3 ms·

Little silly. Google should just charge for Android and then credit if ship with their stuff. Problem solved. Really think the EU risks getting a worse resul

Little silly. Google should just charge for Android and then credit if ship with their stuff. Problem solved. Really think the EU risks getting a worse result with this type of thing.

detaro 8y ago
> Little silly. Google should just charge for Android and then credit if ship with their stuff. Problem solved. You really think that's going to be somehow treated differently?
- Eridrus 8y ago
  It might. If there was a fee, then theoretically other companies could offer to cover it. Google still gets paid, but other companies get a shot. MSFT has struck deals with OEMs in the past where windows 8.1 was free for OEMs if Bing was the default search engine, and $10 otherwise (for tablets). You could argue they were not a Monopoly on tablets, but it's one indicator. Another is the recent Google Shopping fight; the "resolution" to that has been that companies can bid to display their own complete slate of shopping results and Google Shopping now has separate accounting and must run as a profitable business unit. Google is still taking most of the ad traffic since it can afford to bid more than the people who brought the original complaint, but it does provide a way for entities to be there if they have a business not predicated on free traffic from commercial search queries. It's not totally clear that this will be accepted, but if it is, then you could imagine a similar structural separation argument being used where Search & Android have separate accounting, Android charges $10 and Google pays phone makers $10 (the same way they pay Apple). While leaving a path for the status quo, this would let anyone building a search engine or mobile OS not have to build both at once to provide a competing alternative.
  - detaro 8y ago
    But from my understanding the problem isn't that there's cost to shipping Google stuff, it's that it's all-or-nothing. Changing the accounting rules doesn't make much of a difference if the surrounding contracts still prohibit the OEM from using competing products if they use any of the Google extras. And if they'd be willing to deviate from that under the alternative model, it IMHO wouldn't be much different from agreeing now change it.
    - jacksmith21006 8y ago
      Well then itemize the things so you can chose what to include with a big credit if you chose all. There is almost 2 billion Android phones sold a year. So just a $1 is a lot of money and then almost all goes to the bottom line. Part of the problem is Google giving away stuff for free and being different. Instead just become more traditional and charge people for things. I hate it as love how much Google gives back but it is clearly hurting them to give away stuff for free.
- jacksmith21006 8y ago
  This is a problem all over the place with Google. Them giving away VP8 and VP9 for example. SPDY and so many other things. I hate it but they should just charge for things instead of giving away. Act more like a typical tech company. They give away more IP than any other company I am aware of. But they do not get any benefit and get hammered constantly. Just charge for things and end the open source and problem solved. Look at them giving away Android that is used on majority of Amazon hardware yet Amazon has banned all companies on their market place from selling Google competitive products. That is just insane. They created SPDY and gave it away to the standards committee. Who then changed it to create http2 and they had to go back and change their code with additional cost. The normal way is when you own the client and server you just use your own way to do things and use as a competitive advantage. Borg was a huge competitive advantage and they just give away K8s. Which is just silly. VP8 and VP9 they not only give it away but also even offer patent infringement protection to anyone that uses it. That is just insane. It is great because the MPEG-LA was extorting money with license fees and Google giving away caused VP8 ended that. But Google giving away just gets them hammered anyway and get no good will from doing it. I have zero idea why Google continues to give so many things away for free and not just charge. So charge per phone and then credit them if they include the Google services.
  - detaro 8y ago
    > So charge per phone and then credit them if they include the Google services. That's unlikely to change much if they don't get rid of the criticized policies at the same time. The problem is not that they charge for inclusion of Google services!
    - jacksmith21006 8y ago
      They just charge for a license fee for Android and then credit back if they include their services. Google has made it so people that can't afford to get an iPhone so they can get a smartphone. They have helped make it so smartphone technology is not only for the rich. Almost 2 billion Android devices are sold a year so does not take a couple of bucks for it to end up being a ton of money. Pretty much all going to the bottom line. Either way people will still use Google services. MS owns desktop yet most use Google search and not Bing. Even browsers which is a hassle as you have to down load Chrome but still most use Chrome which has about 12x the market share of Edge. "Firefox dropped below the 10% share value on Netmarketshare" https://www.ghacks.net/2018/06/04/firefox-dropped-below-the-10-share-value-on-netmarketshare/ https://www.ghacks.net/2018/06/04/firefox-dropped-below-the-... Google has over 5x of iE. In the end it is just the Google offerings are better. Really think it is a bad idea to penalize companies just because they offer better products.
growlist 8y ago
Imagine if Google were French or German; would the EU be quite so keen to investigate?
- setquk 8y ago
  Yes they would. See: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm
- amaccuish 8y ago
  Just like GDPR, lots of anti-European FUD about here on HN these days.
IBM 8y ago
Android was only successful because it was free. A licensing business model a la Windows wouldn't wouldn't have led to its current state of market dominance.
- jacksmith21006 8y ago
  Might have been true when released but now they do not need to be free any longer. Even a $1 per Android phone would get them almost $2B in revenues that goes almost entirely to the bottom line. Windows on mobile has been gone too long to make a comeback. It is hard to support two platforms, Android and iOS and doing a third is just too much. Google just charges and then credits back when use their stuff.

