There’s always a cost whether it be licencing or royalties etc
My point is that your assertion that Google stands to make money by charging OEM’s (and thereby charging users with cost passed along) for using is not correct. ASHA is free to add to Android save whatever development costs there might be to a manufacturer to include it but Google would not profit from that.
As to licensing fees, I had read that article before I made my previous post noting your error. Amazing the way an article can turn a positive aspect of licensing into a negative one. “Licensing” is basically an inspection fee that the phone OEM pays to a third-party firm for certifying that its product officially meets Android standards and amounts to ~$1 per phone. And rather than being a negative, it is essentially CONSUMER PROTECTION. Otherwise, any phone maker could cobble together a bunch of electronics, freely install plain vanilla Android, and claim that they are selling you an “Android” phone. So Google in requiring licensing is not making itself any money but rather protecting the consumer and itself from fly-by-night Android phone makers that are further going to bring down the reputation of Android as a phone OS and hardware standard. Google is making lots of money through the knowledge it gains of you to sell ads when you use the software that Google requires phone OEM’s to install on their products if they want access to the Google Play Store. And big established manufacturers like Samsung do not have to pay anyone licensing fees. Google recognizes their credibility and allows them to self-license themselves. The growing/birthing pains of Essential Phone by Andy Rubin, Android’s original creator, provide a great example of why there should be licensing for Android phones. Essential Phone had some serious problems coming out of the starting gate in spite of being Andy Rubin’s baby.
Edit_Update: I may be a bit off on who pays whom what for certification. I was basing my comments on the Guardian article published in 2014. The article was repudiated by Google at the time, as reported by a number of other web publications, such as 9to5Google.com, and since then there have been other things such as EU anti-trust action against Google that have caused Google, to prove it’s not anti-competitive and to compensate for not installing Chrome and Google Search, to split out Google Mobile Services and charge OEM’s a licensing fee in Europe for their inclusion in Android.
How to Know If Your Android Phone Is Certified by Google
We all know Google owns the Android OS, but because the OS is open source, anybody can wake up one day and start manufacturing and selling Android phones. Googl
https://www.phonedog.com/2018/10/19/google-apps-licensing-fee-cost-android-device-makers-eu-40-phone1
You’re ignoring this member’s posts.