Thread by @Tech_Reve

Why did Samsung fail to develop its own OS? Why isn’t Good Lock integrated into One UI? Find out in this thread!

Samsung’s attempt to develop its own operating system is a well-known fact. There was “Bada,” and then “Tizen.” However, ultimately, all of these efforts can be considered failures. Why did this happen?

First, some terminology to be aware of before reading this text:
An operating system (OS) based on the open-source Android source code (AOSP) but modified is called a “fork OS.” Devices that have fork OS installed are referred to as “fork devices.” On the other hand, an OS that meets Google’s compatibility standards is called “Android,” and devices with Android installed are referred to as “Android devices.”

Google, from the early days of the smartphone market formation (around 2008-2010), adopted an open and flexible strategy, not exerting control over the OS. This strategy easily attracted device manufacturers and app developers to the Android ecosystem. As a result, Google rapidly grew its market share, reaching 72% in the mobile OS market in just three years, by 2011.

However, to prevent the entry of competing fork OS into the mobile market, Google started forcing device manufacturers to sign Anti-fragmentation Agreements (AFA) from the year it secured dominance in the mobile market, 2011. AFA is an agreement in which Google required device manufacturers to mandatory sign it as a prerequisite for entering into essential contracts like the Mobile Application Distribution Agreement (MADA) and the Platform Access Agreement (PAA).

MADA is a licensing agreement that includes Google Mobile Services (GMS), which are essential for app utilization on Android devices. PAA is an agreement that ensured access to the source code of the latest Android version about six months before its open-source release, essential for developing high-end devices.

According to AFA, device manufacturers were restricted from installing fork OS on all their devices or developing fork OS themselves. Furthermore, Google prohibited the distribution of SDKs (Software Development Kits) for fork app development, effectively preventing the emergence of a fork app ecosystem. SDKs are toolkits necessary for app developers to create apps that run on specific operating systems and systems.

AFA was not just a matter of contractual language. Google actively used AFA to prevent device manufacturers from releasing devices with fork OS. Consequently, mobile OS businesses like Amazon and Alibaba, which couldn’t find partners, failed. Device manufacturers were unable to release innovative devices with new services. In 2013, Samsung Electronics attempted to release a smartwatch with a forked OS. However, due to Google’s Anti-fragmentation Agreement (AFA), they couldn’t include the Play Store and Google apps on their forked device. As a result, Samsung had to transition to Tizen, but it was unable to disrupt the established market, ultimately leading them to switch to Android Wear OS.

The reason Good Lock cannot be integrated into One UI is similar. Google has suspected that Samsung might be adding more features to One UI, potentially turning it into a forked OS, and has been reluctant to allow this. To prevent it, Google has actively obstructed such efforts for a long time. However, if Good Lock’s features receive a positive response, Google has discreetly borrowed them and added them to Android updates. I find Google’s behavior truly distasteful.

Samsung couldn't invest heavily in Good Lock itself, both in terms of resources and personnel, due to Google. For example, One Hand Operation is an app developed by a single developer.

In summary, the fact that we have to go through the hassle of downloading Good Lock exclusively from the Galaxy Store, the separation of Good Lock from One UI, and the unavailability of Good Lock in some regions are all due to Google.