4 ms·

Your point is more than fair, but at this point, does anyone not know the deal with Apple (and Google and Microsoft for that matter?) All these companies are l

by earl 14y ago

Your point is more than fair, but at this point, does anyone not know the deal with Apple (and Google and Microsoft for that matter?) All these companies are looking out for #1. If it becomes in their interests to screw you, look out. Apple: examples too numerous to mention. Microsoft: the whole world by delaying the internet for 6-10 years by killing off all alternate browsers then stopping any development. Everyone who purchased a computer basically ever by forcing manufacturers to always buy their OS no matter what they sold on the computer. Google: skyhook, google+, dropbox, etc.

raganwald 14y ago
does anyone not know the deal with Apple Hopefully very few. I wrote that at the end of 2004, and it seems simpler to link to it than to repeat the same old, same old arguments all over again.
hristov 14y ago
Google may create a competitor but will not try to prevent you from doing your own thing. That is really the most you can hope for. You cannot honestly expect another company to not enter your business because you thought of it first (except if you have a patent of course). But Google will not use any of its substantial infrastructure to prevent you from doing your own business. They will still list you in the search results, offer your software in the android store, allow you to buy ads, etc. This is very different from what is happening here.
- earl 14y ago
  One of the examples I gave, Skyhook, so clearly contradicts your entire post that I have to assume you're intentionally lying. Because that was exactly google preventing someone from executing their business essentially via blackmail. See also their negotiations with Yelp / scraping their results. Oh, and twitter results. So all in all, bullshit.
  - hristov 14y ago
    None of these are examples of Google shutting someone out of their channels. All of these companies can be found on google search and can offer apps on the android marketplace. And I am sure they can also advertise on adsense if they wanted to. Twitter wanted Google to pay them hundreds of millions of dollars for the right to search tweets. Google was paying that money, but then Twitter wanted to increase the fee and Google refused. But again, if they wanted to have their tweets indexed by google on the same terms as everyone else (i.e., for free) they could.
    - earl 14y ago
      Google told Motorola if they used Skyhook then their devices wouldn't be android compatible. [1] And from emails: one email quotes an Android manager saying it was obvious to phone manufacturers that "we are using compatibility as a club to make them do things we want." [1] I'm sure you can come up with some way this wasn't Google shutting someone out of their channels... but please. Because everyone involved believes that was the case: Motorola flat-out told Skyhook that Android devices are "approved essentially at Google's discretion," and that Moto couldn't afford to risk its relationship with Google. Motorola also told Skyhook that its carrier agreements require Google's apps be preloaded on its phones, so Google's compatibility decision was doubly important -- if Motorola shipped software that didn't have Google's blessing (and apps), it would immediately violate its contracts with carriers. [2] So Motorola can't use Skyhook's software because google used their control over Motorola's ability to include other google apps to screw Skyhook. Now, the lawsuit will decide whether this was legal, but it sure as hell was "Google shutting someone out of their channels." [1] http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/10/internal-emails-reveal-googles-desperation-over-skyhooks-andro/ http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/10/internal-emails-reveal-go... [2] http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-lawsuit-motorola-samsung/ http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-la...
      - fennecfoxen 14y ago
        There's a difference between "We as a handset-manufacturer can't enter into a business relationship where we preload this on our phones, because we've got an extant business relationship with Google which would be threatened" and "users are not permitted to install this from the app store ever at all because we're locking them out to steal their business." Apples, oranges, and all that.

by earl 14y ago

raganwald 14y ago

does anyone not know the deal with Apple Hopefully very few. I wrote that at the end of 2004, and it seems simpler to link to it than to repeat the same old, same old arguments all over again.

hristov 14y ago

Google may create a competitor but will not try to prevent you from doing your own thing. That is really the most you can hope for. You cannot honestly expect another company to not enter your business because you thought of it first (except if you have a patent of course). But Google will not use any of its substantial infrastructure to prevent you from doing your own business. They will still list you in the search results, offer your software in the android store, allow you to buy ads, etc. This is very different from what is happening here.

earl 14y ago
One of the examples I gave, Skyhook, so clearly contradicts your entire post that I have to assume you're intentionally lying. Because that was exactly google preventing someone from executing their business essentially via blackmail. See also their negotiations with Yelp / scraping their results. Oh, and twitter results. So all in all, bullshit.
- hristov 14y ago
  None of these are examples of Google shutting someone out of their channels. All of these companies can be found on google search and can offer apps on the android marketplace. And I am sure they can also advertise on adsense if they wanted to. Twitter wanted Google to pay them hundreds of millions of dollars for the right to search tweets. Google was paying that money, but then Twitter wanted to increase the fee and Google refused. But again, if they wanted to have their tweets indexed by google on the same terms as everyone else (i.e., for free) they could.
  - earl 14y ago
    Google told Motorola if they used Skyhook then their devices wouldn't be android compatible. [1] And from emails: one email quotes an Android manager saying it was obvious to phone manufacturers that "we are using compatibility as a club to make them do things we want." [1] I'm sure you can come up with some way this wasn't Google shutting someone out of their channels... but please. Because everyone involved believes that was the case: Motorola flat-out told Skyhook that Android devices are "approved essentially at Google's discretion," and that Moto couldn't afford to risk its relationship with Google. Motorola also told Skyhook that its carrier agreements require Google's apps be preloaded on its phones, so Google's compatibility decision was doubly important -- if Motorola shipped software that didn't have Google's blessing (and apps), it would immediately violate its contracts with carriers. [2] So Motorola can't use Skyhook's software because google used their control over Motorola's ability to include other google apps to screw Skyhook. Now, the lawsuit will decide whether this was legal, but it sure as hell was "Google shutting someone out of their channels." [1] http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/10/internal-emails-reveal-googles-desperation-over-skyhooks-andro/ http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/10/internal-emails-reveal-go... [2] http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-lawsuit-motorola-samsung/ http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-la...
    - fennecfoxen 14y ago
      There's a difference between "We as a handset-manufacturer can't enter into a business relationship where we preload this on our phones, because we've got an extant business relationship with Google which would be threatened" and "users are not permitted to install this from the app store ever at all because we're locking them out to steal their business." Apples, oranges, and all that.