5 ms·

Let's recap. Prior to today, a community-developed fork of Google's open-source operating system could be installed by using an app from Google's own app store

Let's recap. Prior to today, a community-developed fork of Google's open-source operating system could be installed by using an app from Google's own app store (which sometimes bricked the phone). After today, a community-developed fork of Google's open-source operating system can be installed by downloading the installer from the CM website. This somehow makes Google like 90's Microsoft? How many operating systems or web browsers did Microsoft open-source? How many forks of their software did Microsoft tolerate? Calling Google "90's Microsoft" is like calling Obama a socialist: it shows an utter lack of perspective of what a real socialist looks like. (If you want to see a real socialist, read about Kshama Sawant who was just elected to the Seattle City Council and wants to collectivize Amazon.com and Boeing). I wouldn't even bother responding to stuff like this, but it's getting upvoted on HN which is depressing.

gcb1 13y ago
let me see... google and the open handset aliance advertise an open source OS, that you cant install without voiding warranties and bending to proprietary radio and firmware code. just like pc manufacturers of the 80/90s (bios was reverse engineered from IBM and then tightly controled by ami. it only looked slighly open because IBM was much more closed. same with android standing next to apple.
- haberman 13y ago
  > that you cant install without voiding warranties So you think that a user should be able install an OS that bricks their phone and still have the phone still covered by warranty? How does that make sense? Is this people's expectation of Google, that if they don't give you whatever you want (at their own expense) then they are like 90s Microsoft?
  - shooper 13y ago
    >So you think that a user should be able install an OS that bricks their phone and still have the phone still covered by warranty? Yes >How does that make sense? It makes sense the same way that installing Linux and/or wiping Windows doesn't void a PCs warranty. Should users be allowed to install any programs including keylogging malware on Windows computers? Shouldn't Microsoft protect them by locking it down so that only approved apps from their app store can be installed? Like mobile app stores?
    - veemjeem 13y ago
      It is rare to "brick" your PC by installing linux/windows. Phones are different because their input/output interfaces are limited to a single usb port, and in many cases that usb port doesn't even support host mode. Technically the phone isn't really bricked, but there's no way for a normal user to fix it without cracking open the phone to attach a jtag. If PCs in the 1980's could be destroyed simply by improperly installing an OS, you bet manufacturers would void warranty for software misuse.
      - giovannibajo1 13y ago
        Sounds like bad design though. It's normal for embedded devices to have a non upgradable bootloader that can always be triggered at boot and is able to reflash a pristine copy of the original firmware wiping whatever was later written. iOS does that (see DFU mode), and all embedded devices I design at work do the same. Why an Android device shouldn't? Apple devices are nominally warranty voided when you jailbreak them, but since you can always reflash an original firmware leaving no traces behind, it's basically moot. NOTE: no sarcasm here, I'm genuinely interested on why android phones can be software bricked and can't have a boot loader like anything else.
        fpgeek 13y ago
        Android devices have similar failsafes (e.g. recovery, fastboot mode), but since they're part of the infrastructure that validates that you're only flashing authorized changes, you are often working around them when you modify your device.
        cdash 13y ago
        Which is exactly the problem, the fact that you have to work around them to begin with.
        hrjet 13y ago
        Which means that the barrier placed by Android manufacturers is artificial.
  - moron4hire 13y ago
    It makes complete sense because it shouldn't be possible to brick the phone just from trying to install a different OS, and installing software shouldn't make it possible to void the warranty. Hardware and software should be separate.
    - veemjeem 13y ago
      Hm, at what point is hardware separate from software? When you write some C code that gets loaded on the Attiny85 chip, is that still considered software? Many SoCs come with the firmware already loaded so it just looks like a normal cpu when in actuality it contains a mini OS, graphics, networking, etc, all on a single QFN-72 package.
