5 ms·

Apple doesn't try to tap markets that doesn't own and to force their own ecosystem into those markets. Google does. That's the fundamental difference. It is ok

Apple doesn't try to tap markets that doesn't own and to force their own ecosystem into those markets. Google does. That's the fundamental difference. It is okay for them to do whatever they want with their Nexus/Pixel devices, since they fully own them. But forcing some random DTV vendor to install Google Search, Google Social Network, Google Online Shop, Google Payment System, Google This and Google That, just because the vendor chose to adopt a free operative system into their system, it's just abuse of power and monopoly. It automatically gives Google an advantage over the Search, Online Shop, Social Network, etc, markets. It is basically impossible to start a new video streaming business in the DTV market, for example, when you know that every single DTV system has Youtube already installed just because Google mandates so. And Youtube is "good enough" for 90% of the people. The entire world doesn't suddenly owe something to Google just because they made something open source.

repolfx 8y ago
What's Apple Maps then, if not "trying to tap markets they don't own and to force their own ecosystem into those markets"? Apple tied together iOS and their own apps for a long time. Although Google provided the map data, the maps app on iOS was Apple's and for the longest time they banned anyone from writing competitors to it (ditto for music apps etc). They now pre-install their own maps app and prevent competing apps from actually becoming the default. Your second paragraph is just wrong. Nobody is forced to use the Google apps. They're sold as a bundle and you can use Android without buying them. That's what it means for Android to be open source. Google can't "force" third party firms to do anything, especially not TV vendors where apps hardly matter. Your third paragraph is also wildly wrong - how can it be impossible to start a new video streaming business when just yesterday there was a big discussion here on Hacker News about the stall in growth of Netflix and how their content library is poor because content providers are all setting up their own streaming services? There are lots of video streaming services around today and more are being created all the time. There's even one in France (dailymotion). Thanks to Google they can even create apps for their services and it's easy for those apps to be installed on new smart TVs. YouTube is hardly the only streaming service, I routinely watch Netflix and watch shows I bought off iTunes. The entire world doesn't suddenly owe something to Google just because they made something open source. What a horrible attitude. Google doesn't owe the world open source code either. It's a gift. You might decide you don't like that gift, but the code is Apache licensed. It literally comes with no strings attached. You can do what you want with it. But the fact that you feel it's impossible to set up something as basic as a video streaming service says a lot about the European mentality, to be blunt. I see America setting up video streaming services left right and center. There's Hulu, HBO Now, Disney's new service, Vimeo, Facebook and Twitter have integrated services. It isn't impossible. What you mean is it's easier to let other people do the work and then demand they pay big fines than to set up a company and compete.
- blub 8y ago
  Google is in fact forcing all device manufacturers to use Gapps and do many other things or else lose access to all the features that make Android be Android. Companies like Sony, Samsung, HTC are only allowed to ship official Android devices if they want to continue to be able to do mobile-related business with Google. For instance if Philips wanted to ship an Android TV without spyware, they would have to remove some Google apps => anti-fragmentation clause kicks in => Philips isn't allowed to sell official Android devices any more. But they can continue to sell Philips-Android devices which nobody would want because they're missing critical features which would be disabled by Google shutting down their official Android access. So actually Google has Philips by the balls, even if Android is open source. The EU doesn't like that.

repolfx 8y ago

What's Apple Maps then, if not "trying to tap markets they don't own and to force their own ecosystem into those markets"? Apple tied together iOS and their own apps for a long time. Although Google provided the map data, the maps app on iOS was Apple's and for the longest time they banned anyone from writing competitors to it (ditto for music apps etc). They now pre-install their own maps app and prevent competing apps from actually becoming the default. Your second paragraph is just wrong. Nobody is forced to use the Google apps. They're sold as a bundle and you can use Android without buying them. That's what it means for Android to be open source. Google can't "force" third party firms to do anything, especially not TV vendors where apps hardly matter. Your third paragraph is also wildly wrong - how can it be impossible to start a new video streaming business when just yesterday there was a big discussion here on Hacker News about the stall in growth of Netflix and how their content library is poor because content providers are all setting up their own streaming services? There are lots of video streaming services around today and more are being created all the time. There's even one in France (dailymotion). Thanks to Google they can even create apps for their services and it's easy for those apps to be installed on new smart TVs. YouTube is hardly the only streaming service, I routinely watch Netflix and watch shows I bought off iTunes. The entire world doesn't suddenly owe something to Google just because they made something open source. What a horrible attitude. Google doesn't owe the world open source code either. It's a gift. You might decide you don't like that gift, but the code is Apache licensed. It literally comes with no strings attached. You can do what you want with it. But the fact that you feel it's impossible to set up something as basic as a video streaming service says a lot about the European mentality, to be blunt. I see America setting up video streaming services left right and center. There's Hulu, HBO Now, Disney's new service, Vimeo, Facebook and Twitter have integrated services. It isn't impossible. What you mean is it's easier to let other people do the work and then demand they pay big fines than to set up a company and compete.

blub 8y ago
Google is in fact forcing all device manufacturers to use Gapps and do many other things or else lose access to all the features that make Android be Android. Companies like Sony, Samsung, HTC are only allowed to ship official Android devices if they want to continue to be able to do mobile-related business with Google. For instance if Philips wanted to ship an Android TV without spyware, they would have to remove some Google apps => anti-fragmentation clause kicks in => Philips isn't allowed to sell official Android devices any more. But they can continue to sell Philips-Android devices which nobody would want because they're missing critical features which would be disabled by Google shutting down their official Android access. So actually Google has Philips by the balls, even if Android is open source. The EU doesn't like that.