Yes, the truth is that the AOSP Browser is now abandonware - Google have stopped developing it in favour of Chrome, and likely won't accept non-security patches for it.
I don't think this matters much anyway. Firefox is a more than capable browser. Possibly better than Chrome on Android. It's certainly smoother.
The AOSP Browser uses the system webview, and the webview is now chromium-based and continues to be updated. So it's only abandonware in the sense that the UI didn't change with the latest release.
Exactly, the flip side of that is that the chromium engine, which used to be available for Android only as a part of the GMS app suite (with a lagging open source release that basically no one knew how to build), is now a first class part of the open source platform.
Honestly having "Chrome" be a proprietary blob is still dumb, but this situation is IMHO better than what we had for Jellybean. Now all apps (be they "browsers" or not) have access for the first-class browser engine. The bits of Chrome not part of chromium don't really interest me much.
>Any OEM hoping to license Google Apps will need to pass Google's "compatibility" tests in order to be eligible. Compatibility ensures that all the apps in the Play Store will run on your device. And to Google, "compatibility" is also a fluid concept that an Android engineer once internally described as "a club to make [OEMs] do what we want." While Google now has automated tools that will test your device's "compatibility," getting a Google apps license still requires a company to privately e-mail Google and "kiss the ring" so to speak. Most of this is done through backroom agreements and secret contracts, so the majority of the information we have comes from public spats and/or lawsuits between Google and potential Android deserters (see: Acer).
>Another point of control is that the Google apps are all licensed as a single bundle. So if you want Gmail and Maps, you also need to take Google Play Services, Google+, and whatever else Google feels like adding to the package. A company called Skyhook found this out the hard way when it tried to develop a competing location service for Android. Switching to Skyhook's service meant Google would not be able to collect location data from users. This was bad for Google, so Skyhook was declared "incompatible." OEMs that wanted the Google Apps were not allowed to use them. Skyhook sued, and the lawsuit is still pending.
They would certainly prohibit them "replacing" Chrome with FireFox, but the suggestion that they would stop an OEM shipping an alternative browser on a phone is such a ridiculous piece of FUD it's laughable.
because "not stopping OEMs from shipping an alternative browser" is what they're doing now, and "prohibiting them to replace chrome with firefox" is the theoretical evil they could technically do if they choose to in the future, not actually happening now, and probably will never happen.
This whole thread is so full of FUD. Google is not blocking firefox. There's a whole bunch of green-named people who have decided to sign up for an account and pretend that google is going to block firefox. There is no evidence that google is even considering this, and no valid arguments as to why google might want to do it. it's bullshit.
He's saying they could ship Firefox in addition to Chrome, just not make Firefox the default browser as shipped (user would still be able to change defaults themselves) or ship only Firefox, with no Chrome installed.
I don't think this matters much anyway. Firefox is a more than capable browser. Possibly better than Chrome on Android. It's certainly smoother.