4 ms·

Google has used their position to strongarm manufacturers before. Skyhook Wifi Geolocation services was for a short time default on Moto/Samsung. Fearing loss

by ce4 8y ago

Google has used their position to strongarm manufacturers before. Skyhook Wifi Geolocation services was for a short time default on Moto/Samsung. Fearing loss of valuable essid wifi/cell tower scanning data collection, google forced Skyhook out. That was when wifi geolocation was still in its infancy on Android. https://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-lawsuit-motorola-samsung https://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-l... Edit: some corrections

GeekyBear 8y ago
Also, Google used their position to keep Android forks from gaining a competitive foothold in the marketplace. >Google allegedly ran afoul of EU rules by deterring manufacturers from using Android forks. Google "has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google," the commission said. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/eu-google-illegally-used-android-to-dominate-search-must-pay-5b-fine/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/eu-google-illega...
- zmmmmm 8y ago
  As far as I can tell that was a lie. Google allows OEMs to sell devices running "alternative Android versions", but it insists those versions must be fully Android compatible. It prohibits incompatible forks, which to me seems like an extremely good thing which they have relatively few ways of enforcing given the open source nature of Android.
  - olvo 8y ago
    I don't understand what you claim is a lie? I also don't see how effectively subverting the license, presumably including code of outside developers, would make that any less shady.
  - bubblethink 8y ago
    You are missing the distinction between AOSP's license and google play services' license. You can do as you wish with AOSP. If you want google play services (which all OEMs do), a whole new set of things kick in.
zmmmmm 8y ago
While I do think that incident was questionable, one relatively minor, fairly ancient incident in 10 years is not really compelling in terms of Google's current practices. If Google is seriously abusing it's market dominance there should be much more serious, larger scale and recent examples than that. The fact that there aren't suggests to me that Google's market abuse here is relatively indirect. Which doesn't make it non-existent, but the idea that Google is exploiting its market dominance in any sort of explicit manner doesn't seem to hold water to me. It is all about the much more subtle question of whether their market offering implicitly results in monopoly abuse because it links their services together through the incentives in the offering.
- ce4 8y ago
  Here's another one where Google forced Acer to comply and stop the launch of an unapproved phone: https://www.theverge.com/2012/9/14/3335204/google-statement-acer-smartphone-launch-aliyun-android https://www.theverge.com/2012/9/14/3335204/google-statement-... It's a double edged sword. Of course you want to avoid fragmentation and consumer frustration. But where do you draw a line and call it what it is: monopolistic behaviour that stifles competition.

by ce4 8y ago

GeekyBear 8y ago

Also, Google used their position to keep Android forks from gaining a competitive foothold in the marketplace. >Google allegedly ran afoul of EU rules by deterring manufacturers from using Android forks. Google "has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google," the commission said. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/eu-google-illegally-used-android-to-dominate-search-must-pay-5b-fine/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/eu-google-illega...

zmmmmm 8y ago
As far as I can tell that was a lie. Google allows OEMs to sell devices running "alternative Android versions", but it insists those versions must be fully Android compatible. It prohibits incompatible forks, which to me seems like an extremely good thing which they have relatively few ways of enforcing given the open source nature of Android.
- olvo 8y ago
  I don't understand what you claim is a lie? I also don't see how effectively subverting the license, presumably including code of outside developers, would make that any less shady.
- bubblethink 8y ago
  You are missing the distinction between AOSP's license and google play services' license. You can do as you wish with AOSP. If you want google play services (which all OEMs do), a whole new set of things kick in.

zmmmmm 8y ago

While I do think that incident was questionable, one relatively minor, fairly ancient incident in 10 years is not really compelling in terms of Google's current practices. If Google is seriously abusing it's market dominance there should be much more serious, larger scale and recent examples than that. The fact that there aren't suggests to me that Google's market abuse here is relatively indirect. Which doesn't make it non-existent, but the idea that Google is exploiting its market dominance in any sort of explicit manner doesn't seem to hold water to me. It is all about the much more subtle question of whether their market offering implicitly results in monopoly abuse because it links their services together through the incentives in the offering.

ce4 8y ago
Here's another one where Google forced Acer to comply and stop the launch of an unapproved phone: https://www.theverge.com/2012/9/14/3335204/google-statement-acer-smartphone-launch-aliyun-android https://www.theverge.com/2012/9/14/3335204/google-statement-... It's a double edged sword. Of course you want to avoid fragmentation and consumer frustration. But where do you draw a line and call it what it is: monopolistic behaviour that stifles competition.