4 ms·

Well, Google certainly builds walls for its garden. Looking at things like nuking Reader in favor of G+, nerfing its applications on iOS compared to Android (fu

by deveac 13y ago

Well, Google certainly builds walls for its garden. Looking at things like nuking Reader in favor of G+, nerfing its applications on iOS compared to Android (funny how quickly iOS got turn by turn Google Maps once Apple released its own map application), and even initiatives like Free Zone in developing nations that provide free internet only for checking G+, gmail, and sites opened directly from a Google search). Just look at the shenanigans Google is pulling right now with Microsoft and getting Youtube on mobile there. All of these companies throw walls up for the sake of profits and strategic benefit. Different heights, different locations, some hard walls, some soft, -but they all build them. The entire free Android operating systems itself is just vendor lock-in for Google, which is an advertising (not search) company.

cromwellian 13y ago
Actually, you're wrong, sometimes the iOS apps have features that Android doesn't have yet, for example, iOS Maps actually had the new Maps interface before Android. Also, Google has Google Takeout, which lets you leave Google and take everything with you. Android is not vendor lock in, because Google isn't the vendor in this scenario, Samsung, Amazon, Sony, etc are. For example, Amazon doesn't include Google's services, and Samsung is clearly moving in the direction of pushing their own stuff in front of Google's.
- deveac 13y ago
  >Actually, you're wrong, sometimes the iOS apps have features that Android doesn't have yet... I didn't say they didn't, nor did I even imply it. Understand that this doesn't change the fact that Google witheld app features from other OEMs and kept enhanced versions for its own partners for competitive reasons. Just because Apple did it too doesn't mean Google didn't (as I already pointed out). >Android is not vendor lock in, because Google isn't the vendor in this scenario, Samsung, Amazon, Sony, etc are. I was talking about walled gardens, and wasn't making an arbitrary distinction of "vendor" lock-in. As I was saying though, from the standpoint of a walled garden, Android as a free operating system has been remarkably successful as a soft wall for Google, getting their advertisements on more handsets more quickly than any other method. Instead of risking consumers switching, they are eliminating competitors before consumers even get the option to switch. OEMs have been keen to adopt an OS that cost them next to nothing and played nice with branding and in house apps. Clearly Amazon and Samsung modifying the OS is a concern of Google's, and they are combating this with native apps, web apps, and their own competitive offerings (hardware included).
  - cromwellian 13y ago
    What you're basically saying is that Google used open source to create a protective ecosystem that prevents other vendors from taking over with their own moats. Chrome serves the same function. It ensures Google is not blocked by browser default search engine changing, it prevents other people's walls. But would you claim Chrome is "vendor lock in"? Android is primarily a defense mechanism. If Apple and Microsoft together had nearly 100% of the market for the mobile web, they could change the default search engine to Bing and sink Google overnight. Android if anything, preserves choice and prevents lock-in, because unlike iOS, it is an open OS, and vendors can always change the defaults.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]

by deveac 13y ago

cromwellian 13y ago

Actually, you're wrong, sometimes the iOS apps have features that Android doesn't have yet, for example, iOS Maps actually had the new Maps interface before Android. Also, Google has Google Takeout, which lets you leave Google and take everything with you. Android is not vendor lock in, because Google isn't the vendor in this scenario, Samsung, Amazon, Sony, etc are. For example, Amazon doesn't include Google's services, and Samsung is clearly moving in the direction of pushing their own stuff in front of Google's.

deveac 13y ago
>Actually, you're wrong, sometimes the iOS apps have features that Android doesn't have yet... I didn't say they didn't, nor did I even imply it. Understand that this doesn't change the fact that Google witheld app features from other OEMs and kept enhanced versions for its own partners for competitive reasons. Just because Apple did it too doesn't mean Google didn't (as I already pointed out). >Android is not vendor lock in, because Google isn't the vendor in this scenario, Samsung, Amazon, Sony, etc are. I was talking about walled gardens, and wasn't making an arbitrary distinction of "vendor" lock-in. As I was saying though, from the standpoint of a walled garden, Android as a free operating system has been remarkably successful as a soft wall for Google, getting their advertisements on more handsets more quickly than any other method. Instead of risking consumers switching, they are eliminating competitors before consumers even get the option to switch. OEMs have been keen to adopt an OS that cost them next to nothing and played nice with branding and in house apps. Clearly Amazon and Samsung modifying the OS is a concern of Google's, and they are combating this with native apps, web apps, and their own competitive offerings (hardware included).
- cromwellian 13y ago
  What you're basically saying is that Google used open source to create a protective ecosystem that prevents other vendors from taking over with their own moats. Chrome serves the same function. It ensures Google is not blocked by browser default search engine changing, it prevents other people's walls. But would you claim Chrome is "vendor lock in"? Android is primarily a defense mechanism. If Apple and Microsoft together had nearly 100% of the market for the mobile web, they could change the default search engine to Bing and sink Google overnight. Android if anything, preserves choice and prevents lock-in, because unlike iOS, it is an open OS, and vendors can always change the defaults.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]