12 ms·

Google paid $8B to make its apps default on Samsung phones

201 points by my12parsecs 3y ago

Bostonian 3y ago
Since the cell phone market is competitive, such payments should be partially passed on to consumers in the form of lower cell phone prices.
- dfadsadsf 3y ago
  One negative is that it likely leads to consolidation - Samsung/Apple are able to extract much higher payments than mid-tier companies. If you are small niche producer, Google is unlikely to even talk to you. Deals are secret and opaque.
- expertentipp 3y ago
  We've officially replaced trickle down economy with trickle up economy. Sustaining certain standard of living on private islands in Hawaii, Bahamas, and Fiji is expensive. The phones will be larger though, that's for certain.
- patmorgan23 3y ago
  If public corporations existed to benefit their customers yes, but they don't they exist to benefit their shareholders. This money will go towards stock buy backs and higher dividends.
- fHr 3y ago
  Surely this will happen at any point in the next 50 years. Even more degenerate society will elect even better and more competent people into office and they will surely look out for the common people. The outlook makes me sad.
crowcroft 3y ago
Between this and the payments to Apple, I wonder where Google would be if they invested another $30b into competing more aggressively... I guess these payments make sense if you believe you can't effectively deliver something good with that money.
- recursive4 3y ago
  My understanding is that this is an example of last mile costs increasing non-linearly i.e. Google has something like 95% of the mobile search market and profits $30b from it, and the cost to acquire that last 5% is >$30b.
- sdfghswe 3y ago
  I believe what's holding google back isn't lack of cash, but lack of innovation. It's full to the brim with highly paid engineers that aren't really invested in change.
  - rvz 3y ago
    So let's see what happens when they are threatened for the first time by Microsoft and OpenAI if Google can afford to spend even more money to prevent the likes of Apple, Samsung and Mozilla from moving from Google to use Bing with GPT 4.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      Well, the big difference between ChatGPT and Google is that one of them is profitable. ChatGPT does not make money, and Bing's usage of GPT-4 is almost certainly not covered by ad revenue (even at-cost). Even from a technical perspective, I'd argue Google outpaces OpenAI. BERT beat GPT-2 and GPT-Neo, T5 and t5-flan bench well against GPT-3, and GPT-4 is so large and wasteful that it's not worth competing against. Relative to the rest of FAANG, Google honestly seems like the only company that actually knows how to use and deploy AI practically. Everyone else is trying to play catch-up with a proprietary competitor and/or pay an unsustainable sum to be king-for-a-day.
      - ffgjgf1 3y ago
        > pay an unsustainable sum to be king-for-a-day. I bet Microsoft can afford to spent unsuspecting amounts for way long than ‘a day’. At a certain point due to cheaper hardware and improved optimization GPT-N might become sustainable, by then their competitors might have issues closing the mile wide gap they have to MS/OpenAI.
expertentipp 3y ago
Now this cute application button doesn't look that innocent anymore, does it?
sdfghswe 3y ago
Maybe stupid question, but..... Would/could this be seen from google's financial statements? My naive understanding is that if the answer is no, then google must've made a conscious effort in financial engineering to hide it.
- freedomben 3y ago
  I'm not an accountant, but I've been on the company side before. You do have to disclose a lot of stuff when you're a public company, but you don't have to itemize in detail. They could probably have simple classified all that money as "Search" or "Search promotion" or something very broad.
- sct202 3y ago
  It's blended into their cost of revenue number with all their other revenue sharing programs (Admob, Adsense, Youtube Creators, etc). From their SEC filings "Cost of revenues is comprised of TAC and other costs of revenues. •TAC includes: ◦Amounts paid to our distribution partners who make available our search access points and services. Our distribution partners include browser providers, mobile carriers, original equipment manufacturers, and software developers. ◦Amounts paid to Google Network partners primarily for ads displayed on their properties. TAC as a percentage of revenues generated from ads placed on Google Network properties are significantly higher than TAC as a percentage of revenues generated from ads placed on Google Search & other properties, because most of the advertiser revenues from ads served on Google Network properties are paid as TAC to our Google Network partners."
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
iamleppert 3y ago
Just goes to show the modern tech game is completely exploited. It’s not even worth it to try.
- rvz 3y ago
  It just shows that the browser game is controlled by Google and aided by Apple. It is also why Mozilla is on life support and is kept alive by Google's money.
- jimbokun 3y ago
  In tech, large successful companies very rarely never lose their existing market. They generally falter when they fail to compete in a new, bigger market that makes their existing market relatively insignificant. IBM didn't lose the main frame market. The Microsoft/Intel PC market just made it pale in comparison. Microsoft never lost the PC OS and apps market. The size of the smartphone market just made the PC market pale by comparison.
