5 ms·

> But they won't learn that on their own I think they're fully aware of this. They just don't care, because the goal of "get market share super high" has been

by saghm 16d ago

> But they won't learn that on their own I think they're fully aware of this. They just don't care, because the goal of "get market share super high" has been reached, so now they have no need for it to continue being open. I don't disagree about what that means we should do; I just don't think we should assume they're being naive here. It's like writing a program to play chess; you should select your move assuming the opponent is smart and will make the optimal counterplay rather than assuming weakness, and then if they end up being less smart than that, you're still in a good place.

lokar 16d ago
I think this is true, but I also believe the original people who built it are not the people in charge now.
- pjmlp 16d ago
  Like most projects, anyone that thinks Linux or Steam will stay as they are when the generation that started it all is gone, is in for a surprise.
- joquarky 15d ago
  I'm convinced that this is causing a lot of problems right now, including outside of the tech industry. A lot of the people now in charge of large organizations have never been down in the trenches. Or even near them. They operate in an abstract world with very little connection to reality.
echelon 16d ago
We haven't had antitrust enforcement for 25 years. It's high time we did. Google needs to be broken up.
- necovek 16d ago
  MS was never broken up.
  - m4rtink 16d ago
    So do M$ as well ?
- girvo 15d ago
  Its still crazy to me that a judge effectively said "yes you're a monopoly, but it's too hard to break you up so we won't bother"... I'm being glib, but only slightly.
  - izacus 15d ago
    Start with Apple which actually has a monopoly on mobile devices in USA and let's go from there then. You do care about the market and aren't just angry because a corp doesn't listen to your orders, right? RIGHT?
    - bunderbunder 15d ago
      You would have a heck of a job convincing a court that 60% domestic market share in a two competitor market constitutes a monopoly.
      - mahboi 15d ago
        Then how is Google a monopoly at 40%?
        LocalH 15d ago
        That’s not the metric under which Google is seen as a monopoly, and you know it. It’s search. And ads.
        mahboi 15d ago
        No I don't know it. Is that what echelon meant when saying Google needs to be broken up?
        bunderbunder 15d ago
        It isn’t, and nobody said it is. The ruling in question did not find that Google had a mobile OS monopoly. It found that they had monopolies in both the ad server and ad exchange markets, and was using them to reinforce each other in an anticompetitive way.
godelski 16d ago
Tbh I don't think fighting open source is Google's best play. I think it is in their own best interest to keep it fully open. It is free labor by those who are most passionate. It gives strong signals at what people want, this direction you develop. It strengthens security as more people try to test it. It means people work on forks rather than alternatives. All this is true even with a monopolistic market share. So yes, I do think they are being naïve. The stance is myopic. It is only a good move in the short term, and barely even that. It is under the false belief that we operate in a zero sum game.
- pjmlp 16d ago
  Most successful open source projects have devs being paid by big corporations, including Linux itself, which only really took off in the 2000's when companies like IBM started caring. Also in the last century most software was commercial, and thanks to business friendly licenses we are back to demos, PD, Shareware and co, only with new names for a younger generation. Google will do just fine.
  - spockz 16d ago
    I don’t get the hate for business licenses. I’ve seen many open source contributors deflated because they wanted to share their code/solutions with other individuals and the world to learn from only to have their work sold as a service by a big cloud vendor without seeing something back for it. Or maybe even getting more work back to support the cloud vendor for free. So I’m not surprised at all that licenses that allow commercial use up to a point and above that require seperate license or contributions back. It is still open source in a lot of ways. Can still be part of other open source distributions that themselves make no profit etc. And only companies that are more than able to pay must pay something.
    - fauigerzigerk 16d ago
      It's a good idea if it actually works. Are enough commercial users paying up so that these projects get some serious funding? If companies avoid using software governed by such licenses then the overall impact is negative in my opinion, because it will lead to competing and diverging clean room clones that just split the community and the ecosystem.
brookst 15d ago
Every time the HN crowd rediscovers that companies make business strategy choices rather than immutable principled philosophical decisions, the angst and dismay are really something. When Android launched, making it open source (ish) was the right competitive decision. It got phone makers and carriers on board and accelerated the ecosystem’s development. Today it being open source (kinda) is a met negative for Google. So, yeah, they’re changing that. Well-run companies aren’t zealots. They adapt to changing conditions. If a company’s actions happen to align with your personal preferences today, it doesn’t mean you’ve found a lifelong philosophical soulmate. Ditto if a company’s actions run counter to what you want today. Either can and will change, and there’s nothing morally concerning either way.
- dzonga 15d ago
  companies aren't human beings with morals. companies exist for the sole reason to make money - not to make the world better - that's a side effect. but unfortunately a lot of people wanna see the world as they wish it to be, not the way it is.
  - ashkankiani 15d ago
    And if I asked people to name companies which retain a good public perception of being not entirely profit driven, the ones that would most likely come to mind are ones like Costco, where there's someone who is setting the tone and not leaving it to the committee of free market/investors to decide the fate of the company. I wonder if there are parallels here to other similar economic models, hmm...
    - dzonga 15d ago
      companies like Costco, Patagonia etc are rare why ? because deliberate actions & care have been taken to go against the grain of what a company should do. just like the USA at it's founding - deliberate actions were taken etc that were counter to the normal. & going against the wind takes a lot of energy. at a certain point in time - you run out of energy or you've to keep keep reinvesting to not run out otherwise barbarians are knocking down at the gate.

