5 ms·

The Firefox model is a good example. The initial short list of available search engines (7 slots instead of 4) is auctioned off but there's also a "Find more se

by guelo 7y ago

The Firefox model is a good example. The initial short list of available search engines (7 slots instead of 4) is auctioned off but there's also a "Find more search engines" button with a list of 3,823 providers. This is not a problem that a UX designer would have a hard time with.

jrochkind1 7y ago
Sure, that works. Do you think that would satisfy the OP? Why don't they suggest it in the article/their press releases?
ocdtrekkie 7y ago
The Firefox model is very close to what's being proposed here actually: This is the short list that ships by default, and you can pick whatever search engine you want after the initial setup anyways. I think it's reasonable for them to say they don't want to have 3,823 options on the initial setup screen for the phone, most people are just trying to get through it and don't want an extensive decision-making tree before they can write their first text message. The difference here is that Google owns Android and Google doesn't have to bid. In my book, this is the case-in-point demonstration why Android and Chrome are the two properties that Google must be forced to spin off. Letting one company own both the dominant platforms and the dominant services that run on those platforms is a very dangerous mix.
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  > The difference here is that Google owns Android and Google doesn't have to bid. This is a nonsensical argument. What is the practical difference between Google bidding and Google automatically taking a place? If Google bids, that money goes to Google, so it's as if they didn't spend any money. In both cases, by Google taking a spot, Google loses revenue from the bidder who would have otherwise taken that spot.
  - solarkraft 7y ago
    That's kind of the point: Google should have to bid and the money spent shouldn' go back to Google. Such a thing would happen if Android was managed by a separate company.
    - joshuamorton 7y ago
      The money would go to Android, to sponsor android development. Would it suffice if Google broke down their financials enough so that it was clear that this money was invested in android, and not in, say, maps?
      - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
        I'm not sure that would be enough, because Android development is still principally built around Google's proprietary services and integrations. A spun-off Android would presumably support the same feature set for Google Search and say, Ecosia, alike. Also, of course, Google can just lower their own existing Android spending line and inject it back into Search, to zero out any impact on them. Similar to how my local area likes to justify highway toll increases "we'll spend it on education!" but then stripping out education funding elsewhere to compensate, and using it for something else.
        xbmcuser 7y ago
        Google bought or built android to be the main mobile search engine. I understand for competitive reasons them being forced to give others a place in the search selection but why the hell should they take themselves out or even be forced to sell Android. Google auctioning the search placement is fuck you to the search engines complaining about its monopoly if they think it's get an advantage by being the default search they should be willing to pay something for being 1 of the selection.
        lern_too_spel 7y ago
        > A spun-off Android would presumably support the same feature set for Google Search and say, Ecosia, alike. This is already the case. Unlike with iOS, Google's apps do not have access to any more APIs than other developers' apps. One could argue that the APIs themselves are prioritized and developed according to the needs of Google's apps far more than the needs of other developers' apps, which I agree is potentially problematic, but without a particular consumer-harming example, it would be impossible to build an antitrust case on that. For example, I might like it if Amazon's App Store could have automatic app upgrade permission on my non-Amazon devices (requiring some API changes in Android to make this secure for app stores not installed on the system partition), but Amazon would have a tough time demonstrating enough consumer harm for the government to take action.
- thekyle 7y ago
  What would be the business model of Android if they were an independent company? It's FOSS so they can't really charge licensing fees. But they'll still need to make enough money to keep up with iOS.
  - WrtCdEvrydy 7y ago
    Android Services Framework requires certification in order for you to get Play Store access.
    - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
      Indeed, an independent Android, no longer with the sole purpose of driving Google account expansion, could charge hardware manufacturers. It's likely literally every hardware manufacturer would accept a modest licensing fee in exchange for not having to invent their own OS. Something like Google's fake consortium from back in the day could have more impact, too. If Android was managed by something akin to the Open Handset Alliance, where significant hardware platform partners had a say in how Android was developed and monetized, it's likely you'd see a really healthy ecosystem of support for it, not controlled by a single entity.
  - jsnell 7y ago
    Selling the right to be the default search engine to the highest bidder seems like a pretty good business to be in. Apple reportedly makes $12 billion per year on that. No, wait... That can't be right. According to this thread that's immoral rent-seeking, and Apple would never do that. Those reports must be lies, and Apple has just randomly selected Google to be the default search engine on iOS. It's kind of amazing that Google has gotten lucky in that random selection so many years in a row, but such is life.
    - kerkeslager 7y ago
      > No, wait... That can't be right. According to this thread that's immoral rent-seeking, and Apple would never do that. Those reports must be lies, and Apple has just randomly selected Google to be the default search engine on iOS. It's kind of amazing that Google has gotten lucky in that random selection so many years in a row, but such is life. Actually, the argument is not that it's rent-seeking, it's that it's anti-competitive. It's not anti-competitive when Apple does it, because Apple doesn't have an equivalent search offering that automatically wins the bidding process. Nice straw man argument, though.
cmiles74 7y ago
It's not clear to me that Google needs to _earn money_ through this auction (one they enter free of charge, even!) Simply randomizing the list is better than always placing Google in the first screen of slots and then charging everyone else for a slot of their own.

