3 ms·

So your argument, in a nutshell, is "two wrongs do indeed make a right"?

btilly 17y ago
I fail to see the second wrong. What did Google do? They built their own unlocked phone following the open reference platform that they helped create. And now they are trying to sell that phone on the open market. How is this wrong?
- orblivion 17y ago
  The article was sortof hard to understand, but it sounds like they're saying Google mislead them somehow about their (lack of) plans to enter the market in certain ways. I'd say that could amount to breach of (spoken) contract, depending on the circumstances. Other than that, I agree nobody has any justification for being pissed off by somebody cutting into "their" business by being more efficient.
- gyardley 17y ago
  It's not wrong for end-users. But that's not what's being discussed. The wrong is to mobile device manufacturers and networks, who were presumably led to believe that they would not be competing directly with Google itself. If they knew now what they knew then, they would have been much less likely to utilize Android. They feel misled. When competing directly with your partners, it can sometimes be challenging to keep them as partners. But this is nothing new for Google.
  - Xichekolas 17y ago
    If the carriers truly feel slighted, what is to stop them from not certifying new Android phones, freezing Google out? They still must see some value in Android, or they wouldn't all be tripping over themselves to get the Nexus One.
- ubernostrum 17y ago
  Fairly frequently, stories come up of a software vendor whose product was doing well until, one day, (Apple/Microsoft, depending on which OS it was for) comes out with their own bundled or free/cheap software which does the same thing. People often get upset at this potentially business-destroying transformation from "they provide my platform" to "they're my competition". Often there's a round of followup posts which mention the word "sharecropping" over and over, and explain that it's always a bad idea to be a sharecropper since this is how it often ends. Google has essentially done the same thing -- gone from being "platform" to being "competitor" -- and phone manufacturers are, unsurprisingly, just as unhappy about it as software developers usually are. The question I'm getting at, then, is why in the software case we often denounce the OS vendors and go on about "sharecropping" and how terrible it is to get caught in this situation, but here we're joyously celebrating Google for doing what is, basically, the same thing (and remember that as much as you may dislike the company which provides your phone service, they are not the company which designs and manufactures your phone handset, so "they deserved it because I hate Verizon/AT&T/Sprint/etc." is misplaced here).
  - s3graham 17y ago
    I think the difference in perception comes from Google "screwing" large companies rather than small-to-medium sized ISVs. In fact, they're mostly improving things for small vendors and consumers (at least in the short term), which is why there's positive perception.
  - nostrademons 17y ago
    Because we're consumers here. Always remember that the economy exists to serve consumers. Hell, our regulators tend to forget. I'd argue that Google's in the right here, and that we ought to remember it when, as software developers, we complain about some big new competitor moving into our market. The end goal of business is to serve consumers. If some bigger business can serve consumers better, that's the why we have competition in a market economy. Either compete, or get out of the way and find something else to do.
    - ytinas 17y ago
CalmQuiet 17y ago
More like: Upgrading to two wrongs may - in this case - make a right (for consumers).
SwellJoe 17y ago
No, my argument is that Google has done nothing wrong. They provided an Open Source OS that any phone maker could use (like Nokia/Symbian has done before), and when that failed to light a fire under the device makers and get them to do the right thing by their customers, Google stepped up and did the right thing by their customers (who overlap with the phone makers and telcos, but Google monetizes them differently...and historically treats them differently, as well). I see a turf war between carriers (with Apple thrown in as a spoiler on one side) where the casualties are mostly innocent bystanders (us consumers). Google is sort of acting as a UN peacekeeping force, here. They might do some harm, as well, but their overall intent seems to be to knock some sense into the warring factions and make them stop treating consumers so badly. As with the UN, they are mostly powerless to fix the underlying issues, but they can at least set a good example of how to engage. I fear I might stretch the analogy a bit far if I go into any further depth or start mentioning war crimes, so I'll stop now. But, I definitely do not see anything wrong with Google partnering closely with a handset maker (HTC) and producing a great phone with fair and open pricing and usable on most networks. I'm not sure what you believe is wrong with that...if there were some sort of contract or agreement in place to prevent Google from doing this, I'm sure the lawsuits would have already been announced. I'm, frankly, happy that Google has opted not to collude with telcos to keep the status quo (the way, say, Apple has done).

