10 ms·

As a user of Google search and Android, I want Google to bundle services. Android would, in my opinion, be impaired if it didn't include Google play, gmail, chr

by hodder 12y ago

As a user of Google search and Android, I want Google to bundle services. Android would, in my opinion, be impaired if it didn't include Google play, gmail, chrome, and Google Maps. Similarly, Google search would be worse for me if it didn't present me with instantly relevant results like shopping, wikipedia responses, imdb style results, or quick answers to unit conversions and equations. Yes Google leverages its dominance in search and mobile to bundle services, but is this something that the EU should fine Google for? As a consumer, I don't think so.

ocdtrekkie 12y ago
As someone who's been trying to find a way to not use Google, I absolutely think the EU should not just fine, but shatter Google for. Because even when I moved to Windows Phone, Google bought out my NFC payment app and shut it down, telling everyone to get Android and Google Wallet. If Google can't crush a competitor in the marketplace, they'll just buy it out and kill it. Which is why rumors they might want to acquire Twitter isn't a shock: They've never succeeded at social.
- nathanm412 12y ago
  Softcard was shutting down anyways. They really never recovered from heavily investing in branding a product named ISIS and then having to change their name after that budget had been spent. On top of that, the early adopters that would have spread the word of the product were annoyed that the phone carriers were actively blocking Google Wallet installations in order to push ISIS adoption in the beginning. Google Wallet had to change business models and use a reloadable card because the carriers prevented Google from using the secure element on NFC to store the user's actual credit card on their own device. After Softcard began to fold, Google just bought what was left.
  - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
    Nobody cared about Google Wallet. It was never more than a tech industry niche item (aside from being an account for Play Store purchases), and phone carriers only blocked it because Google was trying to create a monopoly. If you understand the history behind the secure element, you'd realize that it was those phone carriers which forced Google to adopt HCE, which allows payment options. Google's plan was to be the sole payment provider across the entire industry. Source: http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/05/01/a-brief-history-of-verizon-and-google-wallet-and-why-the-carrier-is-still-allowed-to-block-it/ http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/05/01/a-brief-history-of-v...
    - magicalist 12y ago
      You're off in bizarro land here. The brave carriers blocking evil Google's payment monopoly by allowing only ISIS payments on their phone? I know you're trolling the rest of this thread, but seriously? That article is not even a source for what you're claiming! It just says Verizon wasn't illegally acting when it blocked Google Wallet on its phones.
      - Oletros 12y ago
        Looking all of their posts in that thread it is clear how much loves Google and how far goes to spin and bend reality
      - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
        Read the article, magicalist. Particularly the bottom few paragraphs. Google mandated exclusive use of the Secure Element for the payment system on Android. This would have prevented carriers from offering a competing payment service. In short, carriers were not being greedy by blocking Wallet. Google was being greedy by designing Wallet. Carriers, if anything, saved us from a Google Wallet monopoly. Now anyone can make an app that uses NFC.
        magicalist 12y ago
        > Google mandated exclusive use of the Secure Element for the payment system on Android The article's only claim in that area is that the Secure Element can only contain the credentials for one credit card (which wouldn't incidentally, lock developers out of using NFC). I'm not sure if that's right, but even assuming that, it appears to be a function of the hardware, not some evil plan to monopolize the phone. The carriers only saved us in the sense that they forced Google to design around the Secure Element (which, notably, they could have also done themselves, another hole in your narrative...), giving a pure software solution and allowing Google Wallet to not ever be blocked on a hardware level.
        ocdtrekkie 12y ago
antsar 12y ago
Android would, in my opinion, be impaired if it didn't include Google play, gmail, chrome, and Google Maps. Android would be "impaired" if it shipped a general-purpose mail client rather than one designed specifically for Gmail? It would be "impaired" if part of the setup process was to select an app store[0], a browser[1], and a maps app[1]? That sounds more like "consumer empowerment" than "impairment" to me. [0] Google Play, F-Droid, Amazon's app store, etc [1] Just show that category of programs from the aforementioned app store
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  More complex setup is a UX quality loss, so, yes, Android would be impaired by your recommendations. (And, on top of that, giving developers less consistency they could rely on on the platform would also be an impairment resulting from that.) Whether an improved competitive marketplace would result from the changes and yield long-term benefits that offset the cost of those impairments may be a worthwhile debate, but its not a debate you can even have honestly without recognizing the impairments.
  - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
    It's actually been really nice to remove all the Google apps and find apps with UIs I actually like rather than the Google-branded blinding-in-the-dark stark-white look they're shoving on everyone these days.
    - fixermark 12y ago
