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

Google contract prevented Motorola from setting Perplexity as default assistant

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 206 posts

Re: Google contract prevented Motorola from setting Perplexity as default assistant

#141

Post by int_19h »

fidotron wrote: post #128
indrora wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Open source Android vs. closed iOS Google have slid back on this from day one. A pure-AOSP build of Android is borderline unusable, to the point that the dialer UI, various essential apps such as contacts and the like are now proprietary Google code, stripped out of AOSP. Additionally, AOSP has gone to a source-dump release pattern, rather than an open build. Last I knew, even basic things like the Camera and clock…

The requirement that amazes me they never gone absolutely done for was that to get certified (to carry the Play Store) you must not release any Android devices which are not certified. i.e. a given manufacturer would not be able to sell Google based Android devices and separate non-Google based Android devices. It's as if being able to bundle Windows OEM licenses was reliant on not selling any models with Linux.

Wasn't this something that Microsoft actually tried at one point (and was rightly slammed for)?

Re: Google contract prevented Motorola from setting Perplexity as default assistant

#142

Post by jillyboel »

robertlagrant wrote: post #126
ForHackernews wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...literally all the things listed in the comment you're replying to.

But what stops Amazon from making these things? What's stopping them?

What's stopping you? Reflect on that and you'll have your answer.

Re: Google contract prevented Motorola from setting Perplexity as default assistant

#143

Post by bluGill »

phire wrote: post #72
mkhalil wrote: post #24

Did anyone read this article? The headline is misleading. It clearly states in the first line: > "Google’s contract with Lenovo Group Ltd.’s Motorola blocked the smartphone maker from setting Perplexity AI as the default assistant on its new devices" They didn't block Perplexity AI from Motorola's devices, the agreement states that they allow them to preload the devices with Perplexity, but the agreement, that both p…

It’s a little oversimplified, but I wouldn’t call it misleading. There is little point to getting an app like perplexity AI pre-installed on a phone as a non-default. Changing defaults isn’t exactly trivial, and any user motivated enough to go through that will have no problems installing the app from the App Store. So of course the deal fell through. And it’s accurate to say that “Google blocked a deal to put Perple…

> I’m thankful for anything that reduces pre-installed bloatware on phones

Except that I still get all the google bloatware on my phone.

Re: Google contract prevented Motorola from setting Perplexity as default assistant

#144

Post by tapoxi »

robertlagrant wrote: post #126
ForHackernews wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...literally all the things listed in the comment you're replying to.

But what stops Amazon from making these things? What's stopping them?

Play Services, and the Play Store. The network effect is so strong that competition becomes impossible. Nobody would buy a phone with a different AI provider because you couldn't use apps like Uber, and Uber wouldn't develop and publish to a different store and re-write their app to avoid Play Services to target a platform without any users.

Re: Google contract prevented Motorola from setting Perplexity as default assistant

#145

Post by Daedren »

robertlagrant wrote: post #126
ForHackernews wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...literally all the things listed in the comment you're replying to.

But what stops Amazon from making these things? What's stopping them?

You'd have to get every single app developer to implement an Amazon variant of Google Play Services alongside Google's.

That's not going to happen, it's already a large problem in China.

Re: Google contract prevented Motorola from setting Perplexity as default assistant

#146

Post by oofManBang »

xnx wrote: post #16

It continues to baffle me that Google gets harassed by the courts for being a better actor in almost every area it participates. Open source Android vs. closed iOS Install apps from any source on Android vs. total restriction on iOS Switch default app for browser (and many other things!) vs. No choice but Safari tech on iOS Easy switch of search provider in Chrome vs. countless dark patterns pushing Edge and Bing on…

> It continues to baffle me that Google gets harassed by the courts for being a better actor in almost every area it participates.

Doesn't mean much in a duopoly. Anyway, there's no real alternative to using google services which basically ruins the phone.

