6 ms·

Clickbait, sensationalist. Counterpoint: Amazon FireOS.

close04 8y ago
Counterpoint: Because of FireOS (not a "Google approved" Android fork) Amazon is no longer allowed to license any Google apps. As hinted by them missing from the OHA members list: http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/oha_members.html http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/oha_members.html How many phone companies can afford to do this? Imagine a different scenario with a company you may not have a strong positive bias towards: Microsoft. Imagine all the OEM agreements are: "if you want to sell laptops with Windows you must agree to never sell laptops with other OSes". Or "if your software runs on any competing OS you are no longer allowed access to some proprietary and critical Windows API". What many people refuse to understand is one simple fact: what Google did is illegal. And it's only their personal pro-Google bias that makes them ignore and excuse the behavior. Or even to claim that the law should change for them. The fact that so few people were outraged when Microsoft landed in the same hot water is irrefutable proof of this.
- cageface 8y ago
  The same people that dismiss Android as excessively fragmented will also cheer the recent decision to punish them for trying to reign in that fragmentation. The mobile market is healthy right now, with meaningful choice and competition that has benefitted consumers on both leading platforms. Hopefully that will still be the case after this recent misguided attack by the EC. There was no meaningful competition in the OS space when Microsoft was fined.
  - gurkendoktor 8y ago
    Do you think the mobile market would be less healthy without the OHA that the article criticizes; say, if Asus were allowed to build Fire Tablets for Amazon without risking its own Android phone business?
    - cageface 8y ago
      This is the one count against Google that I'm somewhat sympathetic with. To say they can't be allowed to put restrictions on access to the app store and play services on a particular model is ridiculous though.
      - close04 8y ago
        When you basically own the market you are active in the rules change for any company. Because with that kind of power you can easily force out any competition and then switch into neutral and coast. And normally I had to endlessly argue with people about why competition is good. But now you have an excellent example in AMD vs. Intel where after years of stagnation and no price drop in sight Intel was persuaded into offering more cores at lower price by the simple fact that they suddenly had competition.
        cageface 8y ago
        So what competition are you expecting to emerge as a result of this? Making a successful mobile operating system at this point is very very difficult. Even Microsoft couldn’t do it. If you handicap Android all you’re going to have left is iOS and cheap phones loaded with carrier crap. The whole situation reminds me of progressives in the US that keep voting for people like Nader and Sanders and effectively make conservatives win. Life very rarely offers us our ideal options.
        close04 8y ago
        Did you actually read the article? Amazon's Fire OS could have been a very successful OS. If only it wasn't cut off from every API Google has to offer. And OEMs weren't blocked by Google from using it under threat that they will also be cut off. Alibaba's Aliyun OS would likely have been a successful OS. If it wasn't in the same situation as Amazon where no OEM would touch it and the OS itself wasn't cut off from anything Google. How is the removal of these artificial limitations "handicapping" Android? Wait, don't answer. So my good sir, you are either a troll, or simply unwilling/unable to understand the issue. Reading the article would have answered every question you pretend to want the answer to. Maybe if Google banned you from Gmail because you have an email address with the competition you would understand the situation better.
  - close04 8y ago
    Microsoft was fined in 2009 for bundling IE with Windows. At the time IE had... 65.5% market share. Today's Google market share is larger than that in basically every segment that counts.
    - cageface 8y ago
      At that time Microsoft had almost complete dominance of the operating system market, at 93%, which is the point. There was nothing like the counterpart to it that iOS is to Android today. Android may look like it's similarly dominant but in the most valuable markets it's way closer to parity and if you exclude the cheap low end devices it's actually a minority. Apple isn't raking in 85% of the profits in mobile for nothing. Be careful what you wish for. A lot of improvements in iOS in recent years were inspired by Android.
      - close04 8y ago
        At this time Android has 87% market share. And climbing. The only thing I wish for is for none of these companies to be allowed to get the entire pie. Those improvements you talk about? They were done during a fight when they were more or less tied with the opponent. The closer you are to 100% market share, the fewer and far between they are. You want proof? Look at MS, or Intel. The moment they got dominance they coasted on it for years with no tangible improvement to anything else but their bottom line. And you seem to think that I must be an iOS fan and probably hate Google. My main phone is Android and has been for 7 years now (although I tend to own and use one of each Windows, iOS, BB10). That's exactly why I want to see more free competition. P.S. Google deals in user data, not selling phones. So a valuable market is one that gives them access to that data. One with lots of users. The phone they use is irrelevant.
        cageface 8y ago
        It’s 55% in the US, 32% in Japan, and only 75% in Europe. It doesn’t make any sense to pretend that an iPhone and a low end Chinese burner phone are even remotely in the same category of device. And in other markets Apple only has a minority share because they’d rather protect their unprecedented profit margins than sell something those people can afford. Those are the most valuable markets and even in those markets startups and developers target iOS first. If you kneecap Android you’re just putting Apple even more in the driver seat than they are today. I still haven’t heard anyone explain how they think this recent ruling makes anything better. Who is going to benefit from this?