      The fact that you are able to do that is a strong indicator that even if the apparent claim that "Google is using its position to discourage the inclusion of rival applications" were to reflect Google's actual intent, it's clearly not working very well.
      - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
        It's really not, because I'm a career IT specialist, with a degree in software development and a ton of experience. For anyone outside of that, Google makes it very scary and very difficult to do. Google's "openness" is what I refer to as "just enough rope to hang yourself with". They only are open insofar as they know you can't successfully compete with them.
azakai 12y ago
Microsoft said the same back in the day. And it is true - in the immediate term, consumers benefit from a single vendor integrating all their products and limiting competition. The problem happens when you look a little farther ahead. Anti-competitive measures prevent other companies from offering something even better. Those products might not exist now, but without an open and competitive environment, they won't show up. And consumers are very much hurt if that is the case.
- magicalist 12y ago
  This is where it's not helpful to talk generically about this issue. I might agree with you on some of the clauses in Android contracts, for instance, but the EU's previously proposed idea mandating cycling through different spammy vertical shopping search engines at the top of the search results helps no one but those spammy search engines, artificially propping a company up for years for the the appearance of competition. See declan's excellent post below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9382109 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9382109
  - azakai 12y ago
    Debating details can be useful, but that is the previously proposed idea. Until we know what the current proposals will be, we don't have the details to talk concretely. So all we can do for now is talk about the general issue.
    - magicalist 12y ago
      That's fair, but my point is that it's easy to talk about "oh, the market should be more competitive", but it turns out finding ways to do that is incredibly difficult without also hobbling the original thing to the point that it becomes simply not a good product. It's also perfectly possible to propose solutions of our own for the purposes of discussion :) edit: > Debating details can be useful, but that is the previously proposed idea it's also worth pointing out that the cycling vertical shopping search site links proposal was apparently rejected not because it was flawed but because those vertical shopping sites didn't think it went far enough.
coldtea 12y ago
>As a user of Google search and Android, I want Google to bundle services. Android would, in my opinion, be impaired if it didn't include Google play, gmail, chrome, and Google Maps Even if it was so, the convenience of consumers is less important than having a healthy economic ecosystem.
- ocdtrekkie 12y ago
  Indeed. Consumer choice is more important than consumer coddling. And nobody is saying Samsung or Sony or LG shouldn't be able to choose to ship Google Maps on their devices. Just that it's wrong for Google to force them to.
  - tracker1 12y ago
    To me, it's really not different from the television industry bundling their stations for carriers... Oh, you want to be able to carry AB Network? Well you also have to carry X, Y, and Z. As long as the phone manufacturer isn't prevented from also installing Bing Maps, and setting that to the default, and putting that as the shortcut on the desktop, I don't know that there's a big problem... The experience apps have been a bundle for a long time now.
    - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
      Actually, Google's MADA terms specify what must be on the homescreen by default and how it must be arranged.
      - tracker1 12y ago
        That being the case, I have a bit of an issue with it. Despite personally preferring the Google apps, I understand the sentiment.. I just see it in more limited scope than what irks some people.
- blfr 12y ago
  Isn't consumer convenience the whole point of a healthy economic ecosystem? We don't want companies to compete for the sake of competing but to deliver better products and services. Failing that, at least cheaper.
pmontra 12y ago
My 2 cents. I had an Android phone since 2011 and an Android tablet since last December. I do use Google Play to install apps and for nothing else. I use Google Maps without being logged in. I don't use Gmail nor Chrome (also on desktop). I search from within Opera (I bet this is very unusual). I know it's anecdotal but given my experience the only thing that would impair Android is the lack of an app store. Books, movies, music etc don't matter. Only apps. There are alternatives to Google Play and there will be more if for some reason Google decide to shut it down but a search engine and a little QA for apps is convenient. Having to wander through 4 or 5 app stores would be a bad experience (btw, I do use FDroid for some app not on Google's store).
TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
> Android would, in my opinion, be impaired if it didn't include Google play, gmail, chrome, and Google Maps. Why should Google blacklist manufacturers who produce anything Android-based that lacks their services? If you wanted Google services, what would stop you downloading them yourself?
bad_user 12y ago
As a paying customer of Google Apps, of Google Drive, of Google Music and as a user of Android, I want to have choice. And for example it is regrettable that CalDAV or CardDAV are not baked into Android, or that the mail app does not support IMAP Idle. Which basically means that the only usable standard on Android is Exchange. I also love Chrome and Maps. However I'd like the ability of uninstalling them depending on my mood. This isn't too say that EU's claims are fair or not. But I also feel that Google has lost its way.

