement states that they allow them to preload the devices with Perplexity, but the agreement, that both p…

Most online journalism relies on clickbait, and they know people aren't going to read too much past the headline to care (and 99% of threads on sites like HN clearly demonstrate that).

well at least it is new information unlike your statement.

Re: Google contract prevented Motorola from setting Perplexity as default assistant

#93

Post by kstrauser »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #66
kstrauser wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the record, none of those are objectively "better". You and I may think they're better. Lots, lots , as in billions of people, couldn't care less: > Open source Android vs. closed iOS Almost no one outside specific tech circles cares, and even if they understood what it meant, still wouldn't care. > Install apps from any source on Android vs. total restriction on iOS That's one of the primary reasons I suggest th…

I would agree with that in principle if it were remotely true, but on my iPhone, when I searched for chatgpt or openai when they came out, I got half a dozen fake apps before the real one. And that's been the case for so many search terms for popular apps or areas. There are 1.8 million apps on iOS app store! How do they get this aura and image of safety and reliability? Or, how do I find that safe walled garden? :)

First, yes, I totally agree with the premise. I still think there's a big difference between scammy software like you described and flat-out malware. App Store review can identify and reject lots of malicious syscalls. If you get a fake ChatGPT app, it might very well have in-app purchases that don't actually do anything server-side, but it probably won't exfiltrate your email to North Korea.

You're right. It's not "safe" in the sense that things clearly, demonstrably make it through that shouldn't. I do believe those are the exceptions that stand out, though. It doesn't mean that scammers can't still get malware into the store. It does mean they have to work harder for it than most scammers are willing or able to.

By analogy, Fremont, CA isn't "safe". They still have robberies and thefts and assaults and murders. But with a crime rate literally 1/10th that of St. Louis, I'd forgive people for describing it that way.

Re: Google contract prevented Motorola from setting Perplexity as default assistant

#94

Post by dredmorbius »

bitpush wrote: post #54
wordofx wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android is hardly open source if it’s developed behind closed doors and final version released. It’s pretending.

Are you confused between open source and open development? Isn't the source fully open? Edit: If I made a movie, and made the files freely available after I make it and let you do whatever you want with it .. would you insist that it isn't "open" because you didn't see me argue with my editor or the 100 times I iterates on the end scene or whether your idea for chase sequence was not incorporated?

Free Software Foundation General Public License version 2:

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html>

That's generally interpreted to mean that the build environment or build system is included in the requirements of the licence. This is included in FSF's Free Software Definition as well:

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>

OSI's Open Source Definition includes substantively similar language:

The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program.

https://opensource.org/osd>

Answering your question then, no, source absent build prerequisites / systems does not satisfy either FSF's Free Software Definition or the subsequent Open Source Definition by the Open Source Initiative.

Re: Google contract prevented Motorola from setting Perplexity as default assistant

#95

Post by dredmorbius »

surajrmal wrote: post #81
bitpush wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, I ask isn't that still open source?

It sure is. Open source doesn't require open development model or even taking outside contributions. It simply requires that you have access to the source and can do things like fork it, which you absolutely can with Android. I think people android to be more like Linux, but that's a very difficult arrangement and has tradeoffs.

Open Source requires buildable code: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43779597>

Re: Google contract prevented Motorola from setting Perplexity as default assistant

#96

Post by Spivak »

Zigurd wrote: post #34
disiplus wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i have a pixel phone, but google is not the good guy here. Like in this example, it basically bundles stuff in a way, so if you want for example the store, you have to take other stuff also and that other stuff has its own requirements.

There are de-Googled phones based on AOSP, and not just in China. Google used to be more permissive with OEM "customization" and the result was lots of Bad Product Differentiation. Phone OEMs suck at software. Huawei has a phone OS not based on AOSP, but you can't easily get it in the US. Making a coherent OS product that doesn't get horribly mutated by OEM licensees is not easy. Vide Windows bloatware.

The mistake Google is making with the courts is that you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't have an open OS while simultaneously flexing your other business units to dictate how other people use it.

