> The restrictions stem from a choice you have to make: If you use the Google ecosystem in your products, you have to use all of it, and you can't use parts of Android to compete with the Google ecosystem. You can make the other choice, but, in those cases, Google doesn't want you to have their closed, proprietary apps. That might be hard-nosed dealing, but it isn't more restrictive than Google's competitors are in similar circumstances.
Yes but that choice is not made on a per-product basis but on a global company wide basis. I could easily see this as being viewed as anti-competitive conduct (as I also saw MS deals penalising OEMs who shipped any products without Windows).
> The openness of AOSP is not compromised by this contract.
I disagree with that conclusion. As I read the article any company that accepts the agreement promises not to fork Android. Amazon does not sign this agreement and therefore can still use AOSP freely and openly but a large bulk of the world's consumer electronic companies cannot. This doesn't make AOSP closed but it does compromise its openness.
I'd agree but for one fact. OEMs have entered into these agreements freely. Amazon (and CyanogenMod&co) aren't the lucky outsiders, they're the ones proving the openness of Android.
The inability to separate AOSP from Google's services irritates me. Google is leaving the door open for anyone to compete with them; use AOSP -a fully functional OS- and provide a better service than Google products offer, you won't owe Google a dime, and you'll be a serious competitor.
As far as I know, there's nothing stopping an independent OEM from releasing unlocked devices. An end user is free to install gapps on his own, and it's laughably easy to do.
> I'd agree but for one fact. OEMs have entered into these agreements freely.
The OEMs aren't the (only?) victims of the anticompetitive behaviour. It reduces the market for services competing with the Google services (as they can't sell to anyone who is also a Google customer) and it affects their customers (end users and telcos) and the choices available to them.
By "independent OEM" do you mean one who doesn't sign the contract?
Yes but that choice is not made on a per-product basis but on a global company wide basis. I could easily see this as being viewed as anti-competitive conduct (as I also saw MS deals penalising OEMs who shipped any products without Windows).
> The openness of AOSP is not compromised by this contract.
I disagree with that conclusion. As I read the article any company that accepts the agreement promises not to fork Android. Amazon does not sign this agreement and therefore can still use AOSP freely and openly but a large bulk of the world's consumer electronic companies cannot. This doesn't make AOSP closed but it does compromise its openness.