5 ms·

Google threw the gauntlet when it took a billion dollar investment into a mobile OS and gave it away for free. these dumping tactics ruined the market for lice

Google threw the gauntlet when it took a billion dollar investment into a mobile OS and gave it away for free. these dumping tactics ruined the market for licensed OS like Windows. did anybody truly believe the rest of the software industry would take it up the ass from google without fighting back? bing, apple maps, patents, etc - all part of the war. how much money does MS already make off android due to lost patents? blaming a single player in this game is ridiculous. schmidt in apple's board was the ultimate insult.

pedalpete 13y ago
It's called strategy, and from Google's standpoint, it's a brilliant one. Seems to be working very well for them, while keeping competitors at bay. With regards to Schmidt on Apple's board, you're not the first to mention it here, as I responded to another comment, Apple was really dumb in this instance. Google bought Android in 2005, Apple brought Eric Schmidt onto it's board in 2006. So, either Apple was hoping to get some insight into what Google was doing with Android and hoping Schmidt might slip up, or they just shouldn't have brought an advisor on who was the CEO of a potentially major competitor. I was always amazed that that happened. Google Buys Android - 2005 http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-08-16/google-buys-a.. http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-08-16/google-buys-a.... Schmidt Joins Board - 2006 http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/08/29Google-CEO-Dr-Eric.. http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/08/29Google-CEO-Dr-Eric....
- chubot 13y ago
  I'm sure Steve Jobs was aware of that potential conflict -- he was pretty shrewd after all :). It's was probably along the lines of "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." Plus he wanted the iPhone maps at launch, and probably a few other things which he could only get from Google. Steve had been around the block, and screwed many people over himself. His outrage was calculated.
- mkjack 13y ago
  Links don't work... :-(
haberman 13y ago
Apple threw down the gauntlet when they made it clear that their devices would be a walled garden where they would have absolute control over what apps you can run. Prior to Android, your choice was between your carrier overlords and the Apple overlord. Not only was that limiting for users, it was a vulnerability for Google business-wise to have their direct competitors as gatekeepers between their services and their users.
- Apocryphon 13y ago
  But with Android, the choice is between your OEM overlords and the Google anti-fragmentation efforts overlord. Yes; you can flash your own ROM and switch to CyanogenMod or Replicant. That is the freedom you are guaranteed in Android. But how many people actually take advantage of it?
  - bad_user 13y ago
    I take advantage of it. I love it that I can take advantage of it. I also helped about 5 other people take advantage of it, by installing Cyanogen on their obsolete phones (I'm not from the US and down here people keep their phones longer than they should). What you say is a classic logical fallacy. Do you repair your own car? Personally, I like having the freedom of doing repairs on my car outside of "authorized" repair shops, even though I know nothing about cars.
  - Joister 13y ago
    >But how many people actually take advantage of it? Who gives a shit. The fact that the option exists means the "android locks you into google" argument is nonsense.
    - gibwell 13y ago
      It means nothing of the sort. Regular consumers are absolutely locked into google by this, and as a consequence, so are developers. The fact that a few hobbyists can back their phones does nothing to change this.
  - 13y ago
cromwellian 13y ago
How dare they! And how dare Linus Torvalds "dump" Linux on the industry, or Mozilla "dump" Firefox. They should be required by law to charge high fees!
- pinaceae 13y ago
  comparing Linux to Android is ridiculous. Linus released and built it from genuine, ulterior motives. google wanted a platform to display ads.
  - neya 13y ago
    > a platform to display ads. Wow, you used just a single line to describe an entire, complex, (possibly superior) open source operating system? I'm done reading comments here.
  - cromwellian 13y ago
    No, Google wanted a platform that prevented Microsoft and Apple from completely controlling and owning the onramp to the mobile web with two dominant proprietary operating systems that prevent third party software installs without approval, a huge huge reduction in freedom even comparing it to Microsoft in the 90s. And in that regard, they did the world a favor, regardless of whether it was selfish or altruistic. It doesn't matter how you try to downplay it. Google shipped a huge useful chunk of kernel changes to Linux, plus a mature, ready, out of the box piece of open source that anyone can fork and use as a foundation to make another free OS, like FireOS, Tizen, FirefoxOS, etc, and they successfully got a platform deployed on a huge number of devices around the world that don't completely lock down who can install what. Even if they had completely evil motives, good has come out of it. If you're a rabid fanboy who wanted Steve Job's platform to have a monopoly on mobile, it's depressing for you, but it's liberating for everyone else.
    - ubernostrum 13y ago
      Not to go all meme on you, but let me FTFY: Google wanted a platform that prevented Microsoft and Apple from beating them to control of the next big advertising platform. Nothing more, nothing less. "Open" has been shown conclusively to take a back seat to monetization. It is as much a marketing tactic (in the sense that it's useful to promote the platform, but can and will be discarded, with spin to explain why, when its usefulness decreases) as anything in Microsoft's or Apple's ads. And it doesn't matter how you try to downplay it: companies other than Google have, whether they intended to or not, accomplished undeniable good through things they've shipped. Apple, for example, has contributed monumentally to LLVM, which is a large and useful public good. But it did so more or less explicitly to screw the GPL. So, faced with all the major players doing this in some form or another, how, precisely, do you plan to rank them relative to each other in order to discern which one is "good" or at least "least bad"?
smsm42 13y ago
They are really evil people. Probably as evil as those who created OSes, languages, browsers, protocols, libraries, compilers, IDEs - and gave them away for free. If not for the "rest of the software industry", everything would be in ruins now due to evil commies that dare to give away software.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
mythz 13y ago
Exactly which part of investing billions of dollars acquiring and developing a technology and giving it away for free, lowering the price of consumer devices, needs to be prevented? If they've discovered a business model that enables them to invest, develop and freely distribute their own tech to end-users benefits, they should encouraged, not a victim of established cartels using their cash war-chest to buy B.S. patents that they can use as anti-competitive weapons to legally attack their competitors instead of competing against them technically in the market-place.
- Ygg2 13y ago
  ALL OF IT! Seriously, who wants cheap superior products? Not me, that's who. On a serious note, I hope those patents, get downturned and that 4.5 billion investment goes sour for all involved.
- jmodp 13y ago
  >> Exactly which part of investing billions of dollars acquiring and developing a technology and giving it away for free, lowering the price of consumer devices, needs to be prevented? The part where it ends up eliminating competition and results in a mono culture?
  - mythz 13y ago
    It only results in a Mono culture if others are unable to compete. Regardless, the world is better off with a mono culture around an OSS project than a walled-garden keeping everyone hostage to their whims.
derleth 13y ago
> Google threw the gauntlet when it took a billion dollar investment into a mobile OS and gave it away for free. Seeing as how MS sold Xbox consoles at a loss so they could sell expensive games, I doubt MS has much of a leg to stand on with this claim. Apparently, the Xbox One is the first Xbox to be sold at a profit or break-even from day one; this was such a bold move that Forbes devoted a whole column to it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/09/06/microsoft-upends-the-economics-of-games-machines-with-xbox-one/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/09/06/microsoft... (Other articles indicate that most consoles are sold at a loss. I'm picking on MS because it was mentioned in the article as a party to this suit.)