by hodder 12y ago

ocdtrekkie 12y ago

As someone who's been trying to find a way to not use Google, I absolutely think the EU should not just fine, but shatter Google for. Because even when I moved to Windows Phone, Google bought out my NFC payment app and shut it down, telling everyone to get Android and Google Wallet. If Google can't crush a competitor in the marketplace, they'll just buy it out and kill it. Which is why rumors they might want to acquire Twitter isn't a shock: They've never succeeded at social.

nathanm412 12y ago
Softcard was shutting down anyways. They really never recovered from heavily investing in branding a product named ISIS and then having to change their name after that budget had been spent. On top of that, the early adopters that would have spread the word of the product were annoyed that the phone carriers were actively blocking Google Wallet installations in order to push ISIS adoption in the beginning. Google Wallet had to change business models and use a reloadable card because the carriers prevented Google from using the secure element on NFC to store the user's actual credit card on their own device. After Softcard began to fold, Google just bought what was left.
- ocdtrekkie 12y ago
  Nobody cared about Google Wallet. It was never more than a tech industry niche item (aside from being an account for Play Store purchases), and phone carriers only blocked it because Google was trying to create a monopoly. If you understand the history behind the secure element, you'd realize that it was those phone carriers which forced Google to adopt HCE, which allows payment options. Google's plan was to be the sole payment provider across the entire industry. Source: http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/05/01/a-brief-history-of-verizon-and-google-wallet-and-why-the-carrier-is-still-allowed-to-block-it/ http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/05/01/a-brief-history-of-v...
  - magicalist 12y ago
    You're off in bizarro land here. The brave carriers blocking evil Google's payment monopoly by allowing only ISIS payments on their phone? I know you're trolling the rest of this thread, but seriously? That article is not even a source for what you're claiming! It just says Verizon wasn't illegally acting when it blocked Google Wallet on its phones.
    - Oletros 12y ago
      Looking all of their posts in that thread it is clear how much loves Google and how far goes to spin and bend reality
    - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
      Read the article, magicalist. Particularly the bottom few paragraphs. Google mandated exclusive use of the Secure Element for the payment system on Android. This would have prevented carriers from offering a competing payment service. In short, carriers were not being greedy by blocking Wallet. Google was being greedy by designing Wallet. Carriers, if anything, saved us from a Google Wallet monopoly. Now anyone can make an app that uses NFC.
      - magicalist 12y ago
        > Google mandated exclusive use of the Secure Element for the payment system on Android The article's only claim in that area is that the Secure Element can only contain the credentials for one credit card (which wouldn't incidentally, lock developers out of using NFC). I'm not sure if that's right, but even assuming that, it appears to be a function of the hardware, not some evil plan to monopolize the phone. The carriers only saved us in the sense that they forced Google to design around the Secure Element (which, notably, they could have also done themselves, another hole in your narrative...), giving a pure software solution and allowing Google Wallet to not ever be blocked on a hardware level.
        ocdtrekkie 12y ago

antsar 12y ago

Android would, in my opinion, be impaired if it didn't include Google play, gmail, chrome, and Google Maps. Android would be "impaired" if it shipped a general-purpose mail client rather than one designed specifically for Gmail? It would be "impaired" if part of the setup process was to select an app store[0], a browser[1], and a maps app[1]? That sounds more like "consumer empowerment" than "impairment" to me. [0] Google Play, F-Droid, Amazon's app store, etc [1] Just show that category of programs from the aforementioned app store

dragonwriter 12y ago
More complex setup is a UX quality loss, so, yes, Android would be impaired by your recommendations. (And, on top of that, giving developers less consistency they could rely on on the platform would also be an impairment resulting from that.) Whether an improved competitive marketplace would result from the changes and yield long-term benefits that offset the cost of those impairments may be a worthwhile debate, but its not a debate you can even have honestly without recognizing the impairments.
- ocdtrekkie 12y ago
  It's actually been really nice to remove all the Google apps and find apps with UIs I actually like rather than the Google-branded blinding-in-the-dark stark-white look they're shoving on everyone these days.
  - fixermark 12y ago
    The fact that you are able to do that is a strong indicator that even if the apparent claim that "Google is using its position to discourage the inclusion of rival applications" were to reflect Google's actual intent, it's clearly not working very well.
    - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
      It's really not, because I'm a career IT specialist, with a degree in software development and a ton of experience. For anyone outside of that, Google makes it very scary and very difficult to do. Google's "openness" is what I refer to as "just enough rope to hang yourself with". They only are open insofar as they know you can't successfully compete with them.