peter422 3y ago
I recently installed Windows on my machine and in attempting to download chrome and make Google the default search engine, the OS tried to persuade me not to do it at least 2-3 different ways. I think we can and should be upset at these deals but Google is not the only person pushing their own stuff.
- pyeri 3y ago
  GNU and GNU/Linux are the only systems which respect user privacy and freedoms, this is a classic and practical precedent where adherence to ideology and principles (of commons) clearly demonstrate a resistance to crony capitalism (of big tech, et al). Society, in general, should start moving away from proprietary systems to Linux distros like Debian, Ubuntu, etc. and this change should start from the OEM or manufacturers themselves.
  - drewg123 3y ago
    Please don't forget that there are other, non GNU, operating systems which respect user privacy and choice. The first examples that come to mind are OpenBSD and FreeBSD.
    - pyeri 3y ago
      But sadly, the permissive ones don't have this ideological defense mechanism built into them. That's why Apple was able to eat FreeBSD for a lunch. But there are few exceptions where permissive projects can also sustain and defend themselves provided they're people powered and well organized. Apache Foundation is a great example here. Despite being permissively licensed, they're able to build projects and products with meritocracy which is apparently untainted by big tech influence so far. Mozilla is a another example though their acceptance of Google's royalty is an influence of taint which is pretty much visible in their end product, Firefox.
      - prmoustache 3y ago
        FreeBSD is not worse because Apple used some of its code.
goosedragons 3y ago
Funny that the way to compete with Apple seems to line up with copying their strategy for making more money. I used to be able to buy eBooks direct through the Kindle and other apps until Google decided to force all payments through them. That was a great feature of Android I liked.
- freedomben 3y ago
  Very much agree. That was so blatantly and obviously a copy of Apple's strategy, and was very un-Googley, and it has very negatively affected UX. Not only that but it's stupid, because they torched a very real long-term competitive advantage for a short-term cash grab. They should reverse that immediately. Related Pro-tip: You can sideload the Audible app version 3.18.0 from right before they removed the purchase option, and Audible keeps things stable enough that it still works perfectly. If you can't find a copy, let me know
- loudmax 3y ago
  Really wish some manufacturer would copy Apple's strategy of providing long term software support for their phones.
  - goosedragons 3y ago
    Samsung has been offering four or five years on a bunch of their devices since 2019. Google is offering 7 for the Pixel 8.
    - nicce 3y ago
      Just security updates (on Samsung), and for some flagship products. Eventually some WhatsApp or banking application will change so much, that it wants later Android version and refuses to work. (has happened already) While Apple has provided full software updates for at least 6 years.
      - goosedragons 3y ago
        Not just security updates and not just flagship products. Plenty of lower end devices on that list like the A series. WhatsApp will also run on Android 5 from 2014. The latest version of WhatsApp. It's not the only Android app to do that. Many big popular Android apps only require versions 5 or 6. With iOS you have to be much closer to the latest version of iOS to run anything. A Samsung Galaxy S4 from 2013 can run the latest version of WhatsApp. An iPhone 5S cannot despite all those years of updates. Security updates are just useful for security updates. A device has to be really old before it's typically dropped.
amadeuspagel 3y ago
> Be google > Make free open source operating system. > Forget to protect the brand to ensure that people have to include your apps to call it android. > Pay Samsung to include your apps, which people expect to see in your operating system. > Get sued for anti-trust violation.
- moritonal 3y ago
  Valid. But am I correct in saying that if instead of Google it was instead Android, Chrome and Google Search acting as three separate companies they wouldn't have this problem?
  - amadeuspagel 3y ago
    Chrome wouldn't be viable as a separate company. Android might be at this point with the Play Store, but that's itself a target of the anti-trust suit.
    - realusername 3y ago
      I'm not sure why it would not, just the revenue from the default search engine would be massive.
      - solardev 3y ago
        Post split-up, Google Search could pay Chrome billions to be the default search. Chrome could pay billions to Android to be the default browser. Android could pay billions to the regulators to look the other way. Everyone wins!
        realusername 3y ago
        That looks like the same thing as now but it isn't, there's a lot of motives outside of just the money flowing. Chrome doesn't have an incentive to follow every move benefiting Google anymore, projects such has the recent web integrity disaster would not even exist. Android would have different incentives to diversify its revenue stream and would be more accepting to outsiders.
HlessClaudesman 3y ago