- pjmlp 8y ago
  That is the power of the circle.
- gurkendoktor 8y ago
  > if you want to sell laptops with Windows you must agree to never sell laptops with other OSes When Nvidia tried this move with its GeForce Partner Program just this year[1], they faced a social media shitstorm (rightly so). Similarly, Intel received a record fine by the EU in 2009 because it "made payments to some manufacturers in exchange of postponing, canceling or putting restrictions on the introduction or distribution of AMD-based products"[2]. I don't see how Google's behavior is any better just because parts of Android are open source, in fact it strikes me as even more dishonest. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/7/17326122/nvidia-geforce-partner-program-branding-shutdown https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/7/17326122/nvidia-geforce-pa... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/business/global/14compete.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/business/global/14compete...
- vatueil 8y ago
  First, that analogy is wrong. Android manufacturers have sold many devices running other operating systems, both free and proprietary. Second, pre-emptively accusing anyone who disagrees with you of pro-Google bias is fallacious. There are no complaints about "Windows fragmentation", on the other hand, because you can't fork Windows at all. Or any other major OS, such as macOS or iOS. GPL components such as the Linux kernel must be open sourced, but other parts of Android could have been made proprietary. Carriers and manufacturers only cared that Android was free-as-in-beer, not free-as-in-speech. The flip side of complaints that Android's development isn't community driven enough is that it's hard to turn around and claim Android owes its success to the open source community either.
  - close04 8y ago
    First: your understanding of my analogy is wrong. The moment you fork Android you are no longer allowed to license Google apps which everyone knows is "the money maker". As such the analogy where "the moment you compete you can no longer access the core money maker" (in my analogy - Windows) is perfectly valid. Second: The point isn't that you disagree with me, it's that you disagree with the outcome of an official investigation under EU law that found that Google's practices are illegal. So I have that to support my opinion. Feel free to bring something stronger to support yours. You can't say it's not bias but then bring nothing to support that claim. ;) P.S. >There are no complaints about "Windows fragmentation" Android fragmentation is Google's own doing and is in no way solved by blocking OEMs from forking it. The forks are not Android, they are the likes of Fire OS and Aliyun OS. As such would never count under "Android fragmentation".

Counterpoint: Because of FireOS (not a "Google approved" Android fork) Amazon is no longer allowed to license any Google apps. As hinted by them missing from the OHA members list: http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/oha_members.html http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/oha_members.html How many phone companies can afford to do this? Imagine a different scenario with a company you may not have a strong positive bias towards: Microsoft. Imagine all the OEM agreements are: "if you want to sell laptops with Windows you must agree to never sell laptops with other OSes". Or "if your software runs on any competing OS you are no longer allowed access to some proprietary and critical Windows API". What many people refuse to understand is one simple fact: what Google did is illegal. And it's only their personal pro-Google bias that makes them ignore and excuse the behavior. Or even to claim that the law should change for them. The fact that so few people were outraged when Microsoft landed in the same hot water is irrefutable proof of this.

cageface 8y ago
The same people that dismiss Android as excessively fragmented will also cheer the recent decision to punish them for trying to reign in that fragmentation. The mobile market is healthy right now, with meaningful choice and competition that has benefitted consumers on both leading platforms. Hopefully that will still be the case after this recent misguided attack by the EC. There was no meaningful competition in the OS space when Microsoft was fined.
- gurkendoktor 8y ago
  Do you think the mobile market would be less healthy without the OHA that the article criticizes; say, if Asus were allowed to build Fire Tablets for Amazon without risking its own Android phone business?
  - cageface 8y ago
    This is the one count against Google that I'm somewhat sympathetic with. To say they can't be allowed to put restrictions on access to the app store and play services on a particular model is ridiculous though.
    - close04 8y ago
      When you basically own the market you are active in the rules change for any company. Because with that kind of power you can easily force out any competition and then switch into neutral and coast. And normally I had to endlessly argue with people about why competition is good. But now you have an excellent example in AMD vs. Intel where after years of stagnation and no price drop in sight Intel was persuaded into offering more cores at lower price by the simple fact that they suddenly had competition.
