6 ms·

Google probably didn't do any real calculus, and I strongly doubt it was anything like a principled decision. They probably just realized that it simply wasn't

Google probably didn't do any real calculus, and I strongly doubt it was anything like a principled decision. They probably just realized that it simply wasn't an option. Android lacks the vertical integration that iOS has. It would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, for Google to get Android licensees to accept such a heavily walled garden. Remember that this decision was made over a decade ago, back when there were many competitors - both software and hardware vendors - vying for a foothold in the smartphone market. Google trying to flex its muscles too much would have sent its licensees scurrying toward competitors.

jsight 5y ago
IDK, AT&T used to lock out third party apps on their Android phones. It didn't go over well and was eventually reversed. I think they stayed in that state for a few years, though.
- mumblemumble 5y ago
  It's probably better to think of that as AT&T trying to continue the thing they were already doing with feature phones, than as Google trying to make Android as locked down as iOS is. For starters, it's something AT&T did with just the phones they were selling, not something Google did with the Android platform or Android phone makers like LG and Samsung did with their phones.
  - jsight 5y ago
    True, and more specifically it was AT&T making their early Android phones into Android iPhones. This was still pretty close to the era when the iPhone was an AT&T exclusive. It was terrible and I believe they sold pretty poorly. My point is that the mumblemumble seemed to think that Google had no choice in the matter. I think they clearly did and for the most part clearly opted to keep the third party door open at the time. Granted, Android was much more open back then overall.
    - mumblemumble 5y ago
      My point wasn't exactly that they had no choice, so much as it was a choice they quite understandably weren't going to make. The AT&T analogy is kind of weak here because they weren't operating in the same business environment. AT&T was doing it in a B2C context, Google's Android business at the time was 100% B2B. It's easier to take this kind of risk as a major telecom operating in a B2C context, because consumers, as a body, aren't going to punish you that badly. Case in point was that, while these Android phones sold poorly, it hasn't actually tanked AT&T's business. Whereas, if Google had sent Samsung, LG, Huawei, etc over to WebOS or wherever, the impact to Google's Android business would have been large and permanent.
      - jsight 5y ago
        I get your point, but I have a hard time seeing Samsung, LG, and Huawei demanding that consumers have a checkbox to install third party apps. I've never gotten the impression that they actually care about that ability for their consumers. Obviously having it for themselves was a key selling point.
rodgerd 5y ago
Certainly around 2010 I had Google folks saying things at conferences like "who wants root on their phone!"; I do think they saw the idea of user control of their phone, hardware diversity and so on as key selling points at that time. They have pulled back from that drastically, to the point where root doesn't really get you much control on an Android device any more. Whether that's driven by discovering that a very open approach to user control makes for a lot of security issues (which lines up with Apple's claims), or whether its about trying to improve revenue streams, well, who knows?

jsight 5y ago

IDK, AT&T used to lock out third party apps on their Android phones. It didn't go over well and was eventually reversed. I think they stayed in that state for a few years, though.

mumblemumble 5y ago
It's probably better to think of that as AT&T trying to continue the thing they were already doing with feature phones, than as Google trying to make Android as locked down as iOS is. For starters, it's something AT&T did with just the phones they were selling, not something Google did with the Android platform or Android phone makers like LG and Samsung did with their phones.
- jsight 5y ago
  True, and more specifically it was AT&T making their early Android phones into Android iPhones. This was still pretty close to the era when the iPhone was an AT&T exclusive. It was terrible and I believe they sold pretty poorly. My point is that the mumblemumble seemed to think that Google had no choice in the matter. I think they clearly did and for the most part clearly opted to keep the third party door open at the time. Granted, Android was much more open back then overall.
  - mumblemumble 5y ago
    My point wasn't exactly that they had no choice, so much as it was a choice they quite understandably weren't going to make. The AT&T analogy is kind of weak here because they weren't operating in the same business environment. AT&T was doing it in a B2C context, Google's Android business at the time was 100% B2B. It's easier to take this kind of risk as a major telecom operating in a B2C context, because consumers, as a body, aren't going to punish you that badly. Case in point was that, while these Android phones sold poorly, it hasn't actually tanked AT&T's business. Whereas, if Google had sent Samsung, LG, Huawei, etc over to WebOS or wherever, the impact to Google's Android business would have been large and permanent.
    - jsight 5y ago
      I get your point, but I have a hard time seeing Samsung, LG, and Huawei demanding that consumers have a checkbox to install third party apps. I've never gotten the impression that they actually care about that ability for their consumers. Obviously having it for themselves was a key selling point.

rodgerd 5y ago

Certainly around 2010 I had Google folks saying things at conferences like "who wants root on their phone!"; I do think they saw the idea of user control of their phone, hardware diversity and so on as key selling points at that time. They have pulled back from that drastically, to the point where root doesn't really get you much control on an Android device any more. Whether that's driven by discovering that a very open approach to user control makes for a lot of security issues (which lines up with Apple's claims), or whether its about trying to improve revenue streams, well, who knows?