pedalpete 13y ago

It's called strategy, and from Google's standpoint, it's a brilliant one. Seems to be working very well for them, while keeping competitors at bay. With regards to Schmidt on Apple's board, you're not the first to mention it here, as I responded to another comment, Apple was really dumb in this instance. Google bought Android in 2005, Apple brought Eric Schmidt onto it's board in 2006. So, either Apple was hoping to get some insight into what Google was doing with Android and hoping Schmidt might slip up, or they just shouldn't have brought an advisor on who was the CEO of a potentially major competitor. I was always amazed that that happened. Google Buys Android - 2005 http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-08-16/google-buys-a.. http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-08-16/google-buys-a.... Schmidt Joins Board - 2006 http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/08/29Google-CEO-Dr-Eric.. http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/08/29Google-CEO-Dr-Eric....

chubot 13y ago
I'm sure Steve Jobs was aware of that potential conflict -- he was pretty shrewd after all :). It's was probably along the lines of "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." Plus he wanted the iPhone maps at launch, and probably a few other things which he could only get from Google. Steve had been around the block, and screwed many people over himself. His outrage was calculated.
mkjack 13y ago
Links don't work... :-(

haberman 13y ago

Apple threw down the gauntlet when they made it clear that their devices would be a walled garden where they would have absolute control over what apps you can run. Prior to Android, your choice was between your carrier overlords and the Apple overlord. Not only was that limiting for users, it was a vulnerability for Google business-wise to have their direct competitors as gatekeepers between their services and their users.

