with the recent news about the things that were said about Google slowing down Firefox on purpose, are they doing this because they severily dislike Firefox/open source? :c If so, that wouldn’t make a lot of sense!!! Because Google loves open source too. I read they were doing this to stop adblockers, and well if you use Firefox without those, it can work maybe! I use Chromium and Google Chrome on Ubuntu u
They have a product competing with Firefox…
either you are paid by google to make accounts seem like real people behind them, and spread propaganda for google, or you are a young kid who has yet to grasp the reality of what google is telling you they do vs what they actually do.
Do you think the tobacco producers are spouting how great their product is at giving folks cancer? you must be too young to remember cigarette ads, and how 9 out of 10 Dr.'s recommend a particular brand of smokes.
Google wants your information, they want to sell you shit, that is all. They will make it easier to get that data, and easier to buy from them, but dont for one second think they give one ounce of a shit about you, or your life as long as you stay on their platform and spend money on them
I understand your point of view, but I believe that unlike smokes, Google software doesn’t biologically harm you, and by the way… it’s a nuanced conversation, there are layers to be talked about!! I’m very sorry but I understand.
look, im not trying to be a dick, honestly. but ive seen some of your posts here and there, and it really seems like you have a big hard on for google, like you capitalize the name and everything. someone under contract would do something like that, however auto correct will as well, but im on pc…so im bias. some of the other things you say…ok more how, but to me sounds like someone under contract.
yeah, i could be wrong and im sorry for being a dick about it. if thats the case, you should have a look as some of the evil shit they have done, look at project dragonfly and tell me they have the users best interest at heart. I was a big google fan for many years, bought nexus phones before they changed name to pixel, was among the early adopters of gmail, (public) beta tested lots of shit. hell, i remember when the front page said “ad free”. so this isnt coming out of nowhere, i have reasons, and you should do a little research, but dont search it ON google
Edit: deleted the shortcut for ‘ad free’, was the wrong one. will update when/if i find it…maybe Mandela effect?
I like Google but I capitalize all names… and anyway I use Firefox sometimes too!! I think Google does make very nice things. And about the Dragonfly project… well, they were honestly just trying to give the chinese market a better search engine, but it was a good action of Google to stop it because it would have been used badly!! n.n By the way, I use Duckduckgo on Chrome.
yeah, you are paid
dragonfly went ahead a year or so ago, its active now i believe.
pm me what you get to post this stuff, i could use some bucks and id be way more convincing
I wish I was paid, why would they pay me?? I’m not a popular person, and either way, while I do enjoy and I’m a fan of Google, my main stuff is software and technology, and Python :3
of course someone who is under contract is legally obligated to deny getting paid. maybe just a NDA, but either way
and dude, not even the kid i went to school with, who invented ‘bumptop’ and sold that shit to google, eats as much of the propaganda as you have and puked it up in such perfect form. just send me a link to your handler or whatever, I can make a much more convincing account. not looking to take over your job, but i can do it better
Edit: link to bumptop
excuse me?? I’m being honest and truthful, I’m not being paid, and if I ever get paid by Google, it will be because I’ll be working in their offices!! By the way I also have Mastodon, Telegram, and Matrix. So I can’t be paid… And by the way that kid has achieved great things!! That’s very good for that person.
deleted by creator
it’s a nuanced conversation
that ship sailed back when they abandoned the “don’t be evil” motto
i forgot to mention that part…thanks
They went straight to “be evil if it makes us money”
Wow what a great way to cherry pick that comment and have a completely empty response devoid of anything meaningful.
You plan to actually discuss any of the very valid points they brought up or you are going to continue to try to play cute and go “oh it’s a difficult conversation”? It sure is, that’s why we are having it here and now. Why even start this thread if you’re going to be this disingenuous with your responses.
Google loves open source too
Google loves open source when it suits their agenda.
For example, they created an entire OS almost from scratch. It cost them billions and the vast majority of it was open source, so people would be enticed to get onboard the Android ecosystem.
Now that Google has a virtual monopoly with Android, look at the state of AOSP: it’s a shell of its former self. Most of what’s left in it is becoming old and stale, because Google is quietly replacing the open-source bits that are now an inconvenience to them with their proprietary, more up-to-date counterparts.
Not to mention it’s practically impossible to get rid of the Google code in it… Android is so deeply tied with Google, almost no one dares to tackle that code and degoogle it.
@0x4E4F @ExtremeDullard
Could you elaborate what Google Code is for example in GrapheneOS?GrapheneOS is a privacy and security focused mobile OS with Android app compatibility…
That’s not the same as an ungoogled fork of Android, is it.
@0x4E4F
The privacy and security enhancement of GrapheneOS is partly achieved by having next to no Google included in the OS.That may be true, but I’m sure the userbase is next to none.
@0x4E4F
That’s neither true nor relevant for the question.What good is an OS if no one uses it 🤨. TempleOS is cool, but I bet you won’t find 100 people on earth that use it as a daily driver.
I’m a bit confused about the emphasis you put in the quote… GrapheneOS is built on AOSP (the open-source part of Android), it’s definitely not some OS built from ground up (look no further than the various Linux phone projects to see how terrible those are as Android replacements atm).
Technically it isn’t Android, because Google owns the trademark and has some requirements for stuff that wants to call itself Android - it needs to pass a compatibility test and more importantly, include Google Play Services. But it is as much Android as any other custom ROM.
That was never mentioned, it just said it had Google App compatiblity… and I didn’t look any further to be honest.