Google flexing in this way, arguably for the benefit of the user, is nonetheless anticompetitive and the courts are reaming them for it.

Re: Google contract prevented Motorola from setting Perplexity as default assistant

#97

Post by creato »

mullingitover wrote: post #19
islewis wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Already in anti-trust related to ads, AI is probably in the clear. "Already in trouble for committing monopolist behavior in market A, Google should be fine committing even more monopolist behavior in the very related and overlapping market of B" This makes claim makes pretty little sense to me. AI search and Google web search (ads) are already stepping on each other. I see no reason that Google wouldn't be worried…

Seems like the real issue is that Google is using proceeds from the core illegal monopoly to fund a dumping operation in another market in order to establish a monopoly there. They've been able to dump a free browser on the market and smother any potential competition in that space in the same fashion.

Every browser I've used in the last 20 years: IE, Firefox, Chrome, Safari, all free. The browser market has been full of free competitors since before Google even existed.

Re: Google contract prevented Motorola from setting Perplexity as default assistant

#98

Post by p0w3n3d »

xnx wrote: post #16

It continues to baffle me that Google gets harassed by the courts for being a better actor in almost every area it participates. Open source Android vs. closed iOS Install apps from any source on Android vs. total restriction on iOS Switch default app for browser (and many other things!) vs. No choice but Safari tech on iOS Easy switch of search provider in Chrome vs. countless dark patterns pushing Edge and Bing on…

Please add Dr.Evil's air quotes around open in "open source Android"

Re: Google contract prevented Motorola from setting Perplexity as default assistant

#99

Post by trhway »

behringer wrote: post #63
mkhalil wrote: post #24

Did anyone read this article? The headline is misleading. It clearly states in the first line: > "Google’s contract with Lenovo Group Ltd.’s Motorola blocked the smartphone maker from setting Perplexity AI as the default assistant on its new devices" They didn't block Perplexity AI from Motorola's devices, the agreement states that they allow them to preload the devices with Perplexity, but the agreement, that both p…

If Lenovo wants preferential terms they have to sign.

If i remember correctly, it was similar argument when Microsoft in similar way blocked other browsers' pre-install - "if Dell wants to be MS Windows preferred partner ...". And ultimately that argument didn't fly. Though unfortunately a huge irreparable damage was still done.

Re: Google contract prevented Motorola from setting Perplexity as default assistant

#100

Post by supermatt »

mkhalil wrote: post #24

Did anyone read this article? The headline is misleading. It clearly states in the first line: > "Google’s contract with Lenovo Group Ltd.’s Motorola blocked the smartphone maker from setting Perplexity AI as the default assistant on its new devices" They didn't block Perplexity AI from Motorola's devices, the agreement states that they allow them to preload the devices with Perplexity, but the agreement, that both p…

> they think they had no choice

And they really don't have a choice. if you don't abide by googles terms then they will not permit you to use google mobile services. That means (at the very least):

  - No "play" services (breaks lots of apps and 3rd party peripherals).
  - No app store (over 90% of apps are distributed solely through the play store. even major android players like samsung have tiny libraries in their own stores).
  - No youtube app (and no way to natively play without play services APIs, you NEED to use a crippled iframe embed in a webview!!!)
  - No push notifications (developers usually target the "built-in" option that is basically play services)
  - Missing apps and api-level integration with loads of other stuff, maps, mail, search, calendar, casting, etc
  - No widevine DRM (no hd/4k netflix, etc)
  - Loads of other insidious stuff I cant recall or articulate right now
You cant even use the word "Android" to describe the OS.

Just look at how crippled Amazons fork is. Or how huawei pretty much lost their entire GLOBAL market share because of a US sanction preventing them having a GMS contract.

No matter what anyone says, android IS google. It is so riddled with google specific behaviours you cant use without a license that companies have even ditched android to make their own OS - because they literally aren't allowed to favorably position their own functionality over googles in any way.

Post reply on HN