9 ms·

Are there car dealers trying to offer a la carte car + entertainment system packages but are being shut down by BMW?

by typon 8y ago

endorphone 8y ago
Of course there aren't because BMW absolutely squashed the possibility of that at the outset. But Google, apparently, deserves a $5B fine because they made a mistake of powering AOSP phones, the Amazon products, countless variations in China, set top boxes, etc. It is incredible seeing Google being seriously attacked on here for have an open source path as well. I feel like this is some sort of alternative universe.
- typon 8y ago
  If Google had gone the open source route out of the goodness of their hearts, you'd have an argument. Google went the open source route to bootstrap on top of a well known operating system (Linux), as well as to accelerate adoption and catch up to Apple as fast as they could. Then once they got market dominance, they abused their position to stifle competition.
  - dlp211 8y ago
    There is nothing that you said that requires Android to be open source.
    - typon 8y ago
      I think Android's popularity and extremely quick adoption owes itself to the fact that it's open source.
      - scarface74 8y ago
        It owes to being free not open source. OEMs really only had three choices. Create their own OS (horrible choice), use Windows Mobile or use Android. The deciding factor was free. Phone manufacturers no more cared about open source than Windows anufacturers.
    - arminiusreturns 8y ago
      Are you just ignoring the part where they use linux which has a gplv2 license?
  - miracle2k 8y ago
    Are you suggesting that to interpret the law correctly here, a court has to judge Google's motivation of releasing the Android code as Open Source? Further, if Apple were to decide, tomorrow, to release iOS as open source, would they also be in violation of the law (possibly depending on their motivation?)
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Are you suggesting that to interpret the law correctly here, a court has to judge Google's motivation of releasing the Android code as Open Source? The law often hinges on intent along with action, that's hardly novel.
- dtech 8y ago
  > But Google, apparently, deserves a $5B fine because they made a mistake of powering AOSP phones This is incredibly (deliberately?) misrepresentative. They are being punished for having a monopoly and (ab)using that. If Apple/iPhone had an 80% market share in EU the commission would be gunning for them instead, e.g. because of their closed ecosystem preventing competition.
  - briandear 8y ago
    Why isn’t the EU gunning for Airbus, Safran and Arianespace? Airbus and Safran had a joint venture to build rockets, then the EU approved the sale of Arianespace to Airbus for a tiny $166 million. Now in space vehicles and launches, Airbus practically owns all of it in Europe. It effectively shuts out competing rocket makers. If you buy an Airbus rocket, you are forced to hire their Arianespace wholy owned subsidiary to launch it. And this deal was approved by the EU and it specifically grants a monopoly to Airbus for European rocket manufacturing and launch. The point is that the EU doesn’t care that much about monopolies— they care that much about American tech monopolies. It’s economic populism. I am not saying anything about the merits of the Android case, only pointing out that the EU doesn’t pursue EU companies with as much vigor. €5 billion is a significant payday for the EU — especially when that money comes from an American company.
- bjpbakker 8y ago
  > Google being seriously attacked on here for have an open source path as well It's not because Google has open sourced Android (which they _had_ to because of the GPL used by Linux). The fine is for protecting their own marker by blocking others from using that open source software.
  - trasz 8y ago
    Minor nit: Google didn't have to Open Source the whole Android because of Linux; Linux is just one of many components, and Linux' license doesn't apply to the rest of the software there.
    - LamaOfRuin 8y ago
      This is always an interesting problem of definition and separation. If all the things google claims are absolutely essential and inseparable as part of 'Android' the license could well be interpreted as requiring them to open source all of it. If, on the other hand, these are all separate pieces of software and not totally dependent to deliver the end 'experience' then that contradicts some of Google's legal arguments.
      - pertymcpert 8y ago
        The GPL issue is completely separate. The law regarding GPL and where is applies vs LGPL is well understood.
        trasz 8y ago
        Not really, no. There's the FSF interpretation on one hand, but on the other there are companies like VMWare which happily put binary blobs into the Linux kernel and don't consider it a "derived work".
        Dylan16807 8y ago
        There are disagreements, but let's put it this way: If even the FSF would call it okay, then it's almost certainly okay. And the FSF will tell you that the kernel license doesn't infect user space.
- ummonk 8y ago
  It is incredible seeing Google being seriously attacked on here for have an open source path as well. I feel like this is some sort of alternative universe. Exactly. The takeaway from this seems to be to not open up your system a little bit, because then you'll need to go all the way. Whereas e.g. Apple, which built a completely closed phone system from the start, doesn't get any trouble (even when it dominated the smartphone market). Really backwards ruling. And I say this as someone who happily switched to an iPhone to escape Google's data collection.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - Khaine 8y ago
    No its not. There are a lot of Americans being obtusely dense on this. There is nothing wrong with open source. There is nothing wrong with opening the source of a product. "Google has used Android as a vehicle to cement the dominance of its search engine. These practices have denied rivals the chance to innovate and compete on the merits. They have denied European consumers the benefits of effective competition in the important mobile sphere," Ms Vestager said.
- pas 8y ago
  What? I can't open a car dealership and sell BMWs and put custom audio equipment into them? (And to take the analogy further, what if I buy BMWs from a different dealership, not from BMW? Because with software that's basically zero-cost.)
scarface74 8y ago
Car manufacturers have been doing custom after market upgrades for cars for years - including the audio system.

