4 ms·

> This illusion that Google search is winning because people prefer it People preferring it and Apple or Mozilla asking Google to pay them to include the searc

> This illusion that Google search is winning because people prefer it People preferring it and Apple or Mozilla asking Google to pay them to include the search bar are not exclusive. If consumers prefer Google, and Apple couldn't make enough money with their own search engine to compensate for the lost users, it would make sense for Apple to pay Google for the right to use their search bar. Sure, Google could theoretically make money by giving it to them for free, or even by paying them to include it (see Mozilla), but why not get paid twice? > and that Google doesn't make money on Android I don't think anyone seriously believes that Android doesn't make money. Why else would Google put so much money into it in the first place?

ocdtrekkie 10y ago
It's well understood, I think, that the biggest determiner of what search engine people use is the default one put in front of them. That's why Google's willing to spend a billion dollars to be that default. Google's claims to it's antimonopoly position often hinges on the claim that it's a 'natural' monopoly, created simply by the fact that they have the best product. It's unsurprising, then, that they're so angry that this lawyer revealed Google pays so much to ensure their dominance. Google has long held that Android is something like a charity project, to "ensure an open future for mobile" or something like that. You can still see signs of it in the terms of the "Open Handset Alliance", which is actually the group of manufacturers Google forbids from using open source Android, ironically. It's also commonly the defense for why Google isn't a monopoly here: It "gives Android away for free". In reality, Google collects billions in profit, and leaves all of the software patching and support burdens on manufacturers, who can barely turn a profit and are held to Google's increasingly controlling mandates over how Android must be distributed. (I'm sure many OEMs after this case are curious why they're getting such a raw deal on Android, which is another reason it's unsurprising Google is so angry at Oracle.)
- Grazester 10y ago
  Whose fault is it that manufacturers cant turn a profit? Is Google suppose to give a handout to them when it gives them the source code to Android? Google provides the patch for the software. It is up the manufacturers to get it to their phones. Google is being the responsible one here if you ask me. Its the manufacture not providing support for their product who is at fault here.
  - tracker1 10y ago
    Which is why they started down the path around 5.0 to separate as much in application space from the lower kernel space as they can... the browser is now a separate chrome (preinstalled) instead of built in, etc... so that they can actually update the apps without device maker approval.
- bitmapbrother 10y ago
  So many lies. Google does not "forbid" their OEM partners from using open source Android. What they forbid is that a member of the OHA cannot create a fork of Android that breaks the CTS. If you want to do so then you're free to leave the OHA and create your own version. As for your search engine theory, well, that's also incorrect. The default search engine on Windows is bing - in fact it's baked into the OS and cannot even be turned off. The default search engine on their browser is also bing. So it would seem people are going out of their way to either download Chrome and use Google as their default search engine or modify the default search engine in Windows to use Google.
  - johncolanduoni 10y ago
    It's also worth noting that a pure, pro-bono open source project would still likely be interested in such a provision to help ward off an embrace-extend-extinguish scenario by controlling access to the trademark.
- johncolanduoni 10y ago
  It's interesting that that's so well understood, when Windows (which had the majority of the consumer internet-connected device market share even if you include smartphones for most of Google's history) never defaulted to Google search.
Jarwain 10y ago
I was under the impression Google paid Apple for Apple to use the search bar, unless you're operating within your hypothetical still.
AnthonyMouse 10y ago
> I don't think anyone seriously believes that Android doesn't make money. Why else would Google put so much money into it in the first place? There is a difference between making money from something and making money as a result of it. Imagine Android was made by Mozilla. Then Oracle would have to be litigating against Mozilla and Mozilla's profits would be zero dollars because Android is free. Meanwhile Google would still be making billions of dollars "from" Android in the same way they make billions of dollars "from" iOS. Android is better for them because Apple controls iOS and can use that control to extract concessions or money from Google. So you would be entirely unsurprised if you learned that Google had cut Mozilla a big donation check. But that doesn't mean Google should owe Oracle money -- if there was no Android then more of Google's customers would have iOS (or something else) instead, and possibly more of Google's revenue would be going go Apple, but still none of it would have gone to Oracle.
- euyyn 10y ago
  I imagine Oracle's argument isn't "if there was no Android", rather "Google is so economically interested in Android existing, that they would have paid us a license for the API copyright".
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    > I imagine Oracle's argument isn't "if there was no Android", rather "Google is so economically interested in Android existing, that they would have paid us a license for the API copyright". More likely they would have just not used the API, as Apple has done this whole time.
    - euyyn 10y ago
      I'm only saying that's their argument.
- tamana 10y ago
  Hmm. Suppose I want to buy a bike. Joe steals a bike and sells it to me for cheap. I did nothing wrong, but could be forced to return the bike. But if I resell the bike, I am no longer liable?