      - moron4hire 13y ago
        The point at which hardware is separate from software is when hardware is transistors and software is instructions. This isn't a difficult concept. And even if you want to get super pedantic in true insufferable-nerd fashion and argue about microcode, it doesn't apply to the operating system level, which is well, well into software level.
    - makomk 13y ago
      Most of the phones that have been "bricked" by the CyanogenMod installer aren't actually permanently bricked, they're just not fixable by anyone who'd actually need the CyanogenMod installer to help them install it.
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    Any user action that is completely reversible, like installing software, should not render the warranty void.
    - victorhooi 13y ago
      Hi, Yes - but why don't you think what you said through a bit... I flash my motherboard with a custom BIOS image I've hex-edited together. Now, it won't boot correctly. Yes, it's reversible - I can probably figure out a way to flash the original image back on. However, the motherboard manufacturer is hardly going to tolerate me taking it back going, you need to fix this. That's hardly reasonable. They're going to be...err...you did something stupid and unsupported. You fix it. They might give me advice, but the onus is certainly not on them. Or say I flash my car's ECU to give me another 5 HP of output. Then my car stops starting up reliably. I can't exactly take it back to Honda and say, fix it. They'll be like, we sold you a working car - you did something out of spec, and overrode the ECU software - we aren't fixing it. Yes, it's reversible - I can flash the right ECU image back on and it will start up correctly - but the onus isn't on them to hand hold me through that process. Cheers, Victor
      - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
        >...why don't you think what you said through a bit... I have. >I flash my motherboard with a custom BIOS image I've hex-edited together. Congratulations. >Now, it won't boot correctly. woops >Yes, it's reversible - I can probably figure out a way to flash the original image back on. In most cases. It is possible to brick some hardware, but easily-brickable hardware is probably not something that OEM's should ship; that's just asking for trouble. >However, the motherboard manufacturer is hardly going to tolerate me taking it back going, you need to fix this. That's hardly reasonable. They might if they like selling things. AMD tolerated and even encouraged overclocking, finding that it won them more sales than problems that it may have created. >They're going to be...err...you did something stupid and unsupported. You fix it. They might give me advice, but the onus is certainly not on them. Well, yes and no. They ought to either publish a spec that would tell you how to fix it, or let you ship it to them and re-flash it for a reasonable fee. People do send motherboards back all the time claiming that it "broke" or was "DOA" when they may know full well what broke it. Right or wrong, a company will have to do a postmortem engineering analysis on a part to prove it was tampered with, and they will need to be able to prove tampering if they don't want bad press from consumers. I'm not saying that makes lying right, but that is probably the reality for a lot of cases. >Or say I flash my car's ECU to give me another 5 HP of output. Then my car stops starting up reliably. >I can't exactly take it back to Honda and say, fix it. They'll be like, we sold you a working car - you did something out of spec, and overrode the ECU software - we aren't fixing it. Again, the consumer can say "I didn't do anything, I'll sue you. I'll tell the local TV station." Now the dealer has to risk a lawsuit, bad press, in which case they will need a professional engineering analysis; or the Dealer could just re-flash the firmware. I'm not sure how it is handled these days, but the customer can create a lot of doubt about the origin of the problem, and make it difficult for the dealer/carmaker to prove malfeasance on the customer's part. >Yes, it's reversible - I can flash the right ECU image back on and it will start up correctly - but the onus isn't on them to hand hold me through that process. If markets worked the way I was taught they ought to, then customers would never tolerate that. Then you could expect to take your car to the dealer, and for a reasonable fee they'd re-flash your ECU firmware or whatever, and then try to sell you some new floor-mats and an oil change. Unfortunately in many cases you're right; you can expect to be treated like a chump at the car dealership's service dep't. which is why "Right to Repair" laws are important. I think it is interesting now that Toyota has tried the "Cosmic Ray Defense" for exploding firmware how a car-maker (especially Toyota) might react to a customer with a bricked ECU who offers no explanation as to why his ECU is bricked. >Cheers, Victor Cheers indeed, and happy Thanksgiving, unless you are Native American, in which case, my apologies. (If you're not in the US be thankful Columbus didn't find your country instead.)
