4 ms·

>> only long term winner in them is Google, and other companies are now highly aware of this. Actually Samsung did very well on android, probably much better t

by minthd 11y ago

>> only long term winner in them is Google, and other companies are now highly aware of this. Actually Samsung did very well on android, probably much better than if Google hasn't shared android with them. Ass for small companies working on their ecosystems(app authors, youtube creators, site owners),those are decent ecosystems, and generally Google is not worse than any other large ecosystem owner.

fidotron 11y ago
Samsung clearly do not share that opinion, and justifiably so. For other partners, for example Chromebook makers or YouTube, Google is worse than others for the simple reason they work to make everyone else they're working with interchangeable with someone else they're working with, resulting in near perfect competition with them as the gatekeepers. Today's YouTube stars have brands, but they are second in the customer relationship position behind YouTube. The likes of Apple certainly do get themselves in the mix here, but Apple prefer to use their leverage to compete against another ecosystem as opposed to setting their own off against each other. One of the biggest changes in the tech industry in the last ten years is the wider appreciation of the need to own your own customer relationship, and to prevent others from grabbing yours.
- minthd 11y ago
  >> Samsung clearly do not share that opinion, and justifiably so. And Samsung would be wrong.If Google hasn't decide to add Samsung to android, it's very likely that Samsung would be in somewhat similar fate to that of microsoft. But Google did share it with them , and they did make lots of money, and probably still do. Sure they would want more, and more control, etc. And android is a tough business. But still Open Android was a great thing for Samsung. As for Apple behaving better towards their partners - it's hard to tell , because they target a different customer segment than android so the dynamic is different. But if you look at every big company - MS, Amazon, Wireless carriers - commoditizing a complement is a very common technique.

by minthd 11y ago

fidotron 11y ago

Samsung clearly do not share that opinion, and justifiably so. For other partners, for example Chromebook makers or YouTube, Google is worse than others for the simple reason they work to make everyone else they're working with interchangeable with someone else they're working with, resulting in near perfect competition with them as the gatekeepers. Today's YouTube stars have brands, but they are second in the customer relationship position behind YouTube. The likes of Apple certainly do get themselves in the mix here, but Apple prefer to use their leverage to compete against another ecosystem as opposed to setting their own off against each other. One of the biggest changes in the tech industry in the last ten years is the wider appreciation of the need to own your own customer relationship, and to prevent others from grabbing yours.

minthd 11y ago
>> Samsung clearly do not share that opinion, and justifiably so. And Samsung would be wrong.If Google hasn't decide to add Samsung to android, it's very likely that Samsung would be in somewhat similar fate to that of microsoft. But Google did share it with them , and they did make lots of money, and probably still do. Sure they would want more, and more control, etc. And android is a tough business. But still Open Android was a great thing for Samsung. As for Apple behaving better towards their partners - it's hard to tell , because they target a different customer segment than android so the dynamic is different. But if you look at every big company - MS, Amazon, Wireless carriers - commoditizing a complement is a very common technique.