Live data from Hacker News

Google's agreement with Samsung prevented Branch from launching: testimony

bigtechontrial.com

21–30 of 101 posts

Re: Google's agreement with Samsung prevented Branch from launching: testimony

#21
post #14

Why is it that Samsung needs an agreement with Google in the first place? Is it about a permission to use androing with Google services or does Samsung want to be paid for setting Google's search engine as default? The answer to this question is really important, because if the first is true, Samsung is essentially forced to enter into whatever agreement Google puts in front of them (the alternative is it's own flavo…

> the alternative is it's own flavor of Android a-la Huawei

Or one that couple of major OEMs drive. But they won't do that. That's just not gonna happen.

One, software is anything but Samsung's forte, they suck at it. They are much worse at Software than even Apple is.

Second, Samsung is not a very smart company, it's an extremely "hard working" company without the smarts (yes, I know). But they are smart enough to know their weakness. They also can't trust too many companies, or other OEMs. In the Google-Samsung relationship they know that Google needs a company like Samsung with its strengths to churn out millions of devices to millions of people where they can put their OS and track every breath these users take. So it works for both of them. A fee for a default search engine or so I think comes secondary. Samsung also knows that the service suit Google offers - Gmail, Google Maps, YouTube, Docs etc it is like "the mail", "the map"…. etc in most of the world and moving away from Google blessed Android is not going to sit well with "their target audience" (I had to put quotes for emphasis lest some noble HNer jumps saying they have been hosting their own email since before they could tie their shoe laces).

Samsung "own mobile OS" shenanigans? Nope, no one at Google or at Samsung believed even for a moment it was going anywhere.

Re: Google's agreement with Samsung prevented Branch from launching: testimony

#22
post #14

Why is it that Samsung needs an agreement with Google in the first place? Is it about a permission to use androing with Google services or does Samsung want to be paid for setting Google's search engine as default? The answer to this question is really important, because if the first is true, Samsung is essentially forced to enter into whatever agreement Google puts in front of them (the alternative is it's own flavo…

Google services sure come with binding conditions on what they can do with android and in particular what they can't do with the search bar (get rid of it, put another search engine etc.) The EU is after them on it, but I don't remember a clear result yet: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_16_... [edit] Google was found guilty and made some promises in 2019, but I'm not sure we've seen any chan…

I switched to a new Android phone just weeks ago. Choosing the search engine was part of the onboarding wizard.

Re: Google's agreement with Samsung prevented Branch from launching: testimony

#23
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen the DOJ lose every antitrust case its filed recently. All they're doing is at worst generating bad PR for large companies and airing their dirty laundry. The US Government might actually need to pass legislation if it wants effective anti-trust enforcement.

The supreme court has been captured by business interests so no, it’s game over

> The supreme court has been captured by business interests

Has it?

Definitely captured by conservatives, not the same

Re: Google's agreement with Samsung prevented Branch from launching: testimony

#24
post #14

Why is it that Samsung needs an agreement with Google in the first place? Is it about a permission to use androing with Google services or does Samsung want to be paid for setting Google's search engine as default? The answer to this question is really important, because if the first is true, Samsung is essentially forced to enter into whatever agreement Google puts in front of them (the alternative is it's own flavo…

> Why is it that Samsung needs an agreement with Google in the first place? They can't make Android devices without accepting Google's terms. Amazon attempted to sell phones with their own fork of Android without permission, but didn't have much luck. Interestingly, Amazon had to find a manufacturing partner that didn't already make Android phones for anyone, because one of the terms of Google's agreement was that yo…

Isn't it technically use of the Play Store that requires accepting Google's terms?

