3 ms·
Yeah, what Google is learning here is that you should never license your OS/sell to other manufacturers and never make it open-source and just go the Apple rout
by mattigames 8y ago
Yeah, what Google is learning here is that you should never license your OS/sell to other manufacturers and never make it open-source and just go the Apple route instead, create the device yourself and make the OS completely proprietary and closed.
- VikingCoder 8y agoExactly. This is so back-asswards.
- MBCook 8y agoYou can be open. You just can’t use contracts to extend your monopoly to other areas. This is not an open/closed dichotomy. This is a free/controlled market issue.
- VikingCoder 8y agoI literally don't understand. If Google manufactured all Android phones, and Android were closed source, and Android came pre-installed with the Play Store, Search, and Chrome, I think it wouldn't be a problem, right? That turns this into an open/closed dichotomy.
- wetpaws 8y agoIf Android was close there would not be any monopoly, I think this is the idea.
- VikingCoder 8y agoThat idea is completely false. It's plausible that Android would have nearly as many users. Google, for instance, could have all of the current manufacturers agree to OEM their Android devices. Possibly with co-branding.
- MBCook 8y agoAgain, they can be ‘open’ (sell/give to other OEMs), they just can’t use contracts to force those OEMs to help them dominate other markets/kill Android competition. That’s what they’re doing here, just like MS did in the 90s with Windows licenses.
- jacksmith21006 8y agoExactly. The EU is going to force Google to do stuff that hurts the consumer not helps. Just hope Google limits it to the EU and let's us in the US continue with a great deal that Google offers.
- ktosobcy 8y agoWhich would allow google to gain dominance in the mobile market... NOT. Google/Android won because it was very open and flexible, but the moment they started to dominate they started to push their agenda on OEMs users…
- ummonk 8y agoOkay, now I am starting to see the argument against Google. Essentially, that they captured a lot of the market with "free" but are increasingly using the terms that come alongside this "free" to bully other manufacturers now that they're locked in with "free Android!".
- mattigames 8y agoYeah, Samsumg should have created their own OS, I'm sure that would have played really well for both companies... NOT.
- ktosobcy 8y agoThey tried, but then Google had "free OS" that "everyone used" so it was almost impossible to make a dent in the google-verse. And now when they killed virtually any competition they are pushing their agent. Recently KaiOS was gaining traction and what did google? Virtually bought their presence/dominance there… sorry "supported project".
- nojvek 8y agoThat would work if Google was really good at their own hardware. They aren’t. Android’s rise to dominance was mostly because of partners like Samsung. Personal preference but Samsung phones are the only ones which I see are comparable to latest iPhones in terms of speed, features and price.
- mattigames 8y agoYeah, Google need to buy Samsumg or the closest one they can get and start doing quality hardware.
- VikingCoder 8y agoCouldn't Google have had Samsung OEM phones? With co-branding? And all of the profits going to Samsung? This would merely be a different way to structure access to Android, right? Android is closed source, but literally everything else is the same... Except now it's not "anti-competitive," because the phone manufacturers are not "competitors" to Google.