  - crdoconnor 13y ago
    >So you think that a user should be able install an OS that bricks their phone and still have the phone still covered by warranty? > >How does that make sense? Because software shouldn't brick the phone. It should ALWAYS be possible to download and restore the pre-installed operating system and factory settings (it definitely was on my last android phone - an xperia - which I 'bricked' multiple times trying to get cyanogen to work). This really does remind me of the bundle/don't bundle internet explorer wars. "Oh, but you can just download netscape if you really want it!"
    - joenathan 13y ago
      >Because software shouldn't brick the phone. It's not software, it's a damn operating system.
  - babesh 13y ago
    Isn't it because the apps aren't completely customizable/removable without rooting? So if a carrier includes apps that you don't like and that you want uninstalled but can't. The same probably goes for google play services. What if you don't want that to auto update?
  - gcb1 13y ago
    it only has the possibility to brick the phone because they went the extra mile to try to deny access to doing it.
- niels_olson 13y ago
  If I download instructions to hotrod my lawnmower, and then engine block cracks when the head gasket blows out, should I blame Toro for not locking down my lawnmower?
  - Someone 13y ago
    But in this case Toro used to host those instructions on its website.
    - victorhooi 13y ago
      But should they be? Say there's a Toro site for add-ins (flashing lights or whatever, I have no idea how you'd mod a mower...lol). And some of those add-ins will void your mower, and potentially break your machine. It's certainly within their prerogative to say "We won't host them. But you can just go to <some website> and get it from them instead". In fact, doesn't Google make a search engine? Surely, it's not hard to just Google for Cyanogenmod and find their hompage? In fact, if you can't do that, then probably shouldn't be flashing a ROM...
- stusmall 13y ago
  You can't install on some consumer hardware without voiding the warranty. The quality of the hardware you get subsidized from AT&T doesn't change the openness of Android. If you had a board and wanted to start porting android to it today everything you need to make it happen is there and out with permissive licensing too. What more to do you want out of a software project?
ars_technician 13y ago
>If you want to see a real socialist No true Scotsman is a logical fallacy that you should avoid. Saying there is someone out there that is worse actually does nothing to address the original point. Let me demonstrate, "You think Romney was conservative? Look at X tea party member that wants to own slaves." Do you see how that doesn't do anything to refute that Romney is conservative?
- yongjik 13y ago
  Dude, calling Obama a socialist is not comparable to calling Romney conservative. It's more like calling Romney gay. Oh, you say he isn't gay? No true homosexual Scotsman, it seems.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- rmrfrmrf 13y ago
  Who says discussions on the Internet should be free of fallacy?
  - IgorPartola 13y ago
    Agreed. I bet there was very little debate in soviet Russia or in nazi Germany, so at least we have some kind of debate here. We are clearly better than those two examples.
- haberman 13y ago
  > No true Scotsman is a logical fallacy that you should avoid. Perhaps, but this is not No True Scotsman. No True Scotsman involves ignoring a counterexample to a general/universal claim. For example, if I said "No Republican would vote to increase the deficit" and you countered by saying "actually, George W. Bush is a Republican and did in fact vote to increase the deficit," and I responded by saying, "well, no TRUE Republican would vote to increase the deficit," that would be No True Scotsman. Because I'm ignoring the fact that my broad, sweeping rule has a clear counterexample. Those elements are not here in this case. I did not make a broad sweeping claim, instead I made a specific one (Obama is not a socialist). Ergo, it is not No True Scotsman. > Let me demonstrate, "You think Romney was conservative? Look at X tea party member that wants to own slaves." Do you see how that doesn't do anything to refute that Romney is conservative? "Liberal" and "conservative" describes a spectrum of political belief. If some tea party members have much more extreme views than Romney, then yes, it would demonstrate that Romney is less conservative than more extremely conservative people, but does not refute that he is right-of-center.