In my original reply, that’s why I said “almost no one”. Because, yes, some people might try and untangle that spaghetti code, riddled with tons of Google native things (there’s also LineageOS), but in reality, even if someone does it, no one is gonna use it. Sure, your oddball dev or Linux user, here and there, but mass adoption, no way. Main problem, as with every Android fork - drivers.
I really see no point actually forking Android if you can’t get a decent set of drivers that work, regardless if they’re closed or open source (though open source would be nice).
But AOSP already is “Android without proprietary Google code”, simply because “Android” means AOSP + Google Play Services + compatibility certification. It’s getting increasingly more and more barebones as Google moves functionality into Google Play Services, but it is what the vast majority of third party ROMs are based on.
How they manage to then improve compatibility differs. Truly ungoogled ROMs just don’t - either the app works with AOSP, or it’s not welcome on the system because it would require Google services. Some use MicroG, a small open-source reimplementation that is good enough to replace the real Google Play Services for most apps (but it does communicate with Google servers similarly to the real one, so all it does from degoogling perspective is limit the amount of extra data your phone sends to Google). Then there are also ROMs that support installing the official Google Play Services and related apps. LineageOS can do that (or it can use MicroG, or just not have GPS at all), for example.
And then there is GrapheneOS which has managed to turn the Play Services into a mostly regular app that doesn’t have overreaching access to the whole system and lets you configure how much data you’re willing to leak to it.
Drivers also don’t seem to be that big of a deal nowadays, Google’s effort to simplify Android updates for OEMs has done a lot to help third party ROMs as a side effect. The biggest problem now is the various security attestation mechanisms that are available through Google Play and which Google spends a lot of time and money to convince developers to use. These are very hard / currently impossible to implement in a way that doesn’t trip security checks on the affected apps - want mobile banking? Well, that’s too bad because it will simply refuse to work if Google Play says your system has been tampered with. Workarounds exist, but they’re not reliable over time.
OK, I admit, I was looking into this a few years ago, so I don’t have the lastest info on this. Back then, drivers were the biggest problem. I had an Asus ZenFone 3 Max back then and I really wanted to try and run LineageOS on it. Turns out, everything works 🥳, except for RIL 😒. I could live without bluetooth or IR, that’s fine, but… this is a phone, it’s primary purpose is to make phone calls, not be a tablet. Hell, I could buy a $50 one if I really wanted a tablet.
My point is, there will always be obsticles and ways to overcome them. The only question is, is it worth my time and effort. A thing like ReVanced that takes 2 minutes to install, yeah, sure. But me doing backflips once every 2 or 3 months to overcome paying for things, nah, that’s just not worth it.
I stand behind this, there is no point in forking Android, you gain nothing. Simple apps that don’t need anything to run, yeah, those will run just fine, but as you mentioned, anything that involves data transfer to google services will be a hard to swallow pill. It’s just not worth it IMO. Better invest your time in a new platform. Sure it’s gonna be hard for it to take off, but hey, at least you’re not investing your time in a lost battle.
Google needs Firefox, it is the only web browser with a different rendering enginge than webkit/blink that has any kind of traction, they need the status quo to remain so they have a competitior and can try and disprove any claims of them having a monopoly.
They need Mozilla to be weak and dependant on them, but still be a reasonable alternative in theory, as long as it works as an argument in court, they are fine with it.
The monopolly argument will fall on it’s back in court once Mozilla’s finances come into question.
If you don’t value your sanity, take a scroll through OP’s post history. 🤖🤢
Oh, come on, he’s just a kid (2003), he’s just trying to figure things out 🤷… not everyone was born with a high EQ and even if they were, that doesn’t mean they developed it.
Google loves open source likely for another reason than you do.
Google loves open source when they can capitalize on it.
That is, when a big community works on code that Google can use for free to build their monopolistic infrastructure. They love a global community which works for them for free. They might even foster this community as far as it serves their purpose or for image reasons.
However, if they’d truly love open-source, they could open the source code to their core services. But they’d never ever do that. For this reason they also ban the AGPL license internally (https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl-policy). The AGPL license would force Google to open their code which relies on AGPL licensed projects. Google hates that.
Google does clearly not stand for the ethical values people usually have in mind when talking about open source. For example when something is competing with them, they’ll hate it. Like ad-blockers or browsers which don’t block ad-blockers like Google chrome does. The core business of Google is about surveillance and advertising. To maximize the profitability of this, then need to violate freedoms of their users (like the freedom to use their service while blocking ads). This is in direct conflict with the ethical values often implied by free and open-source software.
So if somebody tells you “Google loves open-source and contributes a lot”, think about what it really means.
More of this shit?? (Sorry, “questions”)
Come on, dude. It is pitifully transparent already, and then when you consistently try to argue with every reply you out yourself as completely dishonest or completely clueless.
They simply love money. I don’t think they exactly ‘hate’ their competition.
They like anything that can generate profits for them, The point isn’t open source. If OSS can give them more benefits, they are 1000% happy to do.
Say Chromium, yeah they OSS it, but also give them power to define web standards. Many sites would “advice” its user to use Chrome or Edge. Why? Because Chromium based browers had almost 90% market share. Why bother to make it compatiable with other browers? Then the Manifest v3 and Web Environment Integrity shit came out.
They didn’t dislike FF particular, but anything that hurt their profit, as any for-profit company would do.
A company
lovesutilizes and pays its employees.Google
lovesutilizes and contributes to open source.Love is not involved.
Just want yo say these news are not entirely true, as this issue has been reported on Chromium browsers as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJxrN3CaTs4
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=xJxrN3CaTs4
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Youtube isn’t an open source website, right? While Chromium is an open source browser. Google doesn’t really make money directly off browsers anyway more so over their services, they can afford to do open source projects like Android and Chrome os.
