3 ms·

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 stru

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.

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.