4 ms·

How is this different than Google making its own phones?

Metrop0218 14y ago
Exactly. What the above poster doesn't realize is that he has already been misproven. There are many companies willing to go up against the guys who make the operating system. It's not the end of the world, it's just the addition of strong competitor into the system.
jdminhbg 14y ago
You don't pay Google for Android.
- cooldeal 14y ago
  Actually you do, unless you're Amazon. For access to the Google Play store, GMail, Maps, Navigation, Youtube etc. etc. Those are neither free nor Free. http://www.reghardware.com/2011/09/21/andy_pad_chief_admits_to_bundling_unlicensed_android_market/ http://www.reghardware.com/2011/09/21/andy_pad_chief_admits_... It's very telling that most people do not know this. Google sent a C&D to the Cyanogen Mod folks for bundling these apps. If you install CM, you have to download the app store app from someone committing copyright infringement.
  - recoiledsnake 14y ago
    >It's very telling that most people do not know this. Welcome to the HN info bubble.
  - pgeorgi 14y ago
    That doesn't say anything about cost. The deal on Google apps is (or used to be) membership in the OHA, which is about app level compatibility. There are two possible impedients for cheap devices there: 1. minimum hardware requirements (which exploded over the last few Android releases), 2. Google might not care about herding a bunch of small vendors. reghardware merely "implies" that it's about cash.
- HarshaThota 14y ago
  If you want to call the phone an Android phone and include any of Google's apps or services, you do have to pay Google.
- objclxt 14y ago
  ...you pay Microsoft though! Microsoft has per-device fees for Android arranged with most major manufacturers (including Samsung), in exchange for which they don't sue for patent infringement. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/06/motorola_samsung_patent_shakedown/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/06/motorola_samsung_pat... It has been suggested by some people (somewhat tongue in cheek) that in some cases the license fee for Windows Phone is less than the patent licenses for Android.
  - mtgx 14y ago
    It's not. HTC only pays $5 per phone for example. HTC pays up to $45 for other royalties (unrelated to Android), though, so it's not a big deal.
    - recoiledsnake 14y ago
      I think the articles were about Microsoft making more money(in total) on patent licenses on Android phones rather than the Windows Phone nascent platform.
potatolicious 14y ago
Android is free. Samsung, LG, et al aren't paying for the privilege of competing with the OS-builder. Microsoft also has much stricter rules re: customization for WinPhone, presumably as a response to the craptastic custom UIs LG, Motorola, and Samsung have been implementing for Android. In other words, OEM WinPhone users are already cornered into producing only the stock vanilla experience, and now they're competing against the platform owners themselves who are allowed to break whatever rules necessary to gain market share. All on a platform that wasn't doing well to begin with - I can't imagine a sane OEM wanting to stick around. Maybe if WinPhone was selling like hotcakes you might expect OEMs to just bear it, but as it is MS in a poor place. There is also another key difference to Nexus: the Nexus phones have never been heavily marketed, and even till now are the tools of developers and industry enthusiasts. I imagine if Google ever took the Nexus mass-market they'd see much more blowback from OEMs.
- cooldeal 14y ago
  >Android is free As I noted in another comment in this story, this is wrong. AOSP is open and free, but it is not very useful without access to the half million apps in the Google Play store, Maps, Navigation, Youtube, Google Now etc. >In other words, OEM WinPhone users are already cornered into producing only the stock vanilla experience, and now they're competing against the platform owners themselves who are allowed to break whatever rules necessary to gain market share. Perhaps in the future, but right now the Microsoft Surface runs the exact same software as the equivalent OEM devices. >There is also another key difference to Nexus: the Nexus phones have never been heavily marketed, and even till now are the tools of developers and industry enthusiasts. I imagine if Google ever took the Nexus mass-market they'd see much more blowback from OEMs. Except for advertising it on the most heavily trafficked site in the world? http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57501546-94/googles-nexus-7-tablet-pops-up-in-rare-home-page-ad/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57501546-94/googles-nexus-7... Also, I don't see how the Nexus is not competing with the OEMs like you say. Where are the $199 Android 7" tablets from the OEMs? Why does the Galaxy Tab 7 cost $250? What's common among the three tablets in that price range? Kindle Fire, Nexus 7 and a Nook ? They're all subsidized by the ecosystem, which Acer, Samsung, HTC, Lenovo, Viewsonic etc. cannot duplicate and compete with.

