4 ms·

> 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

> 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.
        solardev 3y ago
        OK, going to try to be serious for a sec :) I hear what you're saying, that allowing these newly-formed companies to control their own destinies would allow them to pursue other sources of revenue that's not so user-hostile. I can believe that in the short term. However, I don't think that can really last over the long term. It seems like every big company eventually trends towards integrated monopoly, and when they get there and get broken up, another one will rise and take its place. Google today was Microsoft not so long ago, and probably Apple in the not-so-distant future. I don't know who the next upstart monopoly is after them, but it seems like this sort of cohesive, all-encompassing business model has synergies and efficiencies of scale that smaller independent companies just can't match. Chrome, Android, and the rest of the Google ecosystem all feed into each other, each creating value and lock-in for their peers. It's the same approach used by every major ecosystem vendor, whether that's Google or Apple or MS or Samsung or AWS. And in so doing, they crushed every independent browser vendor, every independent phone vendor, every independent cloud vendor, every independent search engine, every independent smart home vendor, etc. From the business side, all that money helps subsidize upstart business units, all that data and staff helps each unit perform better than their smaller peers, and that name recognition gives them a built-in customer base. Even from the user side, there is a lot of simplicity gained from "one login to do everything I need online". I don't think that fundamental dynamic is going to change, and regulators will never be able to keep up with new monopolies. They can form in half a decade or so, whereas anti-trust enforcement takes decades (and multiple administrations, typically having to wait for a blue cycle). I'm not much of a capitalist, and it saddens me that this is the reality. The public is always playing catch-up, first enabling these huge mega-corps, then slowly finding they've grown too big, and only then trying to do something about it... but by then, another challenger is already in the works and the cycle begins anew. I wish there were a "good enough" public alternative for these pieces of fundamental digital infrastructure: a publicly-owned-and-operated messaging network, free email services, social network, online storage, calendar, etc., kinda like how we build roads and bridges. When we depend on huge companies and small volunteer efforts to provide our digital essentials, the huge companies are always going to win. Sigh. Just thinking out loud...
        realusername 3y ago
FirmwareBurner 3y ago
> Forget to protect the brand to ensure that people have to include your apps to call it android. LOL, that's such a wrong take I'm surprised it got so many upvotes. Google didn't forget anything. 1. If Google would have forced their own apps on all manufacturers then they would have been 100% hit by antitrust regulators over this obvious breach, plus manufacturers might not have went the Android route back then, so leaving some room for the manufacturers, went a along way to encourage everyone to trust Google and go on board the Android train, instead of feeling they'll be Google's hardware lapdogs 2. Google is already protected enough by forcing Play services on all Android devices thereby getting a cut on all playstore purchases and ad targeting. They're not stupid. Google is exactly where they wanted to be.
- i_have_an_idea 3y ago
  > 1. If Google would force Google apps on all manufacturers then they might not have went the Android route. What route would they have taken? Symbian? BlackBerry OS?
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    When we can explore multiverses we could also look into that.
  - isodev 3y ago
    They might have tried to be a social network... or a chat app, I mean _one_ chat app.
  - rchaud 3y ago
    Any of them? In 2008, they all had more market share than Android and were all in active development. Android won because they followed the Windows Mobile model of letting OEMs run the OS with their own hardware and UI flavor. The first successful Android device was the Motorola Droid which had a Blackberry/HTC-like hardware keyboard. Later devices like the Moto Atrix offered a desktop environment inside Android when hooked up to a monitor. This idea was later extended by Samsung with Dex Mode. That is what OEMs wanted. They didn't want to be an interchangeable manufacturer competing on price, which is what happened to Windows PC makers.
jimbokun 3y ago
With additional restrictions maybe it doesn't become the default OS on every non-Apple phone.
HaZeust 3y ago
>my monopoly face when
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
callalex 3y ago
What are you quoting?
- fkyoureadthedoc 3y ago
  > not knowing what greentext is > could have been one of the lucky 10k > get's obtuse greentext reply instead yfw