throwawaykf02 13y ago
> This somehow makes Google like 90's Microsoft? You should have stopped there. Removing Cyanogenmod may not be it, but the rest of your post just opens it up for pointing out how Google is just like Microsoft. > How many operating systems or web browsers did Microsoft open-source? Red herring. Selling software and Operating Systems is Microsoft's core business, and you expect them to give it away? How much software that is the core of Google's business has Google given away? I see nothing of the search, advertising and distributed systems infrastructure being open sourced. > How many forks of their software did Microsoft tolerate? Hah, why don't we ask Acer that? The moment there's any leverage at all, Google will use it to squash forks. Conversely, has Microsoft ever tried to stop WINE or ReactOS? (Honest question, actually, I don't know.) Now let's ask some more relevant questions: 1. How many times has Google been investigated and fined by the FTC and DOJ for illegal business practices? 2. How many times has Google been investigated by US and EU government agencies for privacy breaches? 3. How many times has Google been investigated for anti-competitive behavior in the US and the EU? 4. How many times has Google been accused (and sued) by smaller companies for unfair business practices? 5. How many times has Google been accused of intentionally providing poor support for a competitor's product? 6. How many times has Google been sued for infringing somebody else's IP? 7. Has Google been sued by Sun for "hijacking" Java? 8. Has Microsoft been made to pay damages for abusing standards-essential patents? 9. Has Microsoft been sued for colluding in anti-poaching agreements? Some things Google has escaped (e.g. antitrust in the US), and some don't apply to Microsoft (abusing FRAND patents, anti-poaching collusion, illegal pharma ads), but most apply to both: investigations, settlements and fines in the US and EU for anticompetitive conduct, privacy breaches and illegal business practices; accusations of crippling competitors' products (Netscape etc. for Microsoft, competing service providers like Yelp, YouTube/Maps on Windows Phone for Google); accusations of stealing IP and unfair business practices (e.g. Apple's UI lawsuit and i4i for Microsoft, Author's Guild and SkyHook for Google); and so on. Anecdotally, having been privy to some negotiations with Google in two separate companies, they very much throw their weight around. > I wouldn't even bother responding to stuff like this, but it's getting upvoted on HN which is depressing. As much as you'd not like to admit it as an employee -- and it may not be apparent to the rank and file from inside -- there are very clear parallels in how both companies behave. Google is certainly throwing their weight around these days, which is precisely why Microsoft was hated in the 90s.

gcb1 13y ago

let me see... google and the open handset aliance advertise an open source OS, that you cant install without voiding warranties and bending to proprietary radio and firmware code. just like pc manufacturers of the 80/90s (bios was reverse engineered from IBM and then tightly controled by ami. it only looked slighly open because IBM was much more closed. same with android standing next to apple.

haberman 13y ago
> that you cant install without voiding warranties So you think that a user should be able install an OS that bricks their phone and still have the phone still covered by warranty? How does that make sense? Is this people's expectation of Google, that if they don't give you whatever you want (at their own expense) then they are like 90s Microsoft?
- shooper 13y ago
  >So you think that a user should be able install an OS that bricks their phone and still have the phone still covered by warranty? Yes >How does that make sense? It makes sense the same way that installing Linux and/or wiping Windows doesn't void a PCs warranty. Should users be allowed to install any programs including keylogging malware on Windows computers? Shouldn't Microsoft protect them by locking it down so that only approved apps from their app store can be installed? Like mobile app stores?
  - veemjeem 13y ago
    It is rare to "brick" your PC by installing linux/windows. Phones are different because their input/output interfaces are limited to a single usb port, and in many cases that usb port doesn't even support host mode. Technically the phone isn't really bricked, but there's no way for a normal user to fix it without cracking open the phone to attach a jtag. If PCs in the 1980's could be destroyed simply by improperly installing an OS, you bet manufacturers would void warranty for software misuse.