Now the Samsung apps make sense: pay us or we'll force android users to use this crap.
- MikusR 3y ago
  I like when it's clear when a commenter has not the slightest idea what they are talking about.
  - maxwell 3y ago
    What are you talking about? It does seem like the simplest explanation for why Samsung both makes their own Android apps and seems to consistently half-ass them, is because they're meant to serve as leverage for negotiating with Google, not something they expect many end users to actually use.
    - MikusR 3y ago
      Samsung Notes, Reminder, Calendar, Browser are all much better than Google versions. Edit. And I completely forgot Gallery with OneDrive integration.
      - local_crmdgeon 3y ago
        ? They're shovelware. They're remarkably bad software.
        Tarball10 3y ago
        Have you used a recent Samsung phone? They have come a long way from the TouchWiz days.
        dotnet00 3y ago
        Samsung Notes and Calendar are way better than the Google versions. It's kind of baffling to see anyone calling them shovelware. That impression only fits if you haven't used a Samsung device in 5+ years. It's going to be hard to go back to the Google versions after seeing how much better the Samsung versions are.
itissid 3y ago
I will NEVER buy a samsung phone. They have all these backroom deals to put in Services like additional LocationProvider(the underlying service that can be subscribed to for loc updates) for companies that will pay them to get access to location updates differently than other apps can. Like a social media company or an advert company you get that favor for $$$$$. With google you know they control the locationProvider and all apps are equal and google still has priveledged access but its only them(as bad as that is)
- itissid 3y ago
  And remember there is no removing/uninstalling this kind of a service short of wiping the entire OS and installing another Playstore/Open Source alternative.
- jwells89 3y ago
  I might consider a Samsung phone if running third party ROMs on current models were possible/practical, but otherwise I’d agree.
  - porkbeer 3y ago
    You can but its a pain, and onlty some models
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  >I will NEVER buy a samsung phone. Then you're basically out of options for something remotely competitive to Apple in the Android world. - HTC was great but they threw in the towel long time ago. Same with LG. - Google makes some nice phones without bloatware but last few generation Pixels seem to constantly suffering from various SW bugs pushed by Google, have sub-par CPUs and GPUs, poor reception in challenging conditions from the Samsung modems compared to Quallcomm, and suffer high battery drain in comparison to Samsung S series with Qualcomm chips. No go for me. - Sony also makes decent phones on the photography side, but are either overpriced or underpowered, and Sony has a poor track record for supporting their devices more than a few years. No go for me, if I spend big money on a phone I want it to be supported 5+ years at least. - OnePlus used to be a brand I would trust in the past being very happy with the OP 3, bust I got burned with their OP 7T which saw very short SW update period and every update brough more and more bugs they would ignore. No go for me, avoid this brand today like the plague. - The Chinese brands are great value HW wise but full of spyware, dark patterns, and offer very short SW update support, so that's a no go from the start. - Nokia is just selling rebadged Chinese devices with various compromises. Same with Motorola and Blackberry. Nothing worthy of your Euros there. - ASUS makes a small sized Zenfone which I like but costs more than Samsung's similarly sized and specked S23 while offering less years of SW updates. No go for me. - Fairphone would be a good alternative on the repairability, ethical and environmental sides, but those phones are large/bulky as hell, while compromising on performance and photo quality compared to 'non-fair' competitors of the same price. No go for me sadly. Make a smaller phone please. So, who else is left in the race? There seem to be literally no good Android manufacturers left that don't make large compromises or won't screw you in some way down the line eroding your trust post-purchase, as if they're all in a race to the bottom. That's why so many Android users are fed up with this shit show and moved to paying the "Apple tax" over the years.
bushbaba 3y ago
Surprised this is legal (in spirit of law) as it’s clearly anti competitive towards new entrants
- doublerabbit 3y ago
  It's only illegal if you get caught and it's not as anyone goes to jail. Just pay the fine and continue operations.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    For corporations the fine will always be less than the money you made breaking the law anyway so really you'd be foolish not to break the law. The justice department doesn't even care if you do, they just occasionally show up to take their cut of action and put out some feel-good press releases.
swader999 3y ago
Default? More like burned into the metal. It's not easy to remove or replace it on Samsung.
fasthands9 3y ago
I still am confused as to whether or not Google would be happier if these types of payments were banned for everyone. It seems like the only reason Google paid 8B, is because another company would have paid 7B otherwise. If Samsung was told "You can't let anyone pay you - have to show a screen with four competitors and let the user pick which one they want as default" I assume the vast majority of people would just pick Google?
