14 ms·

Nope, Android v1 was a no-name product from a highly competent web service provider without any track record whatsoever in mobile OSes. Unsurprisingly, it wasn

by blub 8y ago

Nope, Android v1 was a no-name product from a highly competent web service provider without any track record whatsoever in mobile OSes. Unsurprisingly, it wasn't a good product, so it needed to be open source to gain traction, since no one in their right mind would pay for it. Furthermore, it needed the device manufacturers on board, since Google had zero mobile HW experience, as can be seen on how they handled their Motorola acquisition. So Google actually owes device manufacturers quite a lot. It couldn't have done it without them. And you completely fail to appreciate how complex and important the Linux kernel is. Look at their Fuchsia effort: it was published in 2016 and was in dev for a couple of years probably. Still not ready for production. Now try to imagine what would happen if Apple had 3 extra years to develop iOS before Android was launched. Android would be stillborn. That's what Linux brought to the table.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
We're not talking about Android v1, we're talking about Android now and all that's been invested in it. The 'complexity' of Linux is not relevant - it's a part of the underlying platform, in much the same way that it is in so many other products. Competitive manufacturers, mobile OS makers etc. all have access to the same Linux that Google does. Google has invested massively in Android, it's a product of theirs. If they can't 'bundle' whilst giving it away for free, their going to justify their investment by locking it up and selling it for money.
- blub 8y ago
  It doesn't matter who invested the "most", Android is a joint venture and would not exist without the efforts of manufacturers and Linux itself. Furthermore, Google gained a lot of money through Android, it's in no way a charity or a gift. And given that they gave it for free to destroy all competition, charging money all of a sudden for it might attract some regulatory attention even in the US.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    "It doesn't matter who invested the "most"" There's no discussion about 'who invested the most', because it's besides the point. The point is that Android is a massive investment - full stop. Linux is irrelevant to the equation. There is definitely a giftable aspect to Android in that manufacturers can use the software for free and leverage most of Google's investment for free without a cent to Google. Of course Google is making money, and that's their objective, (nobody is going to state otherwise) however - because of the EU's directive, Google can't make money using their current business model, ergo, cannot recoup their cost or make a profit, ergo - the product is dead in that zone. Were this ruling to happen for North America as well ... either Google starts to charge for Android - or Android is put on the shelf. Google invests heavily in Android, and if their current business model is not allowed, then they'll have to charge for it, which may mean all those who use Android 'for free' may not have the option, which is not good either. The EU's ruling is kind of stupid and self defeating: Is Apple allowed to bundle all their money-making crap? Of course? Nokia? Of course! MS? Of course? So if Android is made totally private, and it only comes as 'one version' i.e. 'with all their crap' - is the EU really going to force Google to separate the products? It's completely stupid. If the EU wants to force Apple to sell iOS separately from the iPhone, and force them to also remove all their bundled crap ... well then they can do that but the stupidity is even more exposed. The EU should focus on getting their companies to make great products instead of stopping fairly benign innovators from doing stuff - and holding their own consumers back.

by blub 8y ago

sonnyblarney 8y ago

We're not talking about Android v1, we're talking about Android now and all that's been invested in it. The 'complexity' of Linux is not relevant - it's a part of the underlying platform, in much the same way that it is in so many other products. Competitive manufacturers, mobile OS makers etc. all have access to the same Linux that Google does. Google has invested massively in Android, it's a product of theirs. If they can't 'bundle' whilst giving it away for free, their going to justify their investment by locking it up and selling it for money.

blub 8y ago
It doesn't matter who invested the "most", Android is a joint venture and would not exist without the efforts of manufacturers and Linux itself. Furthermore, Google gained a lot of money through Android, it's in no way a charity or a gift. And given that they gave it for free to destroy all competition, charging money all of a sudden for it might attract some regulatory attention even in the US.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  "It doesn't matter who invested the "most"" There's no discussion about 'who invested the most', because it's besides the point. The point is that Android is a massive investment - full stop. Linux is irrelevant to the equation. There is definitely a giftable aspect to Android in that manufacturers can use the software for free and leverage most of Google's investment for free without a cent to Google. Of course Google is making money, and that's their objective, (nobody is going to state otherwise) however - because of the EU's directive, Google can't make money using their current business model, ergo, cannot recoup their cost or make a profit, ergo - the product is dead in that zone. Were this ruling to happen for North America as well ... either Google starts to charge for Android - or Android is put on the shelf. Google invests heavily in Android, and if their current business model is not allowed, then they'll have to charge for it, which may mean all those who use Android 'for free' may not have the option, which is not good either. The EU's ruling is kind of stupid and self defeating: Is Apple allowed to bundle all their money-making crap? Of course? Nokia? Of course! MS? Of course? So if Android is made totally private, and it only comes as 'one version' i.e. 'with all their crap' - is the EU really going to force Google to separate the products? It's completely stupid. If the EU wants to force Apple to sell iOS separately from the iPhone, and force them to also remove all their bundled crap ... well then they can do that but the stupidity is even more exposed. The EU should focus on getting their companies to make great products instead of stopping fairly benign innovators from doing stuff - and holding their own consumers back.