4 ms·

So to be clear, IF Google had manufactured all of the phones themselves, and had never open sourced Android, then they could have kept Chrome and Search on And

So to be clear, IF Google had manufactured all of the phones themselves, and had never open sourced Android, then they could have kept Chrome and Search on Android, and there would have been no problem, right? But because Google let other people manufacture Androids, and because Google open sourced Android, now it's a problem? The logic of this is just baffling to me.

contravariant 8y ago
I'm not sure if that would bring them in the clear, Microsoft got fined for forcing Internet Explorer onto Windows users for instance.
- redial 8y ago
  No, Microsoft was fined for forcing OEMs to install IE and not preinstall other browsers on PCs if they wanted Windows. It had nothing to do directly with end users.
pertymcpert 8y ago
Google didn't write all of Android, there are GPL components. They didn't have the choice to keep it closed source, all of it anyway. And secondly, they're not being punished for having an open source operating system. They're being punished for forcing manufacturers to install their suite of software (simplified). It's not because they open sourced Android. I repeat, it's NOT BECAUSE THEY OPEN SOURCED ANDROID.
- VikingCoder 8y ago
  Google could absolutely close-source enough of Android to make it essentially closed. As I posted elsewhere: Couldn'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.
  - kilotaras 8y ago
    > Couldn't Google have had Samsung OEM phones? If 1. Android still reached 80% of market 2. Terms of OEM prohibited Samsung from making phones with another OS That would be the same anticompetitive violation
    - VikingCoder 8y ago
      The terms wouldn't prohibit Samsung from making phones with another OS. The terms would say that Samsung installs the version of Android 2 (the new and closed source one) that Google tells it to. As manufacturing partners are always told what to do.

contravariant 8y ago

I'm not sure if that would bring them in the clear, Microsoft got fined for forcing Internet Explorer onto Windows users for instance.

redial 8y ago
No, Microsoft was fined for forcing OEMs to install IE and not preinstall other browsers on PCs if they wanted Windows. It had nothing to do directly with end users.

pertymcpert 8y ago

Google didn't write all of Android, there are GPL components. They didn't have the choice to keep it closed source, all of it anyway. And secondly, they're not being punished for having an open source operating system. They're being punished for forcing manufacturers to install their suite of software (simplified). It's not because they open sourced Android. I repeat, it's NOT BECAUSE THEY OPEN SOURCED ANDROID.

VikingCoder 8y ago
Google could absolutely close-source enough of Android to make it essentially closed. As I posted elsewhere: Couldn'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.
- kilotaras 8y ago
  > Couldn't Google have had Samsung OEM phones? If 1. Android still reached 80% of market 2. Terms of OEM prohibited Samsung from making phones with another OS That would be the same anticompetitive violation
  - VikingCoder 8y ago
    The terms wouldn't prohibit Samsung from making phones with another OS. The terms would say that Samsung installs the version of Android 2 (the new and closed source one) that Google tells it to. As manufacturing partners are always told what to do.