Little silly. Google should just charge for Android and then credit if ship with their stuff. Problem solved. Really think the EU risks getting a worse result with this type of thing.

detaro 8y ago

> Little silly. Google should just charge for Android and then credit if ship with their stuff. Problem solved. You really think that's going to be somehow treated differently?

Eridrus 8y ago
It might. If there was a fee, then theoretically other companies could offer to cover it. Google still gets paid, but other companies get a shot. MSFT has struck deals with OEMs in the past where windows 8.1 was free for OEMs if Bing was the default search engine, and $10 otherwise (for tablets). You could argue they were not a Monopoly on tablets, but it's one indicator. Another is the recent Google Shopping fight; the "resolution" to that has been that companies can bid to display their own complete slate of shopping results and Google Shopping now has separate accounting and must run as a profitable business unit. Google is still taking most of the ad traffic since it can afford to bid more than the people who brought the original complaint, but it does provide a way for entities to be there if they have a business not predicated on free traffic from commercial search queries. It's not totally clear that this will be accepted, but if it is, then you could imagine a similar structural separation argument being used where Search & Android have separate accounting, Android charges $10 and Google pays phone makers $10 (the same way they pay Apple). While leaving a path for the status quo, this would let anyone building a search engine or mobile OS not have to build both at once to provide a competing alternative.
- detaro 8y ago
  But from my understanding the problem isn't that there's cost to shipping Google stuff, it's that it's all-or-nothing. Changing the accounting rules doesn't make much of a difference if the surrounding contracts still prohibit the OEM from using competing products if they use any of the Google extras. And if they'd be willing to deviate from that under the alternative model, it IMHO wouldn't be much different from agreeing now change it.
  - jacksmith21006 8y ago
    Well then itemize the things so you can chose what to include with a big credit if you chose all. There is almost 2 billion Android phones sold a year. So just a $1 is a lot of money and then almost all goes to the bottom line. Part of the problem is Google giving away stuff for free and being different. Instead just become more traditional and charge people for things. I hate it as love how much Google gives back but it is clearly hurting them to give away stuff for free.
jacksmith21006 8y ago
This is a problem all over the place with Google. Them giving away VP8 and VP9 for example. SPDY and so many other things. I hate it but they should just charge for things instead of giving away. Act more like a typical tech company. They give away more IP than any other company I am aware of. But they do not get any benefit and get hammered constantly. Just charge for things and end the open source and problem solved. Look at them giving away Android that is used on majority of Amazon hardware yet Amazon has banned all companies on their market place from selling Google competitive products. That is just insane. They created SPDY and gave it away to the standards committee. Who then changed it to create http2 and they had to go back and change their code with additional cost. The normal way is when you own the client and server you just use your own way to do things and use as a competitive advantage. Borg was a huge competitive advantage and they just give away K8s. Which is just silly. VP8 and VP9 they not only give it away but also even offer patent infringement protection to anyone that uses it. That is just insane. It is great because the MPEG-LA was extorting money with license fees and Google giving away caused VP8 ended that. But Google giving away just gets them hammered anyway and get no good will from doing it. I have zero idea why Google continues to give so many things away for free and not just charge. So charge per phone and then credit them if they include the Google services.
- detaro 8y ago
  > So charge per phone and then credit them if they include the Google services. That's unlikely to change much if they don't get rid of the criticized policies at the same time. The problem is not that they charge for inclusion of Google services!
  - jacksmith21006 8y ago
    They just charge for a license fee for Android and then credit back if they include their services. Google has made it so people that can't afford to get an iPhone so they can get a smartphone. They have helped make it so smartphone technology is not only for the rich. Almost 2 billion Android devices are sold a year so does not take a couple of bucks for it to end up being a ton of money. Pretty much all going to the bottom line. Either way people will still use Google services. MS owns desktop yet most use Google search and not Bing. Even browsers which is a hassle as you have to down load Chrome but still most use Chrome which has about 12x the market share of Edge. "Firefox dropped below the 10% share value on Netmarketshare" https://www.ghacks.net/2018/06/04/firefox-dropped-below-the-10-share-value-on-netmarketshare/ https://www.ghacks.net/2018/06/04/firefox-dropped-below-the-... Google has over 5x of iE. In the end it is just the Google offerings are better. Really think it is a bad idea to penalize companies just because they offer better products.

growlist 8y ago

Imagine if Google were French or German; would the EU be quite so keen to investigate?

setquk 8y ago
Yes they would. See: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm
amaccuish 8y ago
Just like GDPR, lots of anti-European FUD about here on HN these days.

IBM 8y ago

Android was only successful because it was free. A licensing business model a la Windows wouldn't wouldn't have led to its current state of market dominance.

jacksmith21006 8y ago
Might have been true when released but now they do not need to be free any longer. Even a $1 per Android phone would get them almost $2B in revenues that goes almost entirely to the bottom line. Windows on mobile has been gone too long to make a comeback. It is hard to support two platforms, Android and iOS and doing a third is just too much. Google just charges and then credits back when use their stuff.