Re: Google's agreement with Samsung prevented Branch from launching: testimony

#25
post #14

Why is it that Samsung needs an agreement with Google in the first place? Is it about a permission to use androing with Google services or does Samsung want to be paid for setting Google's search engine as default? The answer to this question is really important, because if the first is true, Samsung is essentially forced to enter into whatever agreement Google puts in front of them (the alternative is it's own flavo…

> the alternative is it's own flavor of Android a-la Huawei Or one that couple of major OEMs drive. But they won't do that. That's just not gonna happen. One, software is anything but Samsung's forte, they suck at it. They are much worse at Software than even Apple is. Second, Samsung is not a very smart company, it's an extremely "hard working" company without the smarts (yes, I know). But they are smart enough to k…

[deleted]

Re: Google's agreement with Samsung prevented Branch from launching: testimony

#26
post #19

Have I got this right: the software provides search results that brings you to pages in apps?! Surely that's what the web and web search is for? I don't need to install your app I just need a web browser.

Businesses don't like the web because every time you search you have competitors next to the results. Getting users to install an app massively increases the lifetime value of that user. Consequently if search can take you directly to the app, businesses will pay more for search ads.

Re: Google's agreement with Samsung prevented Branch from launching: testimony

#27
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is it that Samsung needs an agreement with Google in the first place? They can't make Android devices without accepting Google's terms. Amazon attempted to sell phones with their own fork of Android without permission, but didn't have much luck. Interestingly, Amazon had to find a manufacturing partner that didn't already make Android phones for anyone, because one of the terms of Google's agreement was that yo…

Isn't it technically use of the Play Store that requires accepting Google's terms?

Not "just" the Play Store.

Apps

>If a company does ever manage to fork AOSP, clone the Google apps, and create a viable competitor to Google's Android, it's going to have a hard time getting anyone to build a device for it. In an open market, it would be as easy as calling up an Android OEM and convincing them to switch, but Google is out to make life a little more difficult than that. Google's real power in mobile comes from control of the Google apps—mainly Gmail, Maps, Google Now, Hangouts, YouTube, and the Play Store. These are Android's killer apps, and the big (and small) manufacturers want these apps on their phones. Since these apps are not open source, they need to be licensed from Google. It is at this point that you start picturing a scene out of The Godfather, because these apps aren't going to come without some requirements attached.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on...

and services as well.

Re: Google's agreement with Samsung prevented Branch from launching: testimony

#28
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is it that Samsung needs an agreement with Google in the first place? They can't make Android devices without accepting Google's terms. Amazon attempted to sell phones with their own fork of Android without permission, but didn't have much luck. Interestingly, Amazon had to find a manufacturing partner that didn't already make Android phones for anyone, because one of the terms of Google's agreement was that yo…

Isn't it technically use of the Play Store that requires accepting Google's terms?

Yes -- and the Amazon Kindle Fire phone didn't have the Play Store installed.

Re: Google's agreement with Samsung prevented Branch from launching: testimony

#29
post #23
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The supreme court has been captured by business interests so no, it’s game over

> The supreme court has been captured by business interests Has it? Definitely captured by conservatives, not the same

That's going to be interesting. If you think the current Court is inclined towards originalism and following the text, antitrust enforcement today should be back to how tough it was under Teddy Roosevelt.

This is the actual text of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act:

Sec. 1. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or other- wise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, at the discretion of the court.

Sec. 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof; shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

Sec. 3. Every contract, combination in form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in any Territory of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or in restraint of trade or commerce between any such Territory and another, or between any such Territory or Territories and any State or States or the District of Columbia, or with foreign nations, or between the District of Columbia and any State or States or foreign nations, is hereby declared illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

Passed the House and Senate almost unanimously, by the way. One dissenting vote in the Senate.

Yes, jail.

Re: Google's agreement with Samsung prevented Branch from launching: testimony

#30
post #19

Have I got this right: the software provides search results that brings you to pages in apps?! Surely that's what the web and web search is for? I don't need to install your app I just need a web browser.

Perhaps, but that's not the point.

The point is that you can't have this software, because the monopolies in this space have formed a trust to prevent it from being an option.

Post reply on HN