- healsdata 3y ago
  Doesn't the EU require a selection screen? And the manufacturers hold auctions to win space on the selection screen instead? Because listing 100+ options wouldn't be good UX either.
  - bad_user 3y ago
    > Doesn't the EU require a selection screen? No, that was for Microsoft, in the past.
    - vitorgrs 3y ago
      No, it is required for Search in EU. https://www.android.com/choicescreen/ https://www.android.com/choicescreen/
      - bad_user 3y ago
        Interesting. Thanks for the correction.
- jaynetics 3y ago
  Would one selection screen do or how many would you need? It seems like no other single competitor offers everything people want on their Android phone (app store, browser, calendar, cloud storage, contacts, payment, maps, mails, translation, ...).
  - 3y ago
bastard_op 3y ago
Who's pimping who, Chaebol vs. Google. Everyone else loses.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
vouaobrasil 3y ago
100% should be illegal. And moreover, Google should be required to pay 8B fine for doing this.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
effingwewt 3y ago
And this is the real reason they lock the bootloader to stop rooting our phones. Gapps takes up I don't even know how many gigs of space. Then Samsung decides to put their apps on top of the gapps and all the other garbage they stop us from uninstalling. We need to own the things we buy. Period.
- kllrnohj 3y ago
  > And this is the real reason they lock the bootloader to stop rooting our phones. No it isn't that's a ridiculous position to take. Also every Google phone for the last decade has had an unlockable bootloader. Take it up with Samsung if they refuse to do the same, although a quick internet search suggests many of the recent generations of Samsung devices also have unlockable bootloaders.
  - effingwewt 3y ago
    What's ridiculous is trusting a PR release from either of thwse companies. Samsung locks all of their bootloaders citing as always 'security. I own currently the Samsung s20+ and the Samsung s21 ultra and all the models of both phones have locked bootloaders and Samsung's garbage, unused Knox security. Samsung at one point had a hardware fuse that blew if you tried to bypass it. I speak from first hand knowledge of working on hardware and rooting phones since they were introduced. We've known for a decade or more now that was all of this was bullshit to preserve all the pre-loaded bloatware. Google phones having unlocked bootloaders is besides the point. Google phones aren't being discussed here, Samsung are. You simply stated my position was ridiculous without offering a single cogent counterpoint.
    - my123 3y ago
      Samsung devices in non-US locales don't have locked bootloaders. You can import a Galaxy phone from Hong Kong or the EU for example. The lockdown in the US seems to be driven by carriers
      - effingwewt 3y ago
sparksniffer 3y ago
its actually about a government agent man being able to sit down and look on any phone that has google on it. than it is for anything else. 8b is chump change when its not your money.
zelphirkalt 3y ago
Here we can see, what Google thinks such things are worth. Next time we see an anti-trust case or other case that touches this matter, we can conclude an appropriate height of a fine for Google to pay.
6510 3y ago
YaCy, being a distributed search engine gets results from many sources. Since you cant trust anyone it crawls each result looking for the keywords (if I remembered correctly) Thus, we can have multiple search providers (and multiple gui's) Subscription based ones with free indexing, free ones with subscription based indexing, ones with a subscription for results and for indexing and ones with free indexing and results for free. Providers can still insert spam into their result but it will have to be marked as advertisement and will quite appropriately be moved to the spam tab or removed entirely.
bad_user 3y ago
Not sure what the folks at Epic are smoking, but Android devices without Google Play are failures, and it's how Google forced their other apps on device makers as well. Google may have paid $8B to Samsung, but I wonder what the effects were, as I own multiple Samsung devices, and the Google apps are not defaults. Except for Google Play, I don't remember any others. Was it something like "here's $8B so you don't feel bad about us coercing you?"
h_tbob 3y ago
I'm sad that the little guys can't compete. I thought for a moment though that maybe this is less bad than Apple saying "nobody can even touch ios?" Does anyone think Apple is being more evil? I mean at least Google lets other people use it's OS and then pays them to get on it. Am I making sense or is this just crazy talk? I feel like copyright is the worst form of big corp. Why don't governments get rid of it, then we are all equals. I mean yeah, you can't become a billionaire without it, but isn't that kind of the goal - everybody treated fairly? I know this is a hot topic, and I don't mean to cause a war, but I don't get why Apple is considered great when at least Google is sharing their code and paying to still be on the platform.
t0bia_s 3y ago
Well... Samsung phones are mostly compatible with LineageOS. Only reason, why I buy used Samsung phones. Build quality and AMOLED screens are perfect. With LineageOS I can use Android completely degoogled, which I have about 4 years now.