by saghm 16d ago

lokar 16d ago

I think this is true, but I also believe the original people who built it are not the people in charge now.

pjmlp 16d ago
Like most projects, anyone that thinks Linux or Steam will stay as they are when the generation that started it all is gone, is in for a surprise.
joquarky 15d ago
I'm convinced that this is causing a lot of problems right now, including outside of the tech industry. A lot of the people now in charge of large organizations have never been down in the trenches. Or even near them. They operate in an abstract world with very little connection to reality.

echelon 16d ago

We haven't had antitrust enforcement for 25 years. It's high time we did. Google needs to be broken up.

necovek 16d ago
MS was never broken up.
- m4rtink 16d ago
  So do M$ as well ?
girvo 15d ago
Its still crazy to me that a judge effectively said "yes you're a monopoly, but it's too hard to break you up so we won't bother"... I'm being glib, but only slightly.
- izacus 15d ago
  Start with Apple which actually has a monopoly on mobile devices in USA and let's go from there then. You do care about the market and aren't just angry because a corp doesn't listen to your orders, right? RIGHT?
  - bunderbunder 15d ago
    You would have a heck of a job convincing a court that 60% domestic market share in a two competitor market constitutes a monopoly.
    - mahboi 15d ago
      Then how is Google a monopoly at 40%?
      - LocalH 15d ago
        That’s not the metric under which Google is seen as a monopoly, and you know it. It’s search. And ads.
        mahboi 15d ago
        No I don't know it. Is that what echelon meant when saying Google needs to be broken up?
      - bunderbunder 15d ago
        It isn’t, and nobody said it is. The ruling in question did not find that Google had a mobile OS monopoly. It found that they had monopolies in both the ad server and ad exchange markets, and was using them to reinforce each other in an anticompetitive way.

godelski 16d ago

Tbh I don't think fighting open source is Google's best play. I think it is in their own best interest to keep it fully open. It is free labor by those who are most passionate. It gives strong signals at what people want, this direction you develop. It strengthens security as more people try to test it. It means people work on forks rather than alternatives. All this is true even with a monopolistic market share. So yes, I do think they are being naïve. The stance is myopic. It is only a good move in the short term, and barely even that. It is under the false belief that we operate in a zero sum game.

pjmlp 16d ago
Most successful open source projects have devs being paid by big corporations, including Linux itself, which only really took off in the 2000's when companies like IBM started caring. Also in the last century most software was commercial, and thanks to business friendly licenses we are back to demos, PD, Shareware and co, only with new names for a younger generation. Google will do just fine.
- spockz 16d ago
  I don’t get the hate for business licenses. I’ve seen many open source contributors deflated because they wanted to share their code/solutions with other individuals and the world to learn from only to have their work sold as a service by a big cloud vendor without seeing something back for it. Or maybe even getting more work back to support the cloud vendor for free. So I’m not surprised at all that licenses that allow commercial use up to a point and above that require seperate license or contributions back. It is still open source in a lot of ways. Can still be part of other open source distributions that themselves make no profit etc. And only companies that are more than able to pay must pay something.
  - fauigerzigerk 16d ago
    It's a good idea if it actually works. Are enough commercial users paying up so that these projects get some serious funding? If companies avoid using software governed by such licenses then the overall impact is negative in my opinion, because it will lead to competing and diverging clean room clones that just split the community and the ecosystem.

brookst 15d ago

Every time the HN crowd rediscovers that companies make business strategy choices rather than immutable principled philosophical decisions, the angst and dismay are really something. When Android launched, making it open source (ish) was the right competitive decision. It got phone makers and carriers on board and accelerated the ecosystem’s development. Today it being open source (kinda) is a met negative for Google. So, yeah, they’re changing that. Well-run companies aren’t zealots. They adapt to changing conditions. If a company’s actions happen to align with your personal preferences today, it doesn’t mean you’ve found a lifelong philosophical soulmate. Ditto if a company’s actions run counter to what you want today. Either can and will change, and there’s nothing morally concerning either way.

dzonga 15d ago
companies aren't human beings with morals. companies exist for the sole reason to make money - not to make the world better - that's a side effect. but unfortunately a lot of people wanna see the world as they wish it to be, not the way it is.
- ashkankiani 15d ago
  And if I asked people to name companies which retain a good public perception of being not entirely profit driven, the ones that would most likely come to mind are ones like Costco, where there's someone who is setting the tone and not leaving it to the committee of free market/investors to decide the fate of the company. I wonder if there are parallels here to other similar economic models, hmm...
  - dzonga 15d ago
    companies like Costco, Patagonia etc are rare why ? because deliberate actions & care have been taken to go against the grain of what a company should do. just like the USA at it's founding - deliberate actions were taken etc that were counter to the normal. & going against the wind takes a lot of energy. at a certain point in time - you run out of energy or you've to keep keep reinvesting to not run out otherwise barbarians are knocking down at the gate.