Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

bigtechontrial.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 101 posts

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

#41

Post by tsimionescu »

gundmc wrote: post #24
GeekyBear wrote: post #17

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?

I don't think you can make a third party client app for any of Google's services at all. So, unless you convince Google to port their apps on your fork of Android, your users will not be able to use an YouTube app or a Gmail app or Waze most likely.

Microsoft tried to do this a long time ago for Windows Phone, and Google openly thwarted them every step of the way, changing APIs and so on to prevent those apps from actually working. And they of course refused to launch any apps of their own for WP.

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

#42

Post by namdnay »

crossroadsguy wrote: post #21
Roark66 wrote: 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…

> They are much worse at Software than even Apple

??

> But they are smart enough to know their weakness

If they were they wouldn't have insisted on building their UI layer on top of stock android

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

#43

Post by ladyanita22 »

namdnay wrote: post #42
crossroadsguy wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> They are much worse at Software than even Apple ?? > But they are smart enough to know their weakness If they were they wouldn't have insisted on building their UI layer on top of stock android

They need to differentiate, but given Samsung's clearly lackluster track record at OSes, it's obvious they're very bad at software and they know it.

Plus their Android flavor (One UI) is extremely underperforming, even when compared to the Chinese OEMs. If we compared it against the cleanliness of Pixel software, you'd inmediately see Google is simply much, much better than Samsung at software even with the same foundations.

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

#44

Post by tgma »

crossroadsguy wrote: post #21
Roark66 wrote: 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…

> Samsung is not a very smart company

Have you used a recent Samsung device, especially foldables? Google, the OS provider is playing a total catch-up there, for example, and the implementation is pretty good and all first-party from Samsung. They have their own implementation of iCloud/Continuity features across their tablets/phones and their Windows laptops that works decently (not Apple level, but Apple has been sucking lately too).

I used to believe they suck at software and can never catch up. You'd be surprised how much they have improved in first party ecosystem building. In many ways they would be superior to Google's first party experience, if they pulled back on bloating the device with a bunch of useless Samsung apps and kept it to a non-zero minimum. The window management, search, etc experience on the recent 2022/3 devices were all ahead of Google. Hardware wise they are a pioneer.

And it's not like Google, the smart company, is great at shipping new OSes either. Look at that Fucshia vapor crap. It's a hard problem to build an OS and a successful ecosystem around it; galaxies need to align, and is not easily attributable to just lack of smartness.

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

#45

Post by pjmlp »

ladyanita22 wrote: post #43
namdnay wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are much worse at Software than even Apple ?? > But they are smart enough to know their weakness If they were they wouldn't have insisted on building their UI layer on top of stock android

They need to differentiate, but given Samsung's clearly lackluster track record at OSes, it's obvious they're very bad at software and they know it. Plus their Android flavor (One UI) is extremely underperforming, even when compared to the Chinese OEMs. If we compared it against the cleanliness of Pixel software, you'd inmediately see Google is simply much, much better than Samsung at software even with the same foun…

I don't want the "cleanliness" of Pixel software in any of my devices.

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

#46

Post by jeroenhd »

GeekyBear wrote: post #27
gundmc wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

What does "manufacturer" mean in this context? I don't think Qualcom or Foxconn can give a rat's ass about whether you pack Gmail or not.

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

#47

Post by jeroenhd »

makeitdouble wrote: post #31
Lorkki wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Thanks. BTW does it change what happens with the home search widget when you run voice regonition or other features that usually run the assistant ? Come to think of it, Huawei or Xiaomi phones must come with their app storr, so the real test would be to see what defaults they have in EU ?

After breaking my Google Assistant with a custom ROM, I unintentionally found out that yes, there is a setting for the default assistant app in the settings. I don't know if any actual alternatives exist, but you can definitely change the default settings. My issue was that Google Assistant didn't realise that it was set as the default, and my attempts to launch it just brought up a prompt to configure it as the default assistant.

The Pixel launcher is deeply integrated with Google, so that doesn't support switching search providers I think. You can install any other launcher you want if you dislike searching through Google from the home screen.

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

#48

Post by jeroenhd »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #32
pipes wrote: 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.

You're missing the whole picture. Branch.io was actually quite popular among a number of big app developers. A big part of what they did was deep linking into your app, and I may have the timing on this wrong but I think it was before iOS or Google had any deep linking functionality released. For example, you see this all the time on normal Android searches now, where if I have an app already installed and I search f…

As a user, I'm glad this didn't make it into phones. We have enough "install our app" bullshit already.

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

#49

Post by jeroenhd »

Roark66 wrote: 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…

Based on this excerpt:

> was apparently the only way that phone manufacturers like Samsung could implement Branch without violating their revenue share agreements (RSAs) with Google, which he understood to require that Google be the only “web-connected” search function pre-loaded onto a device.

I would assume that Google pays back some of the ad revenue it collects through search to Samsung.

I don't think Google will demand special permission to make them the default search provider, but they certainly won't pay you for it unless you sign a contract.

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

#50

Post by smallerfish »

GeekyBear wrote: post #27
gundmc wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

> Gmail, Maps, Google Now, Hangouts, YouTube, and the Play Store

This isn't actually a very strong moat.

(Non Waze) alternatives to maps are becoming increasingly credible. Google Now and Hangouts are history. An alternate client to Gmail is easy, since it speaks imap, and the Android app isn't particularly amazing by itself. Youtube's possibly the toughest nut, but there are alternate clients to it, the web UI works very well in mobile browsers, and besides many would be satisfied with just having TikTok.

Post reply on HN