201 points by my12parsecs 3y ago

Since the cell phone market is competitive, such payments should be partially passed on to consumers in the form of lower cell phone prices.

dfadsadsf 3y ago
One negative is that it likely leads to consolidation - Samsung/Apple are able to extract much higher payments than mid-tier companies. If you are small niche producer, Google is unlikely to even talk to you. Deals are secret and opaque.
expertentipp 3y ago
We've officially replaced trickle down economy with trickle up economy. Sustaining certain standard of living on private islands in Hawaii, Bahamas, and Fiji is expensive. The phones will be larger though, that's for certain.
patmorgan23 3y ago
If public corporations existed to benefit their customers yes, but they don't they exist to benefit their shareholders. This money will go towards stock buy backs and higher dividends.
fHr 3y ago
Surely this will happen at any point in the next 50 years. Even more degenerate society will elect even better and more competent people into office and they will surely look out for the common people. The outlook makes me sad.

crowcroft 3y ago

Between this and the payments to Apple, I wonder where Google would be if they invested another $30b into competing more aggressively... I guess these payments make sense if you believe you can't effectively deliver something good with that money.

recursive4 3y ago
My understanding is that this is an example of last mile costs increasing non-linearly i.e. Google has something like 95% of the mobile search market and profits $30b from it, and the cost to acquire that last 5% is >$30b.
sdfghswe 3y ago
I believe what's holding google back isn't lack of cash, but lack of innovation. It's full to the brim with highly paid engineers that aren't really invested in change.
- rvz 3y ago
  So let's see what happens when they are threatened for the first time by Microsoft and OpenAI if Google can afford to spend even more money to prevent the likes of Apple, Samsung and Mozilla from moving from Google to use Bing with GPT 4.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    Well, the big difference between ChatGPT and Google is that one of them is profitable. ChatGPT does not make money, and Bing's usage of GPT-4 is almost certainly not covered by ad revenue (even at-cost). Even from a technical perspective, I'd argue Google outpaces OpenAI. BERT beat GPT-2 and GPT-Neo, T5 and t5-flan bench well against GPT-3, and GPT-4 is so large and wasteful that it's not worth competing against. Relative to the rest of FAANG, Google honestly seems like the only company that actually knows how to use and deploy AI practically. Everyone else is trying to play catch-up with a proprietary competitor and/or pay an unsustainable sum to be king-for-a-day.
    - ffgjgf1 3y ago
      > pay an unsustainable sum to be king-for-a-day. I bet Microsoft can afford to spent unsuspecting amounts for way long than ‘a day’. At a certain point due to cheaper hardware and improved optimization GPT-N might become sustainable, by then their competitors might have issues closing the mile wide gap they have to MS/OpenAI.

expertentipp 3y ago

Now this cute application button doesn't look that innocent anymore, does it?

sdfghswe 3y ago

Maybe stupid question, but..... Would/could this be seen from google's financial statements? My naive understanding is that if the answer is no, then google must've made a conscious effort in financial engineering to hide it.

freedomben 3y ago
I'm not an accountant, but I've been on the company side before. You do have to disclose a lot of stuff when you're a public company, but you don't have to itemize in detail. They could probably have simple classified all that money as "Search" or "Search promotion" or something very broad.
sct202 3y ago
It's blended into their cost of revenue number with all their other revenue sharing programs (Admob, Adsense, Youtube Creators, etc). From their SEC filings "Cost of revenues is comprised of TAC and other costs of revenues. •TAC includes: ◦Amounts paid to our distribution partners who make available our search access points and services. Our distribution partners include browser providers, mobile carriers, original equipment manufacturers, and software developers. ◦Amounts paid to Google Network partners primarily for ads displayed on their properties. TAC as a percentage of revenues generated from ads placed on Google Network properties are significantly higher than TAC as a percentage of revenues generated from ads placed on Google Search & other properties, because most of the advertiser revenues from ads served on Google Network properties are paid as TAC to our Google Network partners."
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

iamleppert 3y ago

Just goes to show the modern tech game is completely exploited. It’s not even worth it to try.

rvz 3y ago
It just shows that the browser game is controlled by Google and aided by Apple. It is also why Mozilla is on life support and is kept alive by Google's money.
jimbokun 3y ago
In tech, large successful companies very rarely never lose their existing market. They generally falter when they fail to compete in a new, bigger market that makes their existing market relatively insignificant. IBM didn't lose the main frame market. The Microsoft/Intel PC market just made it pale in comparison. Microsoft never lost the PC OS and apps market. The size of the smartphone market just made the PC market pale by comparison.