Exactly. What the above poster doesn't realize is that he has already been misproven. There are many companies willing to go up against the guys who make the operating system. It's not the end of the world, it's just the addition of strong competitor into the system.

jdminhbg 14y ago

You don't pay Google for Android.

cooldeal 14y ago
Actually you do, unless you're Amazon. For access to the Google Play store, GMail, Maps, Navigation, Youtube etc. etc. Those are neither free nor Free. http://www.reghardware.com/2011/09/21/andy_pad_chief_admits_to_bundling_unlicensed_android_market/ http://www.reghardware.com/2011/09/21/andy_pad_chief_admits_... It's very telling that most people do not know this. Google sent a C&D to the Cyanogen Mod folks for bundling these apps. If you install CM, you have to download the app store app from someone committing copyright infringement.
- recoiledsnake 14y ago
  >It's very telling that most people do not know this. Welcome to the HN info bubble.
- pgeorgi 14y ago
  That doesn't say anything about cost. The deal on Google apps is (or used to be) membership in the OHA, which is about app level compatibility. There are two possible impedients for cheap devices there: 1. minimum hardware requirements (which exploded over the last few Android releases), 2. Google might not care about herding a bunch of small vendors. reghardware merely "implies" that it's about cash.
HarshaThota 14y ago
If you want to call the phone an Android phone and include any of Google's apps or services, you do have to pay Google.
objclxt 14y ago
...you pay Microsoft though! Microsoft has per-device fees for Android arranged with most major manufacturers (including Samsung), in exchange for which they don't sue for patent infringement. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/06/motorola_samsung_patent_shakedown/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/06/motorola_samsung_pat... It has been suggested by some people (somewhat tongue in cheek) that in some cases the license fee for Windows Phone is less than the patent licenses for Android.
- mtgx 14y ago
  It's not. HTC only pays $5 per phone for example. HTC pays up to $45 for other royalties (unrelated to Android), though, so it's not a big deal.
  - recoiledsnake 14y ago
    I think the articles were about Microsoft making more money(in total) on patent licenses on Android phones rather than the Windows Phone nascent platform.

potatolicious 14y ago

Android is free. Samsung, LG, et al aren't paying for the privilege of competing with the OS-builder. Microsoft also has much stricter rules re: customization for WinPhone, presumably as a response to the craptastic custom UIs LG, Motorola, and Samsung have been implementing for Android. In other words, OEM WinPhone users are already cornered into producing only the stock vanilla experience, and now they're competing against the platform owners themselves who are allowed to break whatever rules necessary to gain market share. All on a platform that wasn't doing well to begin with - I can't imagine a sane OEM wanting to stick around. Maybe if WinPhone was selling like hotcakes you might expect OEMs to just bear it, but as it is MS in a poor place. There is also another key difference to Nexus: the Nexus phones have never been heavily marketed, and even till now are the tools of developers and industry enthusiasts. I imagine if Google ever took the Nexus mass-market they'd see much more blowback from OEMs.

cooldeal 14y ago
>Android is free As I noted in another comment in this story, this is wrong. AOSP is open and free, but it is not very useful without access to the half million apps in the Google Play store, Maps, Navigation, Youtube, Google Now etc. >In other words, OEM WinPhone users are already cornered into producing only the stock vanilla experience, and now they're competing against the platform owners themselves who are allowed to break whatever rules necessary to gain market share. Perhaps in the future, but right now the Microsoft Surface runs the exact same software as the equivalent OEM devices. >There is also another key difference to Nexus: the Nexus phones have never been heavily marketed, and even till now are the tools of developers and industry enthusiasts. I imagine if Google ever took the Nexus mass-market they'd see much more blowback from OEMs. Except for advertising it on the most heavily trafficked site in the world? http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57501546-94/googles-nexus-7-tablet-pops-up-in-rare-home-page-ad/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57501546-94/googles-nexus-7... Also, I don't see how the Nexus is not competing with the OEMs like you say. Where are the $199 Android 7" tablets from the OEMs? Why does the Galaxy Tab 7 cost $250? What's common among the three tablets in that price range? Kindle Fire, Nexus 7 and a Nook ? They're all subsidized by the ecosystem, which Acer, Samsung, HTC, Lenovo, Viewsonic etc. cannot duplicate and compete with.