4 ms·

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 wit

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.
      - cageface 8y ago
        So it’s not enough that Google has given anybody that wants to compete in mobile a head start 80% of the way to a finalized product. They have to bring them up to 99% now? Sorry but decent maps, mail, and browser are just table stakes to the game. If you can’t develop those yourself you don’t have an “OS”, just a lazy rebranding of Android. At least Microsoft tried a little harder than that.
        close04 8y ago
        In the interest of fair competition yes, that's exactly what they have to do. Or play in a market with different laws. Now were you this upset when Microsoft had not only to give other browser makers access to an OS that was on 90% of computers in the world, they had to take them to 99% with the "browser choice" screen that was basically free promotion for other browsers? The law is clear, when you have a dominant position you are not allowed this kind of shenanigans. And Google was fully aware of that law. This situation isn't the negotiating type. And you are not actually looking for answers, you think trolling is useful somehow.

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.
    - cageface 8y ago
      So it’s not enough that Google has given anybody that wants to compete in mobile a head start 80% of the way to a finalized product. They have to bring them up to 99% now? Sorry but decent maps, mail, and browser are just table stakes to the game. If you can’t develop those yourself you don’t have an “OS”, just a lazy rebranding of Android. At least Microsoft tried a little harder than that.
      - close04 8y ago
        In the interest of fair competition yes, that's exactly what they have to do. Or play in a market with different laws. Now were you this upset when Microsoft had not only to give other browser makers access to an OS that was on 90% of computers in the world, they had to take them to 99% with the "browser choice" screen that was basically free promotion for other browsers? The law is clear, when you have a dominant position you are not allowed this kind of shenanigans. And Google was fully aware of that law. This situation isn't the negotiating type. And you are not actually looking for answers, you think trolling is useful somehow.