I fail to see the second wrong. What did Google do? They built their own unlocked phone following the open reference platform that they helped create. And now they are trying to sell that phone on the open market. How is this wrong?

orblivion 17y ago
The article was sortof hard to understand, but it sounds like they're saying Google mislead them somehow about their (lack of) plans to enter the market in certain ways. I'd say that could amount to breach of (spoken) contract, depending on the circumstances. Other than that, I agree nobody has any justification for being pissed off by somebody cutting into "their" business by being more efficient.
gyardley 17y ago
It's not wrong for end-users. But that's not what's being discussed. The wrong is to mobile device manufacturers and networks, who were presumably led to believe that they would not be competing directly with Google itself. If they knew now what they knew then, they would have been much less likely to utilize Android. They feel misled. When competing directly with your partners, it can sometimes be challenging to keep them as partners. But this is nothing new for Google.
- Xichekolas 17y ago
  If the carriers truly feel slighted, what is to stop them from not certifying new Android phones, freezing Google out? They still must see some value in Android, or they wouldn't all be tripping over themselves to get the Nexus One.
ubernostrum 17y ago
Fairly frequently, stories come up of a software vendor whose product was doing well until, one day, (Apple/Microsoft, depending on which OS it was for) comes out with their own bundled or free/cheap software which does the same thing. People often get upset at this potentially business-destroying transformation from "they provide my platform" to "they're my competition". Often there's a round of followup posts which mention the word "sharecropping" over and over, and explain that it's always a bad idea to be a sharecropper since this is how it often ends. Google has essentially done the same thing -- gone from being "platform" to being "competitor" -- and phone manufacturers are, unsurprisingly, just as unhappy about it as software developers usually are. The question I'm getting at, then, is why in the software case we often denounce the OS vendors and go on about "sharecropping" and how terrible it is to get caught in this situation, but here we're joyously celebrating Google for doing what is, basically, the same thing (and remember that as much as you may dislike the company which provides your phone service, they are not the company which designs and manufactures your phone handset, so "they deserved it because I hate Verizon/AT&T/Sprint/etc." is misplaced here).
- s3graham 17y ago
  I think the difference in perception comes from Google "screwing" large companies rather than small-to-medium sized ISVs. In fact, they're mostly improving things for small vendors and consumers (at least in the short term), which is why there's positive perception.
- nostrademons 17y ago
  Because we're consumers here. Always remember that the economy exists to serve consumers. Hell, our regulators tend to forget. I'd argue that Google's in the right here, and that we ought to remember it when, as software developers, we complain about some big new competitor moving into our market. The end goal of business is to serve consumers. If some bigger business can serve consumers better, that's the why we have competition in a market economy. Either compete, or get out of the way and find something else to do.
  - ytinas 17y ago

CalmQuiet 17y ago

More like: Upgrading to two wrongs may - in this case - make a right (for consumers).

SwellJoe 17y ago

No, my argument is that Google has done nothing wrong. They provided an Open Source OS that any phone maker could use (like Nokia/Symbian has done before), and when that failed to light a fire under the device makers and get them to do the right thing by their customers, Google stepped up and did the right thing by their customers (who overlap with the phone makers and telcos, but Google monetizes them differently...and historically treats them differently, as well). I see a turf war between carriers (with Apple thrown in as a spoiler on one side) where the casualties are mostly innocent bystanders (us consumers). Google is sort of acting as a UN peacekeeping force, here. They might do some harm, as well, but their overall intent seems to be to knock some sense into the warring factions and make them stop treating consumers so badly. As with the UN, they are mostly powerless to fix the underlying issues, but they can at least set a good example of how to engage. I fear I might stretch the analogy a bit far if I go into any further depth or start mentioning war crimes, so I'll stop now. But, I definitely do not see anything wrong with Google partnering closely with a handset maker (HTC) and producing a great phone with fair and open pricing and usable on most networks. I'm not sure what you believe is wrong with that...if there were some sort of contract or agreement in place to prevent Google from doing this, I'm sure the lawsuits would have already been announced. I'm, frankly, happy that Google has opted not to collude with telcos to keep the status quo (the way, say, Apple has done).