    - giovannibajo1 13y ago
      Sounds like bad design though. It's normal for embedded devices to have a non upgradable bootloader that can always be triggered at boot and is able to reflash a pristine copy of the original firmware wiping whatever was later written. iOS does that (see DFU mode), and all embedded devices I design at work do the same. Why an Android device shouldn't? Apple devices are nominally warranty voided when you jailbreak them, but since you can always reflash an original firmware leaving no traces behind, it's basically moot. NOTE: no sarcasm here, I'm genuinely interested on why android phones can be software bricked and can't have a boot loader like anything else.
      - fpgeek 13y ago
        Android devices have similar failsafes (e.g. recovery, fastboot mode), but since they're part of the infrastructure that validates that you're only flashing authorized changes, you are often working around them when you modify your device.
        cdash 13y ago
        Which is exactly the problem, the fact that you have to work around them to begin with.
        hrjet 13y ago
        Which means that the barrier placed by Android manufacturers is artificial.
- moron4hire 13y ago
  It makes complete sense because it shouldn't be possible to brick the phone just from trying to install a different OS, and installing software shouldn't make it possible to void the warranty. Hardware and software should be separate.
  - veemjeem 13y ago
    Hm, at what point is hardware separate from software? When you write some C code that gets loaded on the Attiny85 chip, is that still considered software? Many SoCs come with the firmware already loaded so it just looks like a normal cpu when in actuality it contains a mini OS, graphics, networking, etc, all on a single QFN-72 package.
    - moron4hire 13y ago
      The point at which hardware is separate from software is when hardware is transistors and software is instructions. This isn't a difficult concept. And even if you want to get super pedantic in true insufferable-nerd fashion and argue about microcode, it doesn't apply to the operating system level, which is well, well into software level.
  - makomk 13y ago
    Most of the phones that have been "bricked" by the CyanogenMod installer aren't actually permanently bricked, they're just not fixable by anyone who'd actually need the CyanogenMod installer to help them install it.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  Any user action that is completely reversible, like installing software, should not render the warranty void.
  - victorhooi 13y ago
    Hi, Yes - but why don't you think what you said through a bit... I flash my motherboard with a custom BIOS image I've hex-edited together. Now, it won't boot correctly. Yes, it's reversible - I can probably figure out a way to flash the original image back on. However, the motherboard manufacturer is hardly going to tolerate me taking it back going, you need to fix this. That's hardly reasonable. They're going to be...err...you did something stupid and unsupported. You fix it. They might give me advice, but the onus is certainly not on them. Or say I flash my car's ECU to give me another 5 HP of output. Then my car stops starting up reliably. I can't exactly take it back to Honda and say, fix it. They'll be like, we sold you a working car - you did something out of spec, and overrode the ECU software - we aren't fixing it. Yes, it's reversible - I can flash the right ECU image back on and it will start up correctly - but the onus isn't on them to hand hold me through that process. Cheers, Victor
    - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
      >...why don't you think what you said through a bit... I have. >I flash my motherboard with a custom BIOS image I've hex-edited together. Congratulations. >Now, it won't boot correctly. woops >Yes, it's reversible - I can probably figure out a way to flash the original image back on. In most cases. It is possible to brick some hardware, but easily-brickable hardware is probably not something that OEM's should ship; that's just asking for trouble. >However, the motherboard manufacturer is hardly going to tolerate me taking it back going, you need to fix this. That's hardly reasonable. They might if they like selling things. AMD tolerated and even encouraged overclocking, finding that it won them more sales than problems that it may have created. >They're going to be...err...you did something stupid and unsupported. You fix it. They might give me advice, but the onus is certainly not on them. Well, yes and no. They ought to either publish a spec that would tell you how to fix it, or let you ship it to them and re-flash it for a reasonable fee. People do send motherboards back all the time claiming that it "broke" or was "DOA" when they may know full well what broke it. Right or wrong, a