peter422 3y ago

I recently installed Windows on my machine and in attempting to download chrome and make Google the default search engine, the OS tried to persuade me not to do it at least 2-3 different ways. I think we can and should be upset at these deals but Google is not the only person pushing their own stuff.

pyeri 3y ago
GNU and GNU/Linux are the only systems which respect user privacy and freedoms, this is a classic and practical precedent where adherence to ideology and principles (of commons) clearly demonstrate a resistance to crony capitalism (of big tech, et al). Society, in general, should start moving away from proprietary systems to Linux distros like Debian, Ubuntu, etc. and this change should start from the OEM or manufacturers themselves.
- drewg123 3y ago
  Please don't forget that there are other, non GNU, operating systems which respect user privacy and choice. The first examples that come to mind are OpenBSD and FreeBSD.
  - pyeri 3y ago
    But sadly, the permissive ones don't have this ideological defense mechanism built into them. That's why Apple was able to eat FreeBSD for a lunch. But there are few exceptions where permissive projects can also sustain and defend themselves provided they're people powered and well organized. Apache Foundation is a great example here. Despite being permissively licensed, they're able to build projects and products with meritocracy which is apparently untainted by big tech influence so far. Mozilla is a another example though their acceptance of Google's royalty is an influence of taint which is pretty much visible in their end product, Firefox.
    - prmoustache 3y ago
      FreeBSD is not worse because Apple used some of its code.

goosedragons 3y ago

Funny that the way to compete with Apple seems to line up with copying their strategy for making more money. I used to be able to buy eBooks direct through the Kindle and other apps until Google decided to force all payments through them. That was a great feature of Android I liked.

freedomben 3y ago
Very much agree. That was so blatantly and obviously a copy of Apple's strategy, and was very un-Googley, and it has very negatively affected UX. Not only that but it's stupid, because they torched a very real long-term competitive advantage for a short-term cash grab. They should reverse that immediately. Related Pro-tip: You can sideload the Audible app version 3.18.0 from right before they removed the purchase option, and Audible keeps things stable enough that it still works perfectly. If you can't find a copy, let me know
loudmax 3y ago
Really wish some manufacturer would copy Apple's strategy of providing long term software support for their phones.
- goosedragons 3y ago
  Samsung has been offering four or five years on a bunch of their devices since 2019. Google is offering 7 for the Pixel 8.
  - nicce 3y ago
    Just security updates (on Samsung), and for some flagship products. Eventually some WhatsApp or banking application will change so much, that it wants later Android version and refuses to work. (has happened already) While Apple has provided full software updates for at least 6 years.
    - goosedragons 3y ago
      Not just security updates and not just flagship products. Plenty of lower end devices on that list like the A series. WhatsApp will also run on Android 5 from 2014. The latest version of WhatsApp. It's not the only Android app to do that. Many big popular Android apps only require versions 5 or 6. With iOS you have to be much closer to the latest version of iOS to run anything. A Samsung Galaxy S4 from 2013 can run the latest version of WhatsApp. An iPhone 5S cannot despite all those years of updates. Security updates are just useful for security updates. A device has to be really old before it's typically dropped.

amadeuspagel 3y ago

> Be google > Make free open source operating system. > Forget to protect the brand to ensure that people have to include your apps to call it android. > Pay Samsung to include your apps, which people expect to see in your operating system. > Get sued for anti-trust violation.

moritonal 3y ago
Valid. But am I correct in saying that if instead of Google it was instead Android, Chrome and Google Search acting as three separate companies they wouldn't have this problem?
- amadeuspagel 3y ago
  Chrome wouldn't be viable as a separate company. Android might be at this point with the Play Store, but that's itself a target of the anti-trust suit.
  - realusername 3y ago
    I'm not sure why it would not, just the revenue from the default search engine would be massive.
    - solardev 3y ago
      Post split-up, Google Search could pay Chrome billions to be the default search. Chrome could pay billions to Android to be the default browser. Android could pay billions to the regulators to look the other way. Everyone wins!
      - realusername 3y ago
        That looks like the same thing as now but it isn't, there's a lot of motives outside of just the money flowing. Chrome doesn't have an incentive to follow every move benefiting Google anymore, projects such has the recent web integrity disaster would not even exist. Android would have different incentives to diversify its revenue stream and would be more accepting to outsiders.

HlessClaudesman 3y ago

Now the Samsung apps make sense: pay us or we'll force android users to use this crap.

