6 ms·

Gut reaction: I feel like Android would not survive Google being forced to remove all their apps from the Google play store.

untog 8y ago
Android is perhaps the closest in comparison to Microsoft/Internet Explorer. Spin off Android into its own company, including the Play Store. There would be nothing stopping Google from keeping their apps in the Play Store, but they would sit on the same level as competing mapping and search apps, and users would choose which one to use instead of have it preinstalled.
- robbick 8y ago
  And tbh - most people would still probably download google chrome, google maps, google docs etc - it would just level the playing field
  - wongarsu 8y ago
    I would download all those, but there's also a lot of Google stuff pre-installed on my phone that I wouldn't have downloaded: the Google search bar, Google assistant, Google music, Hangouts, Google+, just to name a few.
    - farisjarrah 8y ago
      Man, that persistent white toolbar at the bottom of the screen is really annoying when I want to check my phone in the middle of the night.
      - plushpuffin 8y ago
        You can install a different home app. I use Nova Launcher, which lets you customize the search bar or remove it entirely.
- basch 8y ago
  You have the option as an Android provider to use android and provide your own services OR ship the device with Google Play services. Amazon for example does the former. I actually think Android is a really bad example precisely because all the useful google apps ARE separate from the OS. Its just that what people think of as android is actually mostly Play Services now.
- notatoad 8y ago
  You need to remember that android's customers aren't the end users of the phones, its customers are the OEMs. Spinning off android into its own company separate from Google wouldn't mean the end user gets a preference of which mapping or search app to install, it means the company selling the phone (either the phone brand or the cell network) gets to choose.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    The end user would get a choice by buying a specific phone, though, no? The Android device market, at least, isn't heavily monopolized, and there are many options, including devices that are explicitly advertised as open and cruft-free.
- TuringNYC 8y ago
  OK but Android is a loss leader for Google's search business. If you spin off Android and Android is no longer subsidized by the search business doesnt that either 1. Raise prices for customers since now someone has to pay for Android development/upkeep/progress, or 2. Starve and kill Android and leave customers with just one major app store (Apple)?
rayiner 8y ago
That would be great. Android has a competition-destroying business model: giving away the OS for free, while subsidizing OS development with ad revenue from unrelated services. It killed companies like Symbian who just sold you an OS in exchange for a license fee, without trying to marry that to services you can't easily switch away from because they have all your data.
- morpheuskafka 8y ago
  So basically big companies will no longer have any reason to work on open source projects anymore if they can't fund them with "unrelated services?" You can head over to github, clone the AOSP tree, and do whatever the heck you want with it. Separately, Google has developed the Play ecosystem, and several of its own apps for Android. If you want you phone to have that stuff, you tell Google and you join the Open Handset Alliance or whatever its called now. If you don't, you start from AOSP (as does Amazon, for example) and don't give Google the time of day. So they give away a massive boost to anyone who wants to make a mobile device, and somehow that's a bad thing?
  - rayiner 8y ago
    Possibly true. But the direct exchange of money for a product or service creates a salutory incentive structure. And unfortunately, the rise of open source has been associated with the rise of indirect monetization models that aren't as beneficial, especially in the consumer space.
    - nthot 8y ago
      Painting this as an unintended consequence of open source is really interesting. The rise of free open source alternatives to proprietary products has encouraged companies to provide products free, but these companies aren't going to be motivated to provide these products without some avenue for profit.

untog 8y ago

Android is perhaps the closest in comparison to Microsoft/Internet Explorer. Spin off Android into its own company, including the Play Store. There would be nothing stopping Google from keeping their apps in the Play Store, but they would sit on the same level as competing mapping and search apps, and users would choose which one to use instead of have it preinstalled.

robbick 8y ago
And tbh - most people would still probably download google chrome, google maps, google docs etc - it would just level the playing field
- wongarsu 8y ago
  I would download all those, but there's also a lot of Google stuff pre-installed on my phone that I wouldn't have downloaded: the Google search bar, Google assistant, Google music, Hangouts, Google+, just to name a few.
  - farisjarrah 8y ago
    Man, that persistent white toolbar at the bottom of the screen is really annoying when I want to check my phone in the middle of the night.
    - plushpuffin 8y ago
      You can install a different home app. I use Nova Launcher, which lets you customize the search bar or remove it entirely.
basch 8y ago
You have the option as an Android provider to use android and provide your own services OR ship the device with Google Play services. Amazon for example does the former. I actually think Android is a really bad example precisely because all the useful google apps ARE separate from the OS. Its just that what people think of as android is actually mostly Play Services now.
notatoad 8y ago
You need to remember that android's customers aren't the end users of the phones, its customers are the OEMs. Spinning off android into its own company separate from Google wouldn't mean the end user gets a preference of which mapping or search app to install, it means the company selling the phone (either the phone brand or the cell network) gets to choose.
- int_19h 8y ago
  The end user would get a choice by buying a specific phone, though, no? The Android device market, at least, isn't heavily monopolized, and there are many options, including devices that are explicitly advertised as open and cruft-free.
TuringNYC 8y ago
OK but Android is a loss leader for Google's search business. If you spin off Android and Android is no longer subsidized by the search business doesnt that either 1. Raise prices for customers since now someone has to pay for Android development/upkeep/progress, or 2. Starve and kill Android and leave customers with just one major app store (Apple)?

rayiner 8y ago

That would be great. Android has a competition-destroying business model: giving away the OS for free, while subsidizing OS development with ad revenue from unrelated services. It killed companies like Symbian who just sold you an OS in exchange for a license fee, without trying to marry that to services you can't easily switch away from because they have all your data.

morpheuskafka 8y ago
So basically big companies will no longer have any reason to work on open source projects anymore if they can't fund them with "unrelated services?" You can head over to github, clone the AOSP tree, and do whatever the heck you want with it. Separately, Google has developed the Play ecosystem, and several of its own apps for Android. If you want you phone to have that stuff, you tell Google and you join the Open Handset Alliance or whatever its called now. If you don't, you start from AOSP (as does Amazon, for example) and don't give Google the time of day. So they give away a massive boost to anyone who wants to make a mobile device, and somehow that's a bad thing?
- rayiner 8y ago
  Possibly true. But the direct exchange of money for a product or service creates a salutory incentive structure. And unfortunately, the rise of open source has been associated with the rise of indirect monetization models that aren't as beneficial, especially in the consumer space.
  - nthot 8y ago
    Painting this as an unintended consequence of open source is really interesting. The rise of free open source alternatives to proprietary products has encouraged companies to provide products free, but these companies aren't going to be motivated to provide these products without some avenue for profit.