Re: Google contract prevented Motorola from setting Perplexity as default assistant

#147

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

robertlagrant wrote: post #123
jsiepkes wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you name an OS that gives more support to OEMs than Android? I don't see how this is relevant for this discussion? The whole point is that Android is only opensource in name. You must license Google Play services from Google otherwise Android is practically useless since you can't run 99.9% of the Android apps. When you license Google Play services Google will also impose all kinds of other restrictions on you…

> Imagine Microsoft "open-sourcing" Windows (by doing some source drops at regular intervals) but you wouldn't be able to run all the existing Windows applications on it without licensing closed source software and online services from Microsoft. Or building your own services, presumably?

building your own services doesn't help any existing app OSes live and die from 3rd party apps so unless you can convince 10k developers to port their apps to a platform with no users, you're dead in the water

Re: Google contract prevented Motorola from setting Perplexity as default assistant

#148

Post by jsiepkes »

robertlagrant wrote: post #123
jsiepkes wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you name an OS that gives more support to OEMs than Android? I don't see how this is relevant for this discussion? The whole point is that Android is only opensource in name. You must license Google Play services from Google otherwise Android is practically useless since you can't run 99.9% of the Android apps. When you license Google Play services Google will also impose all kinds of other restrictions on you…

> Imagine Microsoft "open-sourcing" Windows (by doing some source drops at regular intervals) but you wouldn't be able to run all the existing Windows applications on it without licensing closed source software and online services from Microsoft. Or building your own services, presumably?

> Or building your own services, presumably?

In case of Android and Google Play services that is never going to work reliably. Your users will experience breakage on a regular interval and you will make yourself wildly unpopular with app developers (since they will be getting the bug reports of the subtle incompatibilities). Probably to a point where they might just block their app from running on your phone.

All this stuff works on paper but it is going to be a constant up hill battle which you will loose in the end because your users will become fed-up with the constant needling of broken stuff and having to wait for you to fix it. It similar to using Wine on Linux. It works _a lot_ of the time but not all the time.

If you want to experience using reverse engineered Google play services, try an Android phone (or emulator) with microG on it [1].

[1] https://microg.org/

Re: Google contract prevented Motorola from setting Perplexity as default assistant

#149

Post by zb3 »

gaiagraphia wrote: post #112
supermatt wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they think they had no choice And they really don't have a choice. if you don't abide by googles terms then they will not permit you to use google mobile services. That means (at the very least): - No "play" services (breaks lots of apps and 3rd party peripherals). - No app store (over 90% of apps are distributed solely through the play store. even major android players like samsung have tiny libraries in their own…

Big shout out to Google Play Integrity/Safety Net (or whatever it's currently called). Was the one thing which ended my couple of years without Google, as my banking apps started banning my phones fingerprint for being insecure. Seems like in a major part of '''Pax Americana''' is needing to use a Google or Apple fingerprint to participate in society. Makes you laugh when people whinge about China.

In Europe, banking apps block root but still work on a custom OS (like LineageOS) without contactless payments. I guess this is because many people here buy Chinese phones and they just can't ignore them.

Re: Google contract prevented Motorola from setting Perplexity as default assistant

#150

Post by Ajedi32 »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #9
navigate8310 wrote: post #6

Perplexity setting up talks with phone makers is itself an anti-competitive behavior to curb an already anti-competitive behavior. Either this should be banned in entirety or let the free markets prevail.

That's not happening. Everything that comes with a computer could be possibly construed as anti-competitive. Even the Start Menu - after all, if Start11 and StartIsBack exist, why should Microsoft have the right to ship their own start menu? How about calculators (Desmos)? The system that puts maximize, minimize, and close on windows (after all, WindowBlinds exists)? The login screen (LogonStudio)? What about the Tas…

Yeah, I don't think bundling programs by default should be considered anti-competitive for exactly this reason; there's a near infinite number of possible combinations of configurations and it would be ridiculous to expect users to have to make an affirmative choice between all of them every time they buy a product.

What should be considered anti-competitive is when you take active steps to block alternatives from existing. Like if Windows started requiring start menu alternatives to have a signed certificate from Microsoft in order to run; that would be anti-competitive. Or if they wanted to block a manufacturer from selling computers with Start11 pre-installed, that would be anti-competitