3 ms·

Would this case never have come up if Android wasn't open source? It sounds like it might be incentivizing the wrong things.

meira 10y ago
Android would not be Android if it wasn't open source, too.
- stephenr 10y ago
  The parts of android that are open source aren't the parts most people would associate with "android". It's like saying OSX is open source because Darwin is BSD licensed.
ocdtrekkie 10y ago
Almost certainly, yes. Internet Explorer wasn't open source and neither was Windows. The problem is not open source vs. closed. The issue is how Google interacts with it's manufacturers. The biggest problem with Microsoft's behavior in the 90s was the way they exerted control over other companies. And that is the same problem today with Google. Few people realize it because Google keeps their agreements with manufacturers strictly secret.
- erikpukinskis 10y ago
  I suspect the manufacturers who want to use Android but don't want to use Google Maps aren't doing it because they hate Google Maps, they're doing it because they don't want to pay any licensing fees at all. They want to use Android because it's free, and rather than playing ball with Google they want to swap out all of the services with free or cheap local alternatives. The companies who are willing to pay something have no problem with Google because the fee structure is on par with whatever relationship they had with Microsoft/Symbian before, or maybe cheaper because Google is monetizing with ads. If Android was 100% proprietary, these bargain manufacturers probably wouldn't be looking at it in the first place. They would be using Ubuntu Phone or Nokia Linux or whatever the open source phone OS would've been if Google hadn't grabbed the brass ring. That's the theory anyway. I your OP poses a very interesting question, and perhaps a cautionary tale for open source companies. Still, many open source companies do just fine selling services without strong-arming people into buying them.
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    AFAIK, Google doesn't charge OEMs for Google Apps licensing. Apps generally pay OEMs to be preloaded, not the other way around. The primary issue is that Google gets it's apps preloaded for free, whereas OEMs could get other companies to pay to have their apps preloaded. Or, in situations where the OEM has their own apps, they'd rather just offer those. (See Samsung for an example of that.) In this specific example, Yandex would almost certainly pay Russian OEMs to preinstall Yandex and set it as default. (Note, Google has paid Apple and Mozilla princely sums to be their default search in the past.) However, OEMs currently can't do that, because Google is mandating in order to get the Play Store, which they need, they must install and set Google Search as default. Hence, Google is abusing their monopoly on the app store to guarantee they don't have to compete for price on search preinstallation, which is illegal. If Google's agreements with OEMs are removed, Google may still be the default search on devices, but Google will have to pay for the privilege because they'll have to outbid their competitors.

meira 10y ago

Android would not be Android if it wasn't open source, too.

stephenr 10y ago
The parts of android that are open source aren't the parts most people would associate with "android". It's like saying OSX is open source because Darwin is BSD licensed.

ocdtrekkie 10y ago

Almost certainly, yes. Internet Explorer wasn't open source and neither was Windows. The problem is not open source vs. closed. The issue is how Google interacts with it's manufacturers. The biggest problem with Microsoft's behavior in the 90s was the way they exerted control over other companies. And that is the same problem today with Google. Few people realize it because Google keeps their agreements with manufacturers strictly secret.

erikpukinskis 10y ago
I suspect the manufacturers who want to use Android but don't want to use Google Maps aren't doing it because they hate Google Maps, they're doing it because they don't want to pay any licensing fees at all. They want to use Android because it's free, and rather than playing ball with Google they want to swap out all of the services with free or cheap local alternatives. The companies who are willing to pay something have no problem with Google because the fee structure is on par with whatever relationship they had with Microsoft/Symbian before, or maybe cheaper because Google is monetizing with ads. If Android was 100% proprietary, these bargain manufacturers probably wouldn't be looking at it in the first place. They would be using Ubuntu Phone or Nokia Linux or whatever the open source phone OS would've been if Google hadn't grabbed the brass ring. That's the theory anyway. I your OP poses a very interesting question, and perhaps a cautionary tale for open source companies. Still, many open source companies do just fine selling services without strong-arming people into buying them.
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  AFAIK, Google doesn't charge OEMs for Google Apps licensing. Apps generally pay OEMs to be preloaded, not the other way around. The primary issue is that Google gets it's apps preloaded for free, whereas OEMs could get other companies to pay to have their apps preloaded. Or, in situations where the OEM has their own apps, they'd rather just offer those. (See Samsung for an example of that.) In this specific example, Yandex would almost certainly pay Russian OEMs to preinstall Yandex and set it as default. (Note, Google has paid Apple and Mozilla princely sums to be their default search in the past.) However, OEMs currently can't do that, because Google is mandating in order to get the Play Store, which they need, they must install and set Google Search as default. Hence, Google is abusing their monopoly on the app store to guarantee they don't have to compete for price on search preinstallation, which is illegal. If Google's agreements with OEMs are removed, Google may still be the default search on devices, but Google will have to pay for the privilege because they'll have to outbid their competitors.