5 ms·

To some extent it's an illusion of openness and availability. Want to actually call it an 'Android' device and/or avoid an ugly warning message to your users?

To some extent it's an illusion of openness and availability. Want to actually call it an 'Android' device and/or avoid an ugly warning message to your users? [0] Gotta agree to a bunch of Google's terms including preference for their mobile app suite over others. But hey if you want some extra revenue from search you can just agree to not offer a 3rd party app store [1]. Oh also anyone in OHA (most major phone OEMs) can't make a product with a fork without getting into hot water... To be clear I hate them both and miss the future that could have been with Maemo. As it stands however Apple is just being consistent and having full ownership, whereas Google is arguably strong-arming other manufacturers in a way that limits consumer choice, even if it is a bit more open. [0] - AARD Code, anyone? [1] - Smells of MSFT/Intel Bundling/exclusivity Rebates that resulted in various levels of antitrust action/settlements

nerdix 2y ago
Yes, Apple has been consistently bad. Google is bad too but Android is still much more open than iOS today even if it has gradually become less open over time. I think punishing the more open platform and not the completely closed one will just incentivize companies to develop completely closed platforms from the beginning. And I don't see how that's actually good for consumers. The best outcome would be to force both to open up more.
- to11mtm 2y ago
  > I think punishing the more open platform and not the completely closed one will just incentivize companies to develop completely closed platforms from the beginning. And I don't see how that's actually good for consumers. I certainly agree, the problem from the legal standpoint is that stuff google was doing was too close to stuff that other companies have gotten in trouble for one way or another. > The best outcome would be to force both to open up more. Agreed.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  This is a bad understanding. First of all, it's much harder to develop a successful fully closed platform than an open one. If Google though they could build an iPhone, they would have. So the legal incentive is completely irrelevant here: with or without it, companies prefer to build closed platforms; with or without it, companies can't do it because it's too hard for them.
  - nerdix 2y ago
    Not really. They didn't have to go the iPhone route. They could have gone the 1980s Microsoft route: a fully closed source, propriety OS that they license to hardware manufacturers. The same forces that led to wide spread adoption of open source Android would have also led to wide spread adoption of closed source Android. Namely, the need for a fully touch optimized OS with enough reach to have a robust app ecosystem to compete with iPhone (and the need for it quickly so no time for home grown solutions). All the non-Apple manufacturers were always going to coalesce around a single platform. It could have just as easily been closed source Windows Phone had Microsoft released 3 years earlier. Google could have also licensed it to manufacturers for free and funded it Play Store and mobile search revenues.
    - to11mtm 2y ago
      > Google could have also licensed it to manufacturers for free and funded it Play Store and mobile search revenues. This is an interesting point, but it now does make me ask other questions. Mostly about historical players... Specifically, Symbian and Blackberry's OS. Both are good cases to consider because Symbian was pretty close to your suggested model (and I'd argue, feature wise, was a benchmark for some of Android's initial state, as well as likely helping the decision for the preferred app language to be a form of Java for the sake of adoption by existing players.) > All the non-Apple manufacturers were always going to coalesce around a single platform. My other statements aside, I feel like Android really started stagnating/enshittifying various policies once WP was fully killed. And TBH I hope the DOJ brings up the treatment of Youtube on WP8/10 if they go ahead with antitrust action [0]. Pre-downloading maps? Here Drive (part of standard WP app suite) let you do it way before others. A polite non-nagging "you're going more than 5 over" beep? Showing speed limits whether or not I have a destination set? Still don't have those in base apps. And wow, WP never had me deal with all of this carrier bullshit more than once per phone, vs every Android update is a new "oh hey uncheck all these boxes for crapware or try to find the way we changed the 'dismiss and do not show again (but really till the next update)' workflow". [0] - Short version, The level of shenanigans around Google 'approving/maintaining' a youtube app meant that for a lot of my time in WPland, I could only view youtube videos through a browser. [1] [1] - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/appsblog/2013/aug/15/google-disables-windows-phone-youtube-app https://www.theguardian.com/technology/appsblog/2013/aug/15/...

nerdix 2y ago

Yes, Apple has been consistently bad. Google is bad too but Android is still much more open than iOS today even if it has gradually become less open over time. I think punishing the more open platform and not the completely closed one will just incentivize companies to develop completely closed platforms from the beginning. And I don't see how that's actually good for consumers. The best outcome would be to force both to open up more.

to11mtm 2y ago
> I think punishing the more open platform and not the completely closed one will just incentivize companies to develop completely closed platforms from the beginning. And I don't see how that's actually good for consumers. I certainly agree, the problem from the legal standpoint is that stuff google was doing was too close to stuff that other companies have gotten in trouble for one way or another. > The best outcome would be to force both to open up more. Agreed.
tsimionescu 2y ago
This is a bad understanding. First of all, it's much harder to develop a successful fully closed platform than an open one. If Google though they could build an iPhone, they would have. So the legal incentive is completely irrelevant here: with or without it, companies prefer to build closed platforms; with or without it, companies can't do it because it's too hard for them.
- nerdix 2y ago
  Not really. They didn't have to go the iPhone route. They could have gone the 1980s Microsoft route: a fully closed source, propriety OS that they license to hardware manufacturers. The same forces that led to wide spread adoption of open source Android would have also led to wide spread adoption of closed source Android. Namely, the need for a fully touch optimized OS with enough reach to have a robust app ecosystem to compete with iPhone (and the need for it quickly so no time for home grown solutions). All the non-Apple manufacturers were always going to coalesce around a single platform. It could have just as easily been closed source Windows Phone had Microsoft released 3 years earlier. Google could have also licensed it to manufacturers for free and funded it Play Store and mobile search revenues.
  - to11mtm 2y ago
    > Google could have also licensed it to manufacturers for free and funded it Play Store and mobile search revenues. This is an interesting point, but it now does make me ask other questions. Mostly about historical players... Specifically, Symbian and Blackberry's OS. Both are good cases to consider because Symbian was pretty close to your suggested model (and I'd argue, feature wise, was a benchmark for some of Android's initial state, as well as likely helping the decision for the preferred app language to be a form of Java for the sake of adoption by existing players.) > All the non-Apple manufacturers were always going to coalesce around a single platform. My other statements aside, I feel like Android really started stagnating/enshittifying various policies once WP was fully killed. And TBH I hope the DOJ brings up the treatment of Youtube on WP8/10 if they go ahead with antitrust action [0]. Pre-downloading maps? Here Drive (part of standard WP app suite) let you do it way before others. A polite non-nagging "you're going more than 5 over" beep? Showing speed limits whether or not I have a destination set? Still don't have those in base apps. And wow, WP never had me deal with all of this carrier bullshit more than once per phone, vs every Android update is a new "oh hey uncheck all these boxes for crapware or try to find the way we changed the 'dismiss and do not show again (but really till the next update)' workflow". [0] - Short version, The level of shenanigans around Google 'approving/maintaining' a youtube app meant that for a lot of my time in WPland, I could only view youtube videos through a browser. [1] [1] - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/appsblog/2013/aug/15/google-disables-windows-phone-youtube-app https://www.theguardian.com/technology/appsblog/2013/aug/15/...