Apocryphon 13y ago
But with Android, the choice is between your OEM overlords and the Google anti-fragmentation efforts overlord. Yes; you can flash your own ROM and switch to CyanogenMod or Replicant. That is the freedom you are guaranteed in Android. But how many people actually take advantage of it?
- bad_user 13y ago
  I take advantage of it. I love it that I can take advantage of it. I also helped about 5 other people take advantage of it, by installing Cyanogen on their obsolete phones (I'm not from the US and down here people keep their phones longer than they should). What you say is a classic logical fallacy. Do you repair your own car? Personally, I like having the freedom of doing repairs on my car outside of "authorized" repair shops, even though I know nothing about cars.
- Joister 13y ago
  >But how many people actually take advantage of it? Who gives a shit. The fact that the option exists means the "android locks you into google" argument is nonsense.
  - gibwell 13y ago
    It means nothing of the sort. Regular consumers are absolutely locked into google by this, and as a consequence, so are developers. The fact that a few hobbyists can back their phones does nothing to change this.
- 13y ago

cromwellian 13y ago

How dare they! And how dare Linus Torvalds "dump" Linux on the industry, or Mozilla "dump" Firefox. They should be required by law to charge high fees!

pinaceae 13y ago
comparing Linux to Android is ridiculous. Linus released and built it from genuine, ulterior motives. google wanted a platform to display ads.
- neya 13y ago
  > a platform to display ads. Wow, you used just a single line to describe an entire, complex, (possibly superior) open source operating system? I'm done reading comments here.
- cromwellian 13y ago
  No, Google wanted a platform that prevented Microsoft and Apple from completely controlling and owning the onramp to the mobile web with two dominant proprietary operating systems that prevent third party software installs without approval, a huge huge reduction in freedom even comparing it to Microsoft in the 90s. And in that regard, they did the world a favor, regardless of whether it was selfish or altruistic. It doesn't matter how you try to downplay it. Google shipped a huge useful chunk of kernel changes to Linux, plus a mature, ready, out of the box piece of open source that anyone can fork and use as a foundation to make another free OS, like FireOS, Tizen, FirefoxOS, etc, and they successfully got a platform deployed on a huge number of devices around the world that don't completely lock down who can install what. Even if they had completely evil motives, good has come out of it. If you're a rabid fanboy who wanted Steve Job's platform to have a monopoly on mobile, it's depressing for you, but it's liberating for everyone else.
  - ubernostrum 13y ago
    Not to go all meme on you, but let me FTFY: Google wanted a platform that prevented Microsoft and Apple from beating them to control of the next big advertising platform. Nothing more, nothing less. "Open" has been shown conclusively to take a back seat to monetization. It is as much a marketing tactic (in the sense that it's useful to promote the platform, but can and will be discarded, with spin to explain why, when its usefulness decreases) as anything in Microsoft's or Apple's ads. And it doesn't matter how you try to downplay it: companies other than Google have, whether they intended to or not, accomplished undeniable good through things they've shipped. Apple, for example, has contributed monumentally to LLVM, which is a large and useful public good. But it did so more or less explicitly to screw the GPL. So, faced with all the major players doing this in some form or another, how, precisely, do you plan to rank them relative to each other in order to discern which one is "good" or at least "least bad"?

smsm42 13y ago

They are really evil people. Probably as evil as those who created OSes, languages, browsers, protocols, libraries, compilers, IDEs - and gave them away for free. If not for the "rest of the software industry", everything would be in ruins now due to evil commies that dare to give away software.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

mythz 13y ago

Exactly which part of investing billions of dollars acquiring and developing a technology and giving it away for free, lowering the price of consumer devices, needs to be prevented? If they've discovered a business model that enables them to invest, develop and freely distribute their own tech to end-users benefits, they should encouraged, not a victim of established cartels using their cash war-chest to buy B.S. patents that they can use as anti-competitive weapons to legally attack their competitors instead of competing against them technically in the market-place.

Ygg2 13y ago
ALL OF IT! Seriously, who wants cheap superior products? Not me, that's who. On a serious note, I hope those patents, get downturned and that 4.5 billion investment goes sour for all involved.
jmodp 13y ago
>> Exactly which part of investing billions of dollars acquiring and developing a technology and giving it away for free, lowering the price of consumer devices, needs to be prevented? The part where it ends up eliminating competition and results in a mono culture?
- mythz 13y ago
  It only results in a Mono culture if others are unable to compete. Regardless, the world is better off with a mono culture around an OSS project than a walled-garden keeping everyone hostage to their whims.

derleth 13y ago

> Google threw the gauntlet when it took a billion dollar investment into a mobile OS and gave it away for free. Seeing as how MS sold Xbox consoles at a loss so they could sell expensive games, I doubt MS has much of a leg to stand on with this claim. Apparently, the Xbox One is the first Xbox to be sold at a profit or break-even from day one; this was such a bold move that Forbes devoted a whole column to it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/09/06/microsoft-upends-the-economics-of-games-machines-with-xbox-one/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/09/06/microsoft... (Other articles indicate that most consoles are sold at a loss. I'm picking on MS because it was mentioned in the article as a party to this suit.)