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.
      - solardev 3y ago
        OK, going to try to be serious for a sec :) I hear what you're saying, that allowing these newly-formed companies to control their own destinies would allow them to pursue other sources of revenue that's not so user-hostile. I can believe that in the short term. However, I don't think that can really last over the long term. It seems like every big company eventually trends towards integrated monopoly, and when they get there and get broken up, another one will rise and take its place. Google today was Microsoft not so long ago, and probably Apple in the not-so-distant future. I don't know who the next upstart monopoly is after them, but it seems like this sort of cohesive, all-encompassing business model has synergies and efficiencies of scale that smaller independent companies just can't match. Chrome, Android, and the rest of the Google ecosystem all feed into each other, each creating value and lock-in for their peers. It's the same approach used by every major ecosystem vendor, whether that's Google or Apple or MS or Samsung or AWS. And in so doing, they crushed every independent browser vendor, every independent phone vendor, every independent cloud vendor, every independent search engine, every independent smart home vendor, etc. From the business side, all that money helps subsidize upstart business units, all that data and staff helps each unit perform better than their smaller peers, and that name recognition gives them a built-in customer base. Even from the user side, there is a lot of simplicity gained from "one login to do everything I need online". I don't think that fundamental dynamic is going to change, and regulators will never be able to keep up with new monopolies. They can form in half a decade or so, whereas anti-trust enforcement takes decades (and multiple administrations, typically having to wait for a blue cycle). I'm not much of a capitalist, and it saddens me that this is the reality. The public is always playing catch-up, first enabling these huge mega-corps, then slowly finding they've grown too big, and only then trying to do something about it... but by then, another challenger is already in the works and the cycle begins anew. I wish there were a "good enough" public alternative for these pieces of fundamental digital infrastructure: a publicly-owned-and-operated messaging network, free email services, social network, online storage, calendar, etc., kinda like how we build roads and bridges. When we depend on huge companies and small volunteer efforts to provide our digital essentials, the huge companies are always going to win. Sigh. Just thinking out loud...
        realusername 3y ago

FirmwareBurner 3y ago

> Forget to protect the brand to ensure that people have to include your apps to call it android. LOL, that's such a wrong take I'm surprised it got so many upvotes. Google didn't forget anything. 1. If Google would have forced their own apps on all manufacturers then they would have been 100% hit by antitrust regulators over this obvious breach, plus manufacturers might not have went the Android route back then, so leaving some room for the manufacturers, went a along way to encourage everyone to trust Google and go on board the Android train, instead of feeling they'll be Google's hardware lapdogs 2. Google is already protected enough by forcing Play services on all Android devices thereby getting a cut on all playstore purchases and ad targeting. They're not stupid. Google is exactly where they wanted to be.

i_have_an_idea 3y ago
> 1. If Google would force Google apps on all manufacturers then they might not have went the Android route. What route would they have taken? Symbian? BlackBerry OS?
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  When we can explore multiverses we could also look into that.
- isodev 3y ago
  They might have tried to be a social network... or a chat app, I mean _one_ chat app.
- rchaud 3y ago
  Any of them? In 2008, they all had more market share than Android and were all in active development. Android won because they followed the Windows Mobile model of letting OEMs run the OS with their own hardware and UI flavor. The first successful Android device was the Motorola Droid which had a Blackberry/HTC-like hardware keyboard. Later devices like the Moto Atrix offered a desktop environment inside Android when hooked up to a monitor. This idea was later extended by Samsung with Dex Mode. That is what OEMs wanted. They didn't want to be an interchangeable manufacturer competing on price, which is what happened to Windows PC makers.

jimbokun 3y ago

With additional restrictions maybe it doesn't become the default OS on every non-Apple phone.

HaZeust 3y ago

>my monopoly face when

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

callalex 3y ago

What are you quoting?

fkyoureadthedoc 3y ago
> not knowing what greentext is > could have been one of the lucky 10k > get's obtuse greentext reply instead yfw