MikusR 3y ago
I like when it's clear when a commenter has not the slightest idea what they are talking about.
- maxwell 3y ago
  What are you talking about? It does seem like the simplest explanation for why Samsung both makes their own Android apps and seems to consistently half-ass them, is because they're meant to serve as leverage for negotiating with Google, not something they expect many end users to actually use.
  - MikusR 3y ago
    Samsung Notes, Reminder, Calendar, Browser are all much better than Google versions. Edit. And I completely forgot Gallery with OneDrive integration.
    - local_crmdgeon 3y ago
      ? They're shovelware. They're remarkably bad software.
      - Tarball10 3y ago
        Have you used a recent Samsung phone? They have come a long way from the TouchWiz days.
      - dotnet00 3y ago
        Samsung Notes and Calendar are way better than the Google versions. It's kind of baffling to see anyone calling them shovelware. That impression only fits if you haven't used a Samsung device in 5+ years. It's going to be hard to go back to the Google versions after seeing how much better the Samsung versions are.

itissid 3y ago

I will NEVER buy a samsung phone. They have all these backroom deals to put in Services like additional LocationProvider(the underlying service that can be subscribed to for loc updates) for companies that will pay them to get access to location updates differently than other apps can. Like a social media company or an advert company you get that favor for $$$$$. With google you know they control the locationProvider and all apps are equal and google still has priveledged access but its only them(as bad as that is)

itissid 3y ago
And remember there is no removing/uninstalling this kind of a service short of wiping the entire OS and installing another Playstore/Open Source alternative.
jwells89 3y ago
I might consider a Samsung phone if running third party ROMs on current models were possible/practical, but otherwise I’d agree.
- porkbeer 3y ago
  You can but its a pain, and onlty some models
FirmwareBurner 3y ago
>I will NEVER buy a samsung phone. Then you're basically out of options for something remotely competitive to Apple in the Android world. - HTC was great but they threw in the towel long time ago. Same with LG. - Google makes some nice phones without bloatware but last few generation Pixels seem to constantly suffering from various SW bugs pushed by Google, have sub-par CPUs and GPUs, poor reception in challenging conditions from the Samsung modems compared to Quallcomm, and suffer high battery drain in comparison to Samsung S series with Qualcomm chips. No go for me. - Sony also makes decent phones on the photography side, but are either overpriced or underpowered, and Sony has a poor track record for supporting their devices more than a few years. No go for me, if I spend big money on a phone I want it to be supported 5+ years at least. - OnePlus used to be a brand I would trust in the past being very happy with the OP 3, bust I got burned with their OP 7T which saw very short SW update period and every update brough more and more bugs they would ignore. No go for me, avoid this brand today like the plague. - The Chinese brands are great value HW wise but full of spyware, dark patterns, and offer very short SW update support, so that's a no go from the start. - Nokia is just selling rebadged Chinese devices with various compromises. Same with Motorola and Blackberry. Nothing worthy of your Euros there. - ASUS makes a small sized Zenfone which I like but costs more than Samsung's similarly sized and specked S23 while offering less years of SW updates. No go for me. - Fairphone would be a good alternative on the repairability, ethical and environmental sides, but those phones are large/bulky as hell, while compromising on performance and photo quality compared to 'non-fair' competitors of the same price. No go for me sadly. Make a smaller phone please. So, who else is left in the race? There seem to be literally no good Android manufacturers left that don't make large compromises or won't screw you in some way down the line eroding your trust post-purchase, as if they're all in a race to the bottom. That's why so many Android users are fed up with this shit show and moved to paying the "Apple tax" over the years.

bushbaba 3y ago

Surprised this is legal (in spirit of law) as it’s clearly anti competitive towards new entrants

doublerabbit 3y ago
It's only illegal if you get caught and it's not as anyone goes to jail. Just pay the fine and continue operations.
- autoexec 3y ago
  For corporations the fine will always be less than the money you made breaking the law anyway so really you'd be foolish not to break the law. The justice department doesn't even care if you do, they just occasionally show up to take their cut of action and put out some feel-good press releases.

swader999 3y ago

Default? More like burned into the metal. It's not easy to remove or replace it on Samsung.

fasthands9 3y ago

I still am confused as to whether or not Google would be happier if these types of payments were banned for everyone. It seems like the only reason Google paid 8B, is because another company would have paid 7B otherwise. If Samsung was told "You can't let anyone pay you - have to show a screen with four competitors and let the user pick which one they want as default" I assume the vast majority of people would just pick Google?

