A flashing service would be a good idea, for it enables customers who are not tech savvy to obtain a device without becoming enslaved to Google’s system.
Yes, Google rules the waves of Android by contracting manufacturers. This is revealing:
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/
1 Like
I also think this should be the way. Sort of an universal flashing tool.
Alternatively, maybe a pre.filled virtual machine with a play button in it? Perhaps we could pack everything on 10gb or less and expand the usage at a faster paste.
Additionally, I would not mind a sort of yearly pay subscription to use this OS, donations are nice but maybe people would engage more… And if all went well the team could expand faster, have better conditions, etc etc. Anything like this in the pipe?
3 Likes
It only needs very little forked parts.
An earlier version of the UBports installer was actually based on shell scripts, and that version could also download and install other images (e.g. lineage and sailfish). I didn’t find it on the UBports page anymore, but adapting those shell scripts to flash /e/ images should be rather trivial.
1 Like
We are working on an easy installer - no GUI only command line - to help users flash the ROM. Still under development and with no ETA. Will be updating once it is done…in fact I am also looking forward to getting my hands on that tool 
2 Likes
Great 
Too bad I don’t find the old UBports shell-script based installer anymore, it would be worth a look. Does anybody here have it? Or better yet, have the link to the github repo, IIRC the initial instructions told the user to do a git clone.
Dear all, this is a post to give a status update on the “anti-fragmentation agreements” noted above. I asked for some help at the European Parliament and they provided me with a link to this document: https://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/dec_docs/40099/40099_9993_3.pdf
This document describes decisions by the European Commission about an antitrust procedure against Google. Please note the following section on page 313:
18.2.2. Remedies concerning the licensing of the Play Store and the Google Search app on condition that hardware manufacturers enter into the anti-fragmentation obligations in the AFAs
(1398) First, Google and Alphabet should refrain from licensing of the Play Store and the Google Search app on condition that hardware manufacturers enter into the anti-fragmentation obligations in the AFAs. This shall not affect Google’s ability to put in place reasonable, fair and objective measures that would only be limited in scope to GMS devices and that would not, therefore, affect hardware manufacturers’ commercial freedom to sell non-GMS devices based on Android forks.
(1399) Second, Google and Alphabet should refrain from adopting any practice or measure having an equivalent object or effect. This shall include at least the following:
(1) Google and Alphabet must refrain from licensing the Play Store and the Google Search app on condition that hardware manufacturers enter into the anti-fragmentation obligations contained in any other agreements (e.g. MADAs or revenue sharing agreements);
(2) Google and Alphabet cannot make the grant of a royalty-free or discounted licence to the Play Store or the Google Search app conditional on an obligation not to sell devices based on Android forks;
(3) Google and Alphabet cannot make the obligation not to sell devices based on Android forks conditional on any payment or discount;
(4) Google and Alphabet cannot use one or more of Google’s other proprietary apps, APIs, the Android SDK or the Android PDK to remove or restrict the freedom of hardware manufacturers to sell devices based on Android forks;
(5) Google and Alphabet cannot impose on hardware manufacturers any obligation to pre-install one or more of Google’s proprietary apps that would remove or restrict the freedom of third parties to sell devices based on Android forks; and
(6) Google and Alphabet cannot punish or threaten hardware manufacturers that sell devices based on Android forks.
(1400) Recitals (1398) and (1399) are without prejudice to any proportionate and necessary remedies that the Commission may by decision impose in the event that Google and Alphabet were not to bring the Infringement effectively to an end or would adopt a practice or measure having an equivalent object or effect.
This is really good news!! This means that the EC officially disagrees with Google on its anti-fragmentation agreements and that it can no longer use them. /e/ can use this information in its discussions with hardware manufacturers to show them the anti-fragmentation agreements are not valid anylonger.
9 Likes
Nice. This is indeed good new for us. We will have to go through it in detail.
Now expect Google and its army of lawyers to come out with loop holes in this!!
1 Like
in relation to this, Google was fined 4.34 billion euros for this, see:
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_4581
Blockquote * has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called “Android forks”).
1 Like
Hi all, i’ve been in touch with the European Parliament and Commission about this. The current status is as follows:
Google has appealed the Commission Decision of 18 July 2018 in case COMP/AT.40099 — Google Andrоid a few months after the adoption of the Decision, namely in October 2018. You will find information about the court case (registered as T-604/18) on the website of the General Court, here: T-604/18
With regard to Google’s compliance with the Commission Decision, including with regard to the anti-fragmentation agreements, the company has put in place different measures which are designed to comply with the obligations of the Decision. You will find public information on Google’s website where the company announces various measures to comply with the Decision: https://www.blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/complying-ecs-android-decision/
Crucially, Google writes here that:
First, we’re updating the compatibility agreements with mobile device makers that set out how Android is used to develop smartphones and tablets. Going forward, Android partners wishing to distribute Google apps may also build non-compatible, or forked, smartphones and tablets for the European Economic Area (EEA).
1 Like
So this means that hardware manufacturers may now also offer /e/'s Android as an option on their hardware for the EEA market, while at the same time not losing the ability to sell phones with Google’s Android.
4 Likes
Wow!! This is awesome!!
1 Like
I seriously doubt Google will follow this commitment to the letter. For a company which has made its trillions on the monopoly they have on the smartphone industry it seems a loss of revenue in the EU.With a watered down version of google most ‘popular’ apps may not work forcing the vendors to choose either to go with the full google suite or not at all.
1 Like
i don’t think i agree; this whole EC decision was made to prevent precisely that! + Google has announced clearly here what it will do. Let’s wait and see and hope that it will indeed happen this way! Also, I posted this message here mainly to help persuade hardware manufacturers to also start using /e/ on their phones, so let’s not be pessimistic: we need to persuade them that they are allowed to do this!
I can see Google following this commitment. It just means they need to move their spyware into parts which are outside the “core OS” component, so that they can track people who are using forked OS. For example they could clamp down on Aurora etc. access to their app store, so if you want access to the Play store you need to use the “official Google Playstore App” which has all the tackers in it.
1 Like
true, they may try that. But with the recent Huawei developments and with Samsung, for example, also already having its own app store, i think we might see a proliferation of app stores in the future. It would be good if /e/ is able to position itself in that market as the “independent, non-profit, privacy-safe” option. This is a reason also for making the /e/ app store available outside /e/ (which atm is not possible yet).
1 Like
Dear all, a post to follow up on the EC’s ruling against Google’s anti-fragmentation agreements (see also this post, that’s closed now, so therefore posting here again). The EC kindly shared some info related to their decision:
· the press release relating to the adoption of the Google Android Decision on 18 July 2018: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm
· a four page summary of the Commission’s Android Decision: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52019XC1128(02)&from=EN
· the general Google Android case page on DG Competition’s website: https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=1_40099
1 Like