company will have to do a postmortem engineering analysis on a part to prove it was tampered with, and they will need to be able to prove tampering if they don't want bad press from consumers. I'm not saying that makes lying right, but that is probably the reality for a lot of cases. >Or say I flash my car's ECU to give me another 5 HP of output. Then my car stops starting up reliably. >I can't exactly take it back to Honda and say, fix it. They'll be like, we sold you a working car - you did something out of spec, and overrode the ECU software - we aren't fixing it. Again, the consumer can say "I didn't do anything, I'll sue you. I'll tell the local TV station." Now the dealer has to risk a lawsuit, bad press, in which case they will need a professional engineering analysis; or the Dealer could just re-flash the firmware. I'm not sure how it is handled these days, but the customer can create a lot of doubt about the origin of the problem, and make it difficult for the dealer/carmaker to prove malfeasance on the customer's part. >Yes, it's reversible - I can flash the right ECU image back on and it will start up correctly - but the onus isn't on them to hand hold me through that process. If markets worked the way I was taught they ought to, then customers would never tolerate that. Then you could expect to take your car to the dealer, and for a reasonable fee they'd re-flash your ECU firmware or whatever, and then try to sell you some new floor-mats and an oil change. Unfortunately in many cases you're right; you can expect to be treated like a chump at the car dealership's service dep't. which is why "Right to Repair" laws are important. I think it is interesting now that Toyota has tried the "Cosmic Ray Defense" for exploding firmware how a car-maker (especially Toyota) might react to a customer with a bricked ECU who offers no explanation as to why his ECU is bricked. >Cheers, Victor Cheers indeed, and happy Thanksgiving, unless you are Native American, in which case, my apologies. (If you're not in the US be thankful Columbus didn't find your country instead.)
- crdoconnor 13y ago
  >So you think that a user should be able install an OS that bricks their phone and still have the phone still covered by warranty? > >How does that make sense? Because software shouldn't brick the phone. It should ALWAYS be possible to download and restore the pre-installed operating system and factory settings (it definitely was on my last android phone - an xperia - which I 'bricked' multiple times trying to get cyanogen to work). This really does remind me of the bundle/don't bundle internet explorer wars. "Oh, but you can just download netscape if you really want it!"
  - joenathan 13y ago
    >Because software shouldn't brick the phone. It's not software, it's a damn operating system.
- babesh 13y ago
  Isn't it because the apps aren't completely customizable/removable without rooting? So if a carrier includes apps that you don't like and that you want uninstalled but can't. The same probably goes for google play services. What if you don't want that to auto update?
- gcb1 13y ago
  it only has the possibility to brick the phone because they went the extra mile to try to deny access to doing it.
niels_olson 13y ago
If I download instructions to hotrod my lawnmower, and then engine block cracks when the head gasket blows out, should I blame Toro for not locking down my lawnmower?
- Someone 13y ago
  But in this case Toro used to host those instructions on its website.
  - victorhooi 13y ago
    But should they be? Say there's a Toro site for add-ins (flashing lights or whatever, I have no idea how you'd mod a mower...lol). And some of those add-ins will void your mower, and potentially break your machine. It's certainly within their prerogative to say "We won't host them. But you can just go to <some website> and get it from them instead". In fact, doesn't Google make a search engine? Surely, it's not hard to just Google for Cyanogenmod and find their hompage? In fact, if you can't do that, then probably shouldn't be flashing a ROM...
stusmall 13y ago
You can't install on some consumer hardware without voiding the warranty. The quality of the hardware you get subsidized from AT&T doesn't change the openness of Android. If you had a board and wanted to start porting android to it today everything you need to make it happen is there and out with permissive licensing too. What more to do you want out of a software project?

ars_technician 13y ago

>If you want to see a real socialist No true Scotsman is a logical fallacy that you should avoid. Saying there is someone out there that is worse actually does nothing to address the original point. Let me demonstrate, "You think Romney was conservative? Look at X tea party member that wants to own slaves." Do you see how that doesn't do anything to refute that Romney is conservative?

