3 ms·

What are you doing on Hacker news? This is all about disrupting industries trough a better product. Android is free so this is obviously an improvement to somet

by sek 15y ago

What are you doing on Hacker news? This is all about disrupting industries trough a better product. Android is free so this is obviously an improvement to something you have to pay for, or do you call Linux unfair? When Microsoft can't build a product that justifies a higher price that is their problem, Apple figured that out so it isn't impossible. Unfair (or use another word) is in my eyes trying to beat Google in anything other than the Product itself, for example forcing Android producers into paying extra with a broken patent system.

sriramk 15y ago
First, minor nitpick - Apple is going after Android with various lawsuits as well. But let's keep that aside. Contrast these arguments - back in the 90s, MSFT was accused of killing off Netscape by essentially giving away a browser for free using the revenue from Windows and Office. One could argue that Google is doing the same thing, funding Android with its revenues from ads. Let's forget Android for a second -look at turn-by-turn navigation. That's an expensive product to build but Google, by giving it away for free (again, subsidized by its other revenues) and is causing serious trouble to other companies which have the misfortune of not having an alternative revenue source. Is it 'fair' that Google can basically disrupt industries by giving away things for free just because it gets money through another source? You can see how that argument could be made, whether it is right or wrong. I personally don't think any of this is either 'right' or 'wrong'. It's all business between corporate behemoths.
- joebadmo 15y ago
  But Google's products aren't artificially free the way IE was, they just have different revenue sources. Android turns a profit for Google, so it's not really subsidized by its other revenues. And another important part of the MS antitrust lawsuits were that they were bundled with the OS, which they had a monopoly on in the market. Google's closest thing to a monopoly is in search, and you can use search without using Android. The two cases are only superficially similar. I notice, though, that you don't seem to actually advocate any position; you merely attribute accusations of unfairness to "people." If these positions aren't yours or you don't agree with them, why bring them up? If they are your positions, why not state that clearly? Your slippery lack of position just makes me trust your arguments less.
  - recoiledsnake 15y ago
    >But Google's products aren't artificially free the way IE was, they just different revenue sources. Android turns a profit for Google, so it's not really subsidized by its other revenues. http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/25/search-googles-castle-moat/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/25/search-googles-castle-moat/ >And another important part of the MS antitrust lawsuits were that they were bundled with the OS, which they had a monopoly on in the market. Google's closest thing to a monopoly is in search, and you can use search without using Android. >The two cases are only superficially similar. What about this then? http://www.webanalyticsworld.net/2008/01/mapquest-vs-google-maps-google-closing.html http://www.webanalyticsworld.net/2008/01/mapquest-vs-google-... Or Google finance and other Google services?
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - joebadmo 15y ago
      re moat: That's certainly an interesting way to look at it, but it doesn't change the fact that Android does make money, both for Google and for carriers/manufacturers. So, again, it's not an artificially lowered price, and while it certainly augments search, it's not subsidized by search. Your argument for maps and finance is stronger, but the analogy isn't great. For one, Google doesn't have close to the monopoly that MS had. For another, it's really hard to draw the line between the products, and equally hard to say whether Google's use of its search engine to point to its own services is unfair, if it really believes its own products are better. I would characterize their position on this issue as still some distance from MS + IE on the 'fair' to 'unfair' spectrum, but still in 'fair' territory. Of course, I never found the bundling line of argument against IE to be particularly compelling.
      - recoiledsnake 15y ago
