I hate when a law or legal decision is aimed 45 degrees off like this. Letting manufacturers bundle their fucked-up version of Android is a bad thing. What we need is mandatory unlockable bootloaders so the users can load whatever they want on their devices.
I recently installed LineageOS on my phone, replacing the stock MIUI. I would probably return this phone if I had no other option than to use MIUI. I much prefer the "pure" Android experience.
For many essential and security critical apps to work, like bank apps or the McDonald's app you need to hide the fact you're using a modified system, because of SafetyNet.
This hiding/bypass works for now, because it tricks Google into thinking your device doesn't support hardware attestation, and fallbacking to Basic attestation, which is easier to bypass. Google can at any time flip the switch to require hardware attestation, and your apps will stop working, with no way around it, other than flashing back the stock ROM your device came with and locking the bootloader. At that point I will probably just buy a new phone.
Will they also fine Samsung for blocking the user's right to remove manufacturer-bundled cruftware?
From what I can understand, AFA meant that a manufacturer could lose their license to Google Play Services on _all_ of their devices if they produced _any_ devices using an Android fork. This is a clear abuse of market power.
The entire focus on anti-trust and moved to harm to other (big) businesses - no care about the consumer.
The Anti-fragmentation agreement google makes these folks sign HELPS consumers. Going to be a crazy situation if that goes away, the app you buy on samsung won't work on HTC etc.
This seems like an issue similar to right to repair... let hackers(in the traditional sense) have their place.
Who controls the OS controls the browser.
Who controls the browser controls the platform.
Nothing has changed since the mid-1990s.
It's incredible how long the AFA has been known about and how blatantly illegal it is, yet not subject to any significant penalties.
Law moves so freaking slow, this is about a 2013 complaint. Dealing with tech industry crooks requires faster movement than this.
The headline makes it look like this is for the benefit of consumers.
The article makes it clear this ruling is entirely to the benefit of Samsung Electronics.
Meanwhile the only real android competitor is manufactured by one company who doesn't allow even the end user to install apps not directly approved by Apple.
Just for a note — JY Lee just cane out from behind the bars a few weeks ago.
I think the throwback on HN on this decision is due to the lack of details and context on the news?
From what I've understood from the local news (I'm a South Korean), It's not about blocking handsets with forked Android (that already happens regularly AFAIK), but the requirement of shipping Google apps like Chrome and Google Assistant. The big elephant in the room here is Samsung phones, which do ship it's own custom browser Samsung Internet (BTW, with ad blocking capabilities!) and a separate virtual assistant, Bixby. That's the part where the KFTC decided was monopolistic.
I don't have a personal opinion this, but seems that the comment threads are focusing on the wrong part. Manufacturers were always able to bundle up their fucked-up version of Android. They were always able to ship super-custom UIs. Google never prevented that... but they did force the UIs bloat by having two separate default apps.