azakai 12y ago

Microsoft said the same back in the day. And it is true - in the immediate term, consumers benefit from a single vendor integrating all their products and limiting competition. The problem happens when you look a little farther ahead. Anti-competitive measures prevent other companies from offering something even better. Those products might not exist now, but without an open and competitive environment, they won't show up. And consumers are very much hurt if that is the case.

magicalist 12y ago
This is where it's not helpful to talk generically about this issue. I might agree with you on some of the clauses in Android contracts, for instance, but the EU's previously proposed idea mandating cycling through different spammy vertical shopping search engines at the top of the search results helps no one but those spammy search engines, artificially propping a company up for years for the the appearance of competition. See declan's excellent post below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9382109 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9382109
- azakai 12y ago
  Debating details can be useful, but that is the previously proposed idea. Until we know what the current proposals will be, we don't have the details to talk concretely. So all we can do for now is talk about the general issue.
  - magicalist 12y ago
    That's fair, but my point is that it's easy to talk about "oh, the market should be more competitive", but it turns out finding ways to do that is incredibly difficult without also hobbling the original thing to the point that it becomes simply not a good product. It's also perfectly possible to propose solutions of our own for the purposes of discussion :) edit: > Debating details can be useful, but that is the previously proposed idea it's also worth pointing out that the cycling vertical shopping search site links proposal was apparently rejected not because it was flawed but because those vertical shopping sites didn't think it went far enough.

coldtea 12y ago

>As a user of Google search and Android, I want Google to bundle services. Android would, in my opinion, be impaired if it didn't include Google play, gmail, chrome, and Google Maps Even if it was so, the convenience of consumers is less important than having a healthy economic ecosystem.

ocdtrekkie 12y ago
Indeed. Consumer choice is more important than consumer coddling. And nobody is saying Samsung or Sony or LG shouldn't be able to choose to ship Google Maps on their devices. Just that it's wrong for Google to force them to.
- tracker1 12y ago
  To me, it's really not different from the television industry bundling their stations for carriers... Oh, you want to be able to carry AB Network? Well you also have to carry X, Y, and Z. As long as the phone manufacturer isn't prevented from also installing Bing Maps, and setting that to the default, and putting that as the shortcut on the desktop, I don't know that there's a big problem... The experience apps have been a bundle for a long time now.
  - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
    Actually, Google's MADA terms specify what must be on the homescreen by default and how it must be arranged.
    - tracker1 12y ago
      That being the case, I have a bit of an issue with it. Despite personally preferring the Google apps, I understand the sentiment.. I just see it in more limited scope than what irks some people.
blfr 12y ago
Isn't consumer convenience the whole point of a healthy economic ecosystem? We don't want companies to compete for the sake of competing but to deliver better products and services. Failing that, at least cheaper.

pmontra 12y ago

My 2 cents. I had an Android phone since 2011 and an Android tablet since last December. I do use Google Play to install apps and for nothing else. I use Google Maps without being logged in. I don't use Gmail nor Chrome (also on desktop). I search from within Opera (I bet this is very unusual). I know it's anecdotal but given my experience the only thing that would impair Android is the lack of an app store. Books, movies, music etc don't matter. Only apps. There are alternatives to Google Play and there will be more if for some reason Google decide to shut it down but a search engine and a little QA for apps is convenient. Having to wander through 4 or 5 app stores would be a bad experience (btw, I do use FDroid for some app not on Google's store).

TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago

> Android would, in my opinion, be impaired if it didn't include Google play, gmail, chrome, and Google Maps. Why should Google blacklist manufacturers who produce anything Android-based that lacks their services? If you wanted Google services, what would stop you downloading them yourself?

bad_user 12y ago

As a paying customer of Google Apps, of Google Drive, of Google Music and as a user of Android, I want to have choice. And for example it is regrettable that CalDAV or CardDAV are not baked into Android, or that the mail app does not support IMAP Idle. Which basically means that the only usable standard on Android is Exchange. I also love Chrome and Maps. However I'd like the ability of uninstalling them depending on my mood. This isn't too say that EU's claims are fair or not. But I also feel that Google has lost its way.