        Thanks for the downvotes, HN! >That's certainly an interesting way to look at it, but it doesn't change the fact that Android does make money, both for Google and for carriers/manufacturers. So, again, it's not an artificially lowered price, and while it certainly augments search, it's not subsidized by search. Google's revenue sources from Android are mostly mobile searches that would happen anyway. I bet they make as much if not more from iOS devices. http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/15/google-android-money/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/15/google-android-money/ http://www.mobilespoon.net/2011/07/can-microsoft-generate-more-revenues.html http://www.mobilespoon.net/2011/07/can-microsoft-generate-mo... It's a moat because Google was afraid that it might get locked out of mobile search default (eg. WP7) and while iOS uses Google, what if Apple changes the default to iSearch or Bing? Remember how Apple didn't approve Google voice for iOS for a whole year? Google would be screwed out of mobile search revenue in a big way, esp. if Bing/iSearch/xyz are close enough to Google. >Your argument for maps and finance is stronger, but the analogy isn't great. For one, Google doesn't have close to the monopoly that MS had. For another, it's really hard to draw the line between the products, and equally hard to say whether Google's use of its search engine to point to its own services is unfair, if it really believes its own products are better. I would characterize their position on this issue as still some distance from MS + IE on the 'fair' to 'unfair' spectrum, but still in 'fair' territory. Of course, I never found the bundling line of argument against IE to be particularly compelling. Google has a LOT of marketshare, esp in many non US regions. Eg 91% in UK. http://www.chandlernguyen.com/2011/03/search-engine-market-share-by-country-mar-2011.html http://www.chandlernguyen.com/2011/03/search-engine-market-s... IE was actually better than Netscape in the late 90s, early 2000s. Netscape screwed itself by not releasing a new version during the dotcom boom between 1997 and 2007. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html So the point about Google really believing that it's product was superior doesn't matter. A maps startup would need to be 10x better than Google maps out the game to even get funding since searching on Google for the name of a city doesn't even mention MapQuest, Bing Maps or Yahoo Maps. Would you support a forced default map choice on Google like the one for browsers in EU on Windows?
- recoiledsnake 15y ago
  Even worse than Android and turn-by-turn navigation is the example of the Google search pages pushing people towards Google Maps, Finance, Local and other services. I am sure products like MapQuest etc. have been hurt by the leveraging of monopoly in the same way that Netscape was, but techies seem to believe it's ok since they Google's services. But IE was better than Netscape in those days anyway. It's just that many techies are heavily biased against MS and towards Google and Apple, regardless of the merits of the arguments.
- sek 15y ago
  You are right, the word unfair was not the right choice. What i really meant was the patent system, these software patents are just wrong. It is not fair at all, but as long it just hurts companies who are not able to compete it's the way of the market. What you are referring to is a difficult matter, it is basically the discussion if open source/free software is a bad thing because it kills companies who have to charge for their product. There is a lot of material about this stuff, but i personally think open source is a good thing for society in the long run.
recoiledsnake 15y ago
Your example, Apple is suing many more companies than MS is. >What are you doing on Hacker news? This is all about disrupting industries trough a better product. Android is free so this is obviously an improvement to something you have to pay for, or do you call Linux unfair? Erm... HN has LEGIONS of Apple fans who believe Android illegally ripped off Apple's IP and that it is a plain copy. Gruber gets a LOT of traction on HN on this topic. Are we even reading the same HN?
MartinCron 15y ago
What are you doing on Hacker news? I am going to assume that you didn't mean this to come across as elitist and mean-spirited as I originally read it. Hacker News is also about civility and quality discourse, right?
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