healsdata 3y ago
Doesn't the EU require a selection screen? And the manufacturers hold auctions to win space on the selection screen instead? Because listing 100+ options wouldn't be good UX either.
- bad_user 3y ago
  > Doesn't the EU require a selection screen? No, that was for Microsoft, in the past.
  - vitorgrs 3y ago
    No, it is required for Search in EU. https://www.android.com/choicescreen/ https://www.android.com/choicescreen/
    - bad_user 3y ago
      Interesting. Thanks for the correction.
jaynetics 3y ago
Would one selection screen do or how many would you need? It seems like no other single competitor offers everything people want on their Android phone (app store, browser, calendar, cloud storage, contacts, payment, maps, mails, translation, ...).
- 3y ago

bastard_op 3y ago

Who's pimping who, Chaebol vs. Google. Everyone else loses.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

vouaobrasil 3y ago

100% should be illegal. And moreover, Google should be required to pay 8B fine for doing this.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

effingwewt 3y ago

And this is the real reason they lock the bootloader to stop rooting our phones. Gapps takes up I don't even know how many gigs of space. Then Samsung decides to put their apps on top of the gapps and all the other garbage they stop us from uninstalling. We need to own the things we buy. Period.

kllrnohj 3y ago
> And this is the real reason they lock the bootloader to stop rooting our phones. No it isn't that's a ridiculous position to take. Also every Google phone for the last decade has had an unlockable bootloader. Take it up with Samsung if they refuse to do the same, although a quick internet search suggests many of the recent generations of Samsung devices also have unlockable bootloaders.
- effingwewt 3y ago
  What's ridiculous is trusting a PR release from either of thwse companies. Samsung locks all of their bootloaders citing as always 'security. I own currently the Samsung s20+ and the Samsung s21 ultra and all the models of both phones have locked bootloaders and Samsung's garbage, unused Knox security. Samsung at one point had a hardware fuse that blew if you tried to bypass it. I speak from first hand knowledge of working on hardware and rooting phones since they were introduced. We've known for a decade or more now that was all of this was bullshit to preserve all the pre-loaded bloatware. Google phones having unlocked bootloaders is besides the point. Google phones aren't being discussed here, Samsung are. You simply stated my position was ridiculous without offering a single cogent counterpoint.
  - my123 3y ago
    Samsung devices in non-US locales don't have locked bootloaders. You can import a Galaxy phone from Hong Kong or the EU for example. The lockdown in the US seems to be driven by carriers
    - effingwewt 3y ago

sparksniffer 3y ago

its actually about a government agent man being able to sit down and look on any phone that has google on it. than it is for anything else. 8b is chump change when its not your money.

zelphirkalt 3y ago

Here we can see, what Google thinks such things are worth. Next time we see an anti-trust case or other case that touches this matter, we can conclude an appropriate height of a fine for Google to pay.

6510 3y ago

YaCy, being a distributed search engine gets results from many sources. Since you cant trust anyone it crawls each result looking for the keywords (if I remembered correctly) Thus, we can have multiple search providers (and multiple gui's) Subscription based ones with free indexing, free ones with subscription based indexing, ones with a subscription for results and for indexing and ones with free indexing and results for free. Providers can still insert spam into their result but it will have to be marked as advertisement and will quite appropriately be moved to the spam tab or removed entirely.

bad_user 3y ago

Not sure what the folks at Epic are smoking, but Android devices without Google Play are failures, and it's how Google forced their other apps on device makers as well. Google may have paid $8B to Samsung, but I wonder what the effects were, as I own multiple Samsung devices, and the Google apps are not defaults. Except for Google Play, I don't remember any others. Was it something like "here's $8B so you don't feel bad about us coercing you?"

h_tbob 3y ago

I'm sad that the little guys can't compete. I thought for a moment though that maybe this is less bad than Apple saying "nobody can even touch ios?" Does anyone think Apple is being more evil? I mean at least Google lets other people use it's OS and then pays them to get on it. Am I making sense or is this just crazy talk? I feel like copyright is the worst form of big corp. Why don't governments get rid of it, then we are all equals. I mean yeah, you can't become a billionaire without it, but isn't that kind of the goal - everybody treated fairly? I know this is a hot topic, and I don't mean to cause a war, but I don't get why Apple is considered great when at least Google is sharing their code and paying to still be on the platform.

t0bia_s 3y ago

Well... Samsung phones are mostly compatible with LineageOS. Only reason, why I buy used Samsung phones. Build quality and AMOLED screens are perfect. With LineageOS I can use Android completely degoogled, which I have about 4 years now.