4 ms·
I'd argue not. Microsoft required payment for licensing the OS, Google doesn't. It's patently unfair for Google the invest in most of the R&D got everything An
by mankash666 8y ago
I'd argue not. Microsoft required payment for licensing the OS, Google doesn't.
It's patently unfair for Google the invest in most of the R&D got everything Android and not even expect a return.
- polskibus 8y agoNot requiring a license fee makes it worse for competitors than a paid license fee, doesn't it? Going for the free version is one of the strongest business moats, only the richest companies can afford that.
- detaro 8y agoGoogle requires a fee for the OS customers expect: Android with Google Play. (and has every right to do so!) Both are bundling other products with it, that's the problem.
- pjmlp 8y agoExcept for the part that they forgot to pay Sun for.
- bitmapbrother 8y agoWhat's the going rate for open source header files?
- pjmlp 8y agoCurrently the rate is around 172 euros. https://www.iso.org/standard/57853.html https://www.iso.org/standard/57853.html
- innocentoldguy 8y agoMicrosoft got in trouble for giving IE away for free and embedding it in their OS so customers couldn't get rid of it and choose another option.
- fifnir 8y agoThey get their return, they don't need to force it down our throat.
- mankash666 8y agoWhat exactly is being forced down your throat again? Device makers can fork and build whatever version of Android they want (like Amazon does with Fire tablets). So who's tying you to a chair and forcing Google down you?
- cornholio 8y agoGoogle. > - by preventing manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices running on competing operating systems based on the Android open source code;
- mankash666 8y agoBaseless. Amazon has sold non-Google Android for almost a decade. Google's abdroid has 0% penetration in China