by guelo 7y ago

jrochkind1 7y ago

Sure, that works. Do you think that would satisfy the OP? Why don't they suggest it in the article/their press releases?

ocdtrekkie 7y ago

The Firefox model is very close to what's being proposed here actually: This is the short list that ships by default, and you can pick whatever search engine you want after the initial setup anyways. I think it's reasonable for them to say they don't want to have 3,823 options on the initial setup screen for the phone, most people are just trying to get through it and don't want an extensive decision-making tree before they can write their first text message. The difference here is that Google owns Android and Google doesn't have to bid. In my book, this is the case-in-point demonstration why Android and Chrome are the two properties that Google must be forced to spin off. Letting one company own both the dominant platforms and the dominant services that run on those platforms is a very dangerous mix.

lern_too_spel 7y ago
> The difference here is that Google owns Android and Google doesn't have to bid. This is a nonsensical argument. What is the practical difference between Google bidding and Google automatically taking a place? If Google bids, that money goes to Google, so it's as if they didn't spend any money. In both cases, by Google taking a spot, Google loses revenue from the bidder who would have otherwise taken that spot.
- solarkraft 7y ago
  That's kind of the point: Google should have to bid and the money spent shouldn' go back to Google. Such a thing would happen if Android was managed by a separate company.
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    The money would go to Android, to sponsor android development. Would it suffice if Google broke down their financials enough so that it was clear that this money was invested in android, and not in, say, maps?
    - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
      I'm not sure that would be enough, because Android development is still principally built around Google's proprietary services and integrations. A spun-off Android would presumably support the same feature set for Google Search and say, Ecosia, alike. Also, of course, Google can just lower their own existing Android spending line and inject it back into Search, to zero out any impact on them. Similar to how my local area likes to justify highway toll increases "we'll spend it on education!" but then stripping out education funding elsewhere to compensate, and using it for something else.
      - xbmcuser 7y ago
        Google bought or built android to be the main mobile search engine. I understand for competitive reasons them being forced to give others a place in the search selection but why the hell should they take themselves out or even be forced to sell Android. Google auctioning the search placement is fuck you to the search engines complaining about its monopoly if they think it's get an advantage by being the default search they should be willing to pay something for being 1 of the selection.
      - lern_too_spel 7y ago
        > A spun-off Android would presumably support the same feature set for Google Search and say, Ecosia, alike. This is already the case. Unlike with iOS, Google's apps do not have access to any more APIs than other developers' apps. One could argue that the APIs themselves are prioritized and developed according to the needs of Google's apps far more than the needs of other developers' apps, which I agree is potentially problematic, but without a particular consumer-harming example, it would be impossible to build an antitrust case on that. For example, I might like it if Amazon's App Store could have automatic app upgrade permission on my non-Amazon devices (requiring some API changes in Android to make this secure for app stores not installed on the system partition), but Amazon would have a tough time demonstrating enough consumer harm for the government to take action.
thekyle 7y ago
What would be the business model of Android if they were an independent company? It's FOSS so they can't really charge licensing fees. But they'll still need to make enough money to keep up with iOS.
- WrtCdEvrydy 7y ago
  Android Services Framework requires certification in order for you to get Play Store access.
  - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
    Indeed, an independent Android, no longer with the sole purpose of driving Google account expansion, could charge hardware manufacturers. It's likely literally every hardware manufacturer would accept a modest licensing fee in exchange for not having to invent their own OS. Something like Google's fake consortium from back in the day could have more impact, too. If Android was managed by something akin to the Open Handset Alliance, where significant hardware platform partners had a say in how Android was developed and monetized, it's likely you'd see a really healthy ecosystem of support for it, not controlled by a single entity.
- jsnell 7y ago
  Selling the right to be the default search engine to the highest bidder seems like a pretty good business to be in. Apple reportedly makes $12 billion per year on that. No, wait... That can't be right. According to this thread that's immoral rent-seeking, and Apple would never do that. Those reports must be lies, and Apple has just randomly selected Google to be the default search engine on iOS. It's kind of amazing that Google has gotten lucky in that random selection so many years in a row, but such is life.
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    > No, wait... That can't be right. According to this thread that's immoral rent-seeking, and Apple would never do that. Those reports must be lies, and Apple has just randomly selected Google to be the default search engine on iOS. It's kind of amazing that Google has gotten lucky in that random selection so many years in a row, but such is life. Actually, the argument is not that it's rent-seeking, it's that it's anti-competitive. It's not anti-competitive when Apple does it, because Apple doesn't have an equivalent search offering that automatically wins the bidding process. Nice straw man argument, though.

cmiles74 7y ago

It's not clear to me that Google needs to _earn money_ through this auction (one they enter free of charge, even!) Simply randomizing the list is better than always placing Google in the first screen of slots and then charging everyone else for a slot of their own.