ocdtrekkie 10y ago

It's well understood, I think, that the biggest determiner of what search engine people use is the default one put in front of them. That's why Google's willing to spend a billion dollars to be that default. Google's claims to it's antimonopoly position often hinges on the claim that it's a 'natural' monopoly, created simply by the fact that they have the best product. It's unsurprising, then, that they're so angry that this lawyer revealed Google pays so much to ensure their dominance. Google has long held that Android is something like a charity project, to "ensure an open future for mobile" or something like that. You can still see signs of it in the terms of the "Open Handset Alliance", which is actually the group of manufacturers Google forbids from using open source Android, ironically. It's also commonly the defense for why Google isn't a monopoly here: It "gives Android away for free". In reality, Google collects billions in profit, and leaves all of the software patching and support burdens on manufacturers, who can barely turn a profit and are held to Google's increasingly controlling mandates over how Android must be distributed. (I'm sure many OEMs after this case are curious why they're getting such a raw deal on Android, which is another reason it's unsurprising Google is so angry at Oracle.)

Grazester 10y ago
Whose fault is it that manufacturers cant turn a profit? Is Google suppose to give a handout to them when it gives them the source code to Android? Google provides the patch for the software. It is up the manufacturers to get it to their phones. Google is being the responsible one here if you ask me. Its the manufacture not providing support for their product who is at fault here.
- tracker1 10y ago
  Which is why they started down the path around 5.0 to separate as much in application space from the lower kernel space as they can... the browser is now a separate chrome (preinstalled) instead of built in, etc... so that they can actually update the apps without device maker approval.
bitmapbrother 10y ago
So many lies. Google does not "forbid" their OEM partners from using open source Android. What they forbid is that a member of the OHA cannot create a fork of Android that breaks the CTS. If you want to do so then you're free to leave the OHA and create your own version. As for your search engine theory, well, that's also incorrect. The default search engine on Windows is bing - in fact it's baked into the OS and cannot even be turned off. The default search engine on their browser is also bing. So it would seem people are going out of their way to either download Chrome and use Google as their default search engine or modify the default search engine in Windows to use Google.
- johncolanduoni 10y ago
  It's also worth noting that a pure, pro-bono open source project would still likely be interested in such a provision to help ward off an embrace-extend-extinguish scenario by controlling access to the trademark.
johncolanduoni 10y ago
It's interesting that that's so well understood, when Windows (which had the majority of the consumer internet-connected device market share even if you include smartphones for most of Google's history) never defaulted to Google search.

Jarwain 10y ago

I was under the impression Google paid Apple for Apple to use the search bar, unless you're operating within your hypothetical still.

AnthonyMouse 10y ago

> I don't think anyone seriously believes that Android doesn't make money. Why else would Google put so much money into it in the first place? There is a difference between making money from something and making money as a result of it. Imagine Android was made by Mozilla. Then Oracle would have to be litigating against Mozilla and Mozilla's profits would be zero dollars because Android is free. Meanwhile Google would still be making billions of dollars "from" Android in the same way they make billions of dollars "from" iOS. Android is better for them because Apple controls iOS and can use that control to extract concessions or money from Google. So you would be entirely unsurprised if you learned that Google had cut Mozilla a big donation check. But that doesn't mean Google should owe Oracle money -- if there was no Android then more of Google's customers would have iOS (or something else) instead, and possibly more of Google's revenue would be going go Apple, but still none of it would have gone to Oracle.

euyyn 10y ago
I imagine Oracle's argument isn't "if there was no Android", rather "Google is so economically interested in Android existing, that they would have paid us a license for the API copyright".
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  > I imagine Oracle's argument isn't "if there was no Android", rather "Google is so economically interested in Android existing, that they would have paid us a license for the API copyright". More likely they would have just not used the API, as Apple has done this whole time.
  - euyyn 10y ago
    I'm only saying that's their argument.
tamana 10y ago
Hmm. Suppose I want to buy a bike. Joe steals a bike and sells it to me for cheap. I did nothing wrong, but could be forced to return the bike. But if I resell the bike, I am no longer liable?