yongjik 13y ago
Dude, calling Obama a socialist is not comparable to calling Romney conservative. It's more like calling Romney gay. Oh, you say he isn't gay? No true homosexual Scotsman, it seems.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
rmrfrmrf 13y ago
Who says discussions on the Internet should be free of fallacy?
- IgorPartola 13y ago
  Agreed. I bet there was very little debate in soviet Russia or in nazi Germany, so at least we have some kind of debate here. We are clearly better than those two examples.
haberman 13y ago
> No true Scotsman is a logical fallacy that you should avoid. Perhaps, but this is not No True Scotsman. No True Scotsman involves ignoring a counterexample to a general/universal claim. For example, if I said "No Republican would vote to increase the deficit" and you countered by saying "actually, George W. Bush is a Republican and did in fact vote to increase the deficit," and I responded by saying, "well, no TRUE Republican would vote to increase the deficit," that would be No True Scotsman. Because I'm ignoring the fact that my broad, sweeping rule has a clear counterexample. Those elements are not here in this case. I did not make a broad sweeping claim, instead I made a specific one (Obama is not a socialist). Ergo, it is not No True Scotsman. > Let me demonstrate, "You think Romney was conservative? Look at X tea party member that wants to own slaves." Do you see how that doesn't do anything to refute that Romney is conservative? "Liberal" and "conservative" describes a spectrum of political belief. If some tea party members have much more extreme views than Romney, then yes, it would demonstrate that Romney is less conservative than more extremely conservative people, but does not refute that he is right-of-center.

throwawaykf02 13y ago

> This somehow makes Google like 90's Microsoft? You should have stopped there. Removing Cyanogenmod may not be it, but the rest of your post just opens it up for pointing out how Google is just like Microsoft. > How many operating systems or web browsers did Microsoft open-source? Red herring. Selling software and Operating Systems is Microsoft's core business, and you expect them to give it away? How much software that is the core of Google's business has Google given away? I see nothing of the search, advertising and distributed systems infrastructure being open sourced. > How many forks of their software did Microsoft tolerate? Hah, why don't we ask Acer that? The moment there's any leverage at all, Google will use it to squash forks. Conversely, has Microsoft ever tried to stop WINE or ReactOS? (Honest question, actually, I don't know.) Now let's ask some more relevant questions: 1. How many times has Google been investigated and fined by the FTC and DOJ for illegal business practices? 2. How many times has Google been investigated by US and EU government agencies for privacy breaches? 3. How many times has Google been investigated for anti-competitive behavior in the US and the EU? 4. How many times has Google been accused (and sued) by smaller companies for unfair business practices? 5. How many times has Google been accused of intentionally providing poor support for a competitor's product? 6. How many times has Google been sued for infringing somebody else's IP? 7. Has Google been sued by Sun for "hijacking" Java? 8. Has Microsoft been made to pay damages for abusing standards-essential patents? 9. Has Microsoft been sued for colluding in anti-poaching agreements? Some things Google has escaped (e.g. antitrust in the US), and some don't apply to Microsoft (abusing FRAND patents, anti-poaching collusion, illegal pharma ads), but most apply to both: investigations, settlements and fines in the US and EU for anticompetitive conduct, privacy breaches and illegal business practices; accusations of crippling competitors' products (Netscape etc. for Microsoft, competing service providers like Yelp, YouTube/Maps on Windows Phone for Google); accusations of stealing IP and unfair business practices (e.g. Apple's UI lawsuit and i4i for Microsoft, Author's Guild and SkyHook for Google); and so on. Anecdotally, having been privy to some negotiations with Google in two separate companies, they very much throw their weight around. > I wouldn't even bother responding to stuff like this, but it's getting upvoted on HN which is depressing. As much as you'd not like to admit it as an employee -- and it may not be apparent to the rank and file from inside -- there are very clear parallels in how both companies behave. Google is certainly throwing their weight around these days, which is precisely why Microsoft was hated in the 90s.