by sek 15y ago

sriramk 15y ago

First, minor nitpick - Apple is going after Android with various lawsuits as well. But let's keep that aside. Contrast these arguments - back in the 90s, MSFT was accused of killing off Netscape by essentially giving away a browser for free using the revenue from Windows and Office. One could argue that Google is doing the same thing, funding Android with its revenues from ads. Let's forget Android for a second -look at turn-by-turn navigation. That's an expensive product to build but Google, by giving it away for free (again, subsidized by its other revenues) and is causing serious trouble to other companies which have the misfortune of not having an alternative revenue source. Is it 'fair' that Google can basically disrupt industries by giving away things for free just because it gets money through another source? You can see how that argument could be made, whether it is right or wrong. I personally don't think any of this is either 'right' or 'wrong'. It's all business between corporate behemoths.

joebadmo 15y ago
But Google's products aren't artificially free the way IE was, they just have different revenue sources. Android turns a profit for Google, so it's not really subsidized by its other revenues. And another important part of the MS antitrust lawsuits were that they were bundled with the OS, which they had a monopoly on in the market. Google's closest thing to a monopoly is in search, and you can use search without using Android. The two cases are only superficially similar. I notice, though, that you don't seem to actually advocate any position; you merely attribute accusations of unfairness to "people." If these positions aren't yours or you don't agree with them, why bring them up? If they are your positions, why not state that clearly? Your slippery lack of position just makes me trust your arguments less.
- recoiledsnake 15y ago
  >But Google's products aren't artificially free the way IE was, they just different revenue sources. Android turns a profit for Google, so it's not really subsidized by its other revenues. http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/25/search-googles-castle-moat/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/25/search-googles-castle-moat/ >And another important part of the MS antitrust lawsuits were that they were bundled with the OS, which they had a monopoly on in the market. Google's closest thing to a monopoly is in search, and you can use search without using Android. >The two cases are only superficially similar. What about this then? http://www.webanalyticsworld.net/2008/01/mapquest-vs-google-maps-google-closing.html http://www.webanalyticsworld.net/2008/01/mapquest-vs-google-... Or Google finance and other Google services?
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - joebadmo 15y ago
    re moat: That's certainly an interesting way to look at it, but it doesn't change the fact that Android does make money, both for Google and for carriers/manufacturers. So, again, it's not an artificially lowered price, and while it certainly augments search, it's not subsidized by search. Your argument for maps and finance is stronger, but the analogy isn't great. For one, Google doesn't have close to the monopoly that MS had. For another, it's really hard to draw the line between the products, and equally hard to say whether Google's use of its search engine to point to its own services is unfair, if it really believes its own products are better. I would characterize their position on this issue as still some distance from MS + IE on the 'fair' to 'unfair' spectrum, but still in 'fair' territory. Of course, I never found the bundling line of argument against IE to be particularly compelling.
    - recoiledsnake 15y ago
      Thanks for the downvotes, HN! >That's certainly an interesting way to look at it, but it doesn't change the fact that Android does make money, both for Google and for carriers/manufacturers. So, again, it's not an artificially lowered price, and while it certainly augments search, it's not subsidized by search. Google's revenue sources from Android are mostly mobile searches that would happen anyway. I bet they make as much if not more from iOS devices. http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/15/google-android-money/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/15/google-android-money/ http://www.mobilespoon.net/2011/07/can-microsoft-generate-more-revenues.html http://www.mobilespoon.net/2011/07/can-microsoft-generate-mo... It's a moat because Google was afraid that it might get locked out of mobile search default (eg. WP7) and while iOS uses Google, what if Apple changes the default to iSearch or Bing? Remember how Apple didn't approve Google voice for iOS for a whole year? Google would be screwed out of mobile search revenue in a big way, esp. if Bing/iSearch/xyz are close enough to Google. >Your argument for maps and finance is stronger, but the analogy isn't great. For one, Google doesn't have close to the monopoly that MS had. For another, it's really hard to draw the line between the products, and equally hard to say whether Google's use of its search engine to point to its own services is unfair, if it really believes its own products are better. I would characterize their position on this issue as still some distance from MS + IE on the 'fair' to 'unfair' spectrum, but still in 'fair' territory. Of course, I never found the bundling line of argument against IE to be particularly compelling. Google has a LOT of marketshare, esp in many non US regions. Eg 91% in UK. http://www.chandlernguyen.com/2011/03/search-engine-market-share-by-country-mar-2011.html http://www.chandlernguyen.com/2011/03/search-engine-market-s... IE was actually better than Netscape in the late 90s, early 2000s. Netscape screwed itself by not releasing a new version during the dotcom boom between 1997 and 2007. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html So the point about Google really believing that it's product was superior doesn't matter. A maps startup would need to be 10x better than Google maps out the game to even get funding since searching on Google for the name of a city doesn't even mention MapQuest, Bing Maps or Yahoo Maps. Would you support a forced default map choice on Google like the one for browsers in EU on Windows?
recoiledsnake 15y ago
Even worse than Android and turn-by-turn navigation is the example of the Google search pages pushing people towards Google Maps, Finance, Local and other services. I am sure products like MapQuest etc. have been hurt by the leveraging of monopoly in the same way that Netscape was, but techies seem to believe it's ok since they Google's services. But IE was better than Netscape in those days anyway. It's just that many techies are heavily biased against MS and towards Google and Apple, regardless of the merits of the arguments.
sek 15y ago
You are right, the word unfair was not the right choice. What i really meant was the patent system, these software patents are just wrong. It is not fair at all, but as long it just hurts companies who are not able to compete it's the way of the market. What you are referring to is a difficult matter, it is basically the discussion if open source/free software is a bad thing because it kills companies who have to charge for their product. There is a lot of material about this stuff, but i personally think open source is a good thing for society in the long run.

recoiledsnake 15y ago

Your example, Apple is suing many more companies than MS is. >What are you doing on Hacker news? This is all about disrupting industries trough a better product. Android is free so this is obviously an improvement to something you have to pay for, or do you call Linux unfair? Erm... HN has LEGIONS of Apple fans who believe Android illegally ripped off Apple's IP and that it is a plain copy. Gruber gets a LOT of traction on HN on this topic. Are we even reading the same HN?

MartinCron 15y ago

What are you doing on Hacker news? I am going to assume that you didn't mean this to come across as elitist and mean-spirited as I originally read it. Hacker News is also about civility and quality discourse, right?

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]