Are there car dealers trying to offer a la carte car + entertainment system packages but are being shut down by BMW?

by typon 8y ago

Are there car dealers trying to offer a la carte car + entertainment system packages but are being shut down by BMW?

Of course there aren't because BMW absolutely squashed the possibility of that at the outset. But Google, apparently, deserves a $5B fine because they made a mistake of powering AOSP phones, the Amazon products, countless variations in China, set top boxes, etc. It is incredible seeing Google being seriously attacked on here for have an open source path as well. I feel like this is some sort of alternative universe.

typon 8y ago
If Google had gone the open source route out of the goodness of their hearts, you'd have an argument. Google went the open source route to bootstrap on top of a well known operating system (Linux), as well as to accelerate adoption and catch up to Apple as fast as they could. Then once they got market dominance, they abused their position to stifle competition.
- dlp211 8y ago
  There is nothing that you said that requires Android to be open source.
  - typon 8y ago
    I think Android's popularity and extremely quick adoption owes itself to the fact that it's open source.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      It owes to being free not open source. OEMs really only had three choices. Create their own OS (horrible choice), use Windows Mobile or use Android. The deciding factor was free. Phone manufacturers no more cared about open source than Windows anufacturers.
  - arminiusreturns 8y ago
    Are you just ignoring the part where they use linux which has a gplv2 license?
- miracle2k 8y ago
  Are you suggesting that to interpret the law correctly here, a court has to judge Google's motivation of releasing the Android code as Open Source? Further, if Apple were to decide, tomorrow, to release iOS as open source, would they also be in violation of the law (possibly depending on their motivation?)
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Are you suggesting that to interpret the law correctly here, a court has to judge Google's motivation of releasing the Android code as Open Source? The law often hinges on intent along with action, that's hardly novel.
dtech 8y ago
> But Google, apparently, deserves a $5B fine because they made a mistake of powering AOSP phones This is incredibly (deliberately?) misrepresentative. They are being punished for having a monopoly and (ab)using that. If Apple/iPhone had an 80% market share in EU the commission would be gunning for them instead, e.g. because of their closed ecosystem preventing competition.
- briandear 8y ago
  Why isn’t the EU gunning for Airbus, Safran and Arianespace? Airbus and Safran had a joint venture to build rockets, then the EU approved the sale of Arianespace to Airbus for a tiny $166 million. Now in space vehicles and launches, Airbus practically owns all of it in Europe. It effectively shuts out competing rocket makers. If you buy an Airbus rocket, you are forced to hire their Arianespace wholy owned subsidiary to launch it. And this deal was approved by the EU and it specifically grants a monopoly to Airbus for European rocket manufacturing and launch. The point is that the EU doesn’t care that much about monopolies— they care that much about American tech monopolies. It’s economic populism. I am not saying anything about the merits of the Android case, only pointing out that the EU doesn’t pursue EU companies with as much vigor. €5 billion is a significant payday for the EU — especially when that money comes from an American company.
bjpbakker 8y ago
> Google being seriously attacked on here for have an open source path as well It's not because Google has open sourced Android (which they _had_ to because of the GPL used by Linux). The fine is for protecting their own marker by blocking others from using that open source software.
- trasz 8y ago
  Minor nit: Google didn't have to Open Source the whole Android because of Linux; Linux is just one of many components, and Linux' license doesn't apply to the rest of the software there.
  - LamaOfRuin 8y ago
    This is always an interesting problem of definition and separation. If all the things google claims are absolutely essential and inseparable as part of 'Android' the license could well be interpreted as requiring them to open source all of it. If, on the other hand, these are all separate pieces of software and not totally dependent to deliver the end 'experience' then that contradicts some of Google's legal arguments.
    - pertymcpert 8y ago
      The GPL issue is completely separate. The law regarding GPL and where is applies vs LGPL is well understood.
      - trasz 8y ago
        Not really, no. There's the FSF interpretation on one hand, but on the other there are companies like VMWare which happily put binary blobs into the Linux kernel and don't consider it a "derived work".
        Dylan16807 8y ago
        There are disagreements, but let's put it this way: If even the FSF would call it okay, then it's almost certainly okay. And the FSF will tell you that the kernel license doesn't infect user space.
ummonk 8y ago
It is incredible seeing Google being seriously attacked on here for have an open source path as well. I feel like this is some sort of alternative universe. Exactly. The takeaway from this seems to be to not open up your system a little bit, because then you'll need to go all the way. Whereas e.g. Apple, which built a completely closed phone system from the start, doesn't get any trouble (even when it dominated the smartphone market). Really backwards ruling. And I say this as someone who happily switched to an iPhone to escape Google's data collection.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Khaine 8y ago
  No its not. There are a lot of Americans being obtusely dense on this. There is nothing wrong with open source. There is nothing wrong with opening the source of a product. "Google has used Android as a vehicle to cement the dominance of its search engine. These practices have denied rivals the chance to innovate and compete on the merits. They have denied European consumers the benefits of effective competition in the important mobile sphere," Ms Vestager said.
pas 8y ago
What? I can't open a car dealership and sell BMWs and put custom audio equipment into them? (And to take the analogy further, what if I buy BMWs from a different dealership, not from BMW? Because with software that's basically zero-cost.)

scarface74 8y ago

Car manufacturers have been doing custom after market upgrades for cars for years - including the audio system.