      - cageface 8y ago
        So what competition are you expecting to emerge as a result of this? Making a successful mobile operating system at this point is very very difficult. Even Microsoft couldn’t do it. If you handicap Android all you’re going to have left is iOS and cheap phones loaded with carrier crap. The whole situation reminds me of progressives in the US that keep voting for people like Nader and Sanders and effectively make conservatives win. Life very rarely offers us our ideal options.
        close04 8y ago
        Did you actually read the article? Amazon's Fire OS could have been a very successful OS. If only it wasn't cut off from every API Google has to offer. And OEMs weren't blocked by Google from using it under threat that they will also be cut off. Alibaba's Aliyun OS would likely have been a successful OS. If it wasn't in the same situation as Amazon where no OEM would touch it and the OS itself wasn't cut off from anything Google. How is the removal of these artificial limitations "handicapping" Android? Wait, don't answer. So my good sir, you are either a troll, or simply unwilling/unable to understand the issue. Reading the article would have answered every question you pretend to want the answer to. Maybe if Google banned you from Gmail because you have an email address with the competition you would understand the situation better.
- close04 8y ago
  Microsoft was fined in 2009 for bundling IE with Windows. At the time IE had... 65.5% market share. Today's Google market share is larger than that in basically every segment that counts.
  - cageface 8y ago
    At that time Microsoft had almost complete dominance of the operating system market, at 93%, which is the point. There was nothing like the counterpart to it that iOS is to Android today. Android may look like it's similarly dominant but in the most valuable markets it's way closer to parity and if you exclude the cheap low end devices it's actually a minority. Apple isn't raking in 85% of the profits in mobile for nothing. Be careful what you wish for. A lot of improvements in iOS in recent years were inspired by Android.
    - close04 8y ago
      At this time Android has 87% market share. And climbing. The only thing I wish for is for none of these companies to be allowed to get the entire pie. Those improvements you talk about? They were done during a fight when they were more or less tied with the opponent. The closer you are to 100% market share, the fewer and far between they are. You want proof? Look at MS, or Intel. The moment they got dominance they coasted on it for years with no tangible improvement to anything else but their bottom line. And you seem to think that I must be an iOS fan and probably hate Google. My main phone is Android and has been for 7 years now (although I tend to own and use one of each Windows, iOS, BB10). That's exactly why I want to see more free competition. P.S. Google deals in user data, not selling phones. So a valuable market is one that gives them access to that data. One with lots of users. The phone they use is irrelevant.
      - cageface 8y ago
        It’s 55% in the US, 32% in Japan, and only 75% in Europe. It doesn’t make any sense to pretend that an iPhone and a low end Chinese burner phone are even remotely in the same category of device. And in other markets Apple only has a minority share because they’d rather protect their unprecedented profit margins than sell something those people can afford. Those are the most valuable markets and even in those markets startups and developers target iOS first. If you kneecap Android you’re just putting Apple even more in the driver seat than they are today. I still haven’t heard anyone explain how they think this recent ruling makes anything better. Who is going to benefit from this?
pjmlp 8y ago
That is the power of the circle.
gurkendoktor 8y ago
> if you want to sell laptops with Windows you must agree to never sell laptops with other OSes When Nvidia tried this move with its GeForce Partner Program just this year[1], they faced a social media shitstorm (rightly so). Similarly, Intel received a record fine by the EU in 2009 because it "made payments to some manufacturers in exchange of postponing, canceling or putting restrictions on the introduction or distribution of AMD-based products"[2]. I don't see how Google's behavior is any better just because parts of Android are open source, in fact it strikes me as even more dishonest. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/7/17326122/nvidia-geforce-partner-program-branding-shutdown https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/7/17326122/nvidia-geforce-pa... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/business/global/14compete.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/business/global/14compete...
vatueil 8y ago
First, that analogy is wrong. Android manufacturers have sold many devices running other operating systems, both free and proprietary. Second, pre-emptively accusing anyone who disagrees with you of pro-Google bias is fallacious. There are no complaints about "Windows fragmentation", on the other hand, because you can't fork Windows at all. Or any other major OS, such as macOS or iOS. GPL components such as the Linux kernel must be open sourced, but other parts of Android could have been made proprietary. Carriers and manufacturers only cared that Android was free-as-in-beer, not free-as-in-speech. The flip side of complaints that Android's development isn't community driven enough is that it's hard to turn around and claim Android owes its success to the open source community either.
- close04 8y ago
  First: your understanding of my analogy is wrong. The moment you fork Android you are no longer allowed to license Google apps which everyone knows is "the money maker". As such the analogy where "the moment you compete you can no longer access the core money maker" (in my analogy - Windows) is perfectly valid. Second: The point isn't that you disagree with me, it's that you disagree with the outcome of an official investigation under EU law that found that Google's practices are illegal. So I have that to support my opinion. Feel free to bring something stronger to support yours. You can't say it's not bias but then bring nothing to support that claim. ;) P.S. >There are no complaints about "Windows fragmentation" Android fragmentation is Google's own doing and is in no way solved by blocking OEMs from forking it. The forks are not Android, they are the likes of Fire OS and Aliyun OS. As such would never count under "Android fragmentation".