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

Google’s iron grip on Android: Controlling open source by any means necessary

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 234 posts

Re: Google’s iron grip on Android: Controlling open source by any means necessary

#101

Post by Mikeb85 »

Apocryphon wrote: post #93
oscargrouch wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Part of the original attraction of Android was its openness, if Google is now closing off substantial functionality, to head off competition, then it's not unfair for people to re-evaluate their enthusiasm for the product. Very well put! Its not a legal perception that theres something wrong about what they are doing(and nobody are saying that they cannot do it in the legal aspect).. its a betrayal of some part tha…

Perhaps there should be a phrase to mean "open source in name only." I wonder if all of this is related to Richard Stallman's dismissal of projects that claim to be open source, saying that it isn't enough unless it's "free software."

RMS is satisfied with anything that has a GPL licence. He's always supported creators rights to manage projects however they choose, and sell software as they choose. Google would fall short simply because the BSD licence isn't copyleft, but not for much of what they're being accused of here...

Re: Google’s iron grip on Android: Controlling open source by any means necessary

#102

Post by [deleted] »

mooreds wrote: post #64
dmethvin wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google is stuck behind a rock and a hard place. If they don't try to create incentives for a unified experience, they get bashed for encouraging fragmentation, if they do assert a level of control, they get bashed for not being completely open. This is exactly the position Microsoft was in during the mid-1990s, even before they went after Netscape. The article is saying that Google is even applying some of the same…

I read the article and kept hearing echos of the Microsoft strategy of the 90s as well. History may not repeat, but it rhymes.

[deleted]

Re: Google’s iron grip on Android: Controlling open source by any means necessary

#103

Post by fauigerzigerk »

throwawaykf wrote: post #70
hackula1 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

80% does not a monopoly make. Microsoft was in an entirely different position at the time.

Percentage of market share is not a clear indication of monopoly. From what I could find, 50% is typically the bare minimum to warrant consideration, and 70 - 75% will get more serious scrutiny. Also, it differs from country to country. In the UK, Tesco was investigated even though it had a market share of only 30%. I also recall reading one of the EU's regulators (was it Joaquin Almunia?) say that (paraphrasing) "we…

>Percentage of market share is not a clear indication of monopoly

True, and the reason is that a 30% UK-wide or a 50% Europe-wide market share can easily turn out to be a 100% market share in many local markets. Tesco defended itself by saying that 98% of consumers have access to five different super market chains within a drive time radius of 30 minutes. Make that a more realistic 10 minutes and the picture changes dramatically.

Re: Google’s iron grip on Android: Controlling open source by any means necessary

#104

Post by apetrovic »

cromwellian wrote: post #24

Most of the examples of Google closed apps that are not part of the AOSP release are in fact apps that are based off of Google data-center services. Would it really help Samsung if the source to the Gmail app was open? Since Google controls the server side, and the client-server protocol, it limits the amount of innovation they can do. The web equivalent would be like claiming that Chrome OS isn't open because the so…

>Most of the examples of Google closed apps that are not part of the AOSP release are in fact apps that are based off of Google data-center services. Would it really help Samsung if the source to the Gmail app was open? Since Google controls the server side, and the client-server protocol, it limits the amount of innovation they can do.

I don't think Google's development of their own services is issue here. The issue, in my understanding, is that Google ties its services to Android under "Android compatibility" label.

Skyhook is a great example (the article mentions it) - mapping is important for Google, and Google literally pushed the company out of business by strong-arming manufacturers to stop using Skyhook services.

Can, say, Samsung make a deal with Yahoo to drop gmail, include only Yahoo mail on their phones and still pass "compatibility" test in Google, and have access to Google Play store and the rest of the services? Can you imagine HTC phone with Nokia maps? (speaking of maps and Nokia, anyone is quick to point that Nokia made a huge mistake not betting on Android as Symbian replacement. And couple of months ago we saw that mapping is so important to Nokia that they're ready to let negotiations with Microsoft fail just to keep mapping in their hands. Does anyone thinks that Nokia would be permitted to make Android phones with Nokia maps?)

The fact that Google services are (mostly) better than competition isn't relevant here - back in the day Internet Explorer was way better than Netscape Navigator, but that fact didn't made MS actions any better.

Re: Google’s iron grip on Android: Controlling open source by any means necessary

#105

Post by afsina »

gibwell wrote: post #77
parennoob wrote: post #22

When someone like Github does this (make some parts of their code open-source, but others closed-source), journalists don't write critical pieces about them, do they? I mean, Google leaves a bad taste in my mouth since they started shuttering services like it was Christmas at the Google Service Chopping Block, but I don't see them being actively evil here. It's all according to the previously openly aired plan. Googl…

Google used 'Android is open' as a dishonest slogan to convince developers that it wasn't just a power play. That is why they are being criticized. It's not about who is more open. It's that Google misled everyone about their intentions.

Prove that Android is not open.

Re: Google’s iron grip on Android: Controlling open source by any means necessary

#108

Post by coopdog »

tonyfelice wrote: post #8

"In an ocean with great waves, whales fly into the air unnoticed, but in a calm pond, even the tiniest minnow makes a ripple." -confucius When the iPhone debuted, no doubt Google sensed the impact, and Apple's ability to create an effective closed ecosystem had already been proven with iTunes. I believe that Google wanted to undermine the market long enough to understand it. True enough, "android winning" was not the…

I will only buy / recommend nexus phones. Knowing that the phone will be updated quickly and for a long time is worth a premium, rather than being a cash in strat for Google.

Re: Google’s iron grip on Android: Controlling open source by any means necessary

#109

Post by sbuk »

alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #73
hackula1 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

80% does not a monopoly make. Microsoft was in an entirely different position at the time.

How can anything other that 99% market share even be considered a monopoly? If it's 80% or 90% then there is obviously choice and thus no monopoly. Anti trust is such bunk...

Monopoly is not antitrust. Abusing control of a market is. A monopoly (which is usually considered to be dominance if a market place) is not itself unlawful.

Re: Google’s iron grip on Android: Controlling open source by any means necessary

#110

Post by grinns »

mooreds wrote: post #64
dmethvin wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google is stuck behind a rock and a hard place. If they don't try to create incentives for a unified experience, they get bashed for encouraging fragmentation, if they do assert a level of control, they get bashed for not being completely open. This is exactly the position Microsoft was in during the mid-1990s, even before they went after Netscape. The article is saying that Google is even applying some of the same…

I read the article and kept hearing echos of the Microsoft strategy of the 90s as well. History may not repeat, but it rhymes.

I think that you hear whatever you want to hear, but the truth is very different: Google's apps and APIs are just cloud endpoints and weaving them into AOSP doesn't make sense and just delays updates, as the same author previously scribbled: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/09/balky-carriers-and-sl...

As for "strong-arm tactics", what is referred to is explained in this post: http://officialandroid.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-benefits-imp...

As Andy Rubin puts it, Google will not encourage non compatible forks, it is in their interest to have Android developed apps run on all Android devices. Anyone can still have a go but Google won't encourage it.

It's a very flawed and overwritten attack piece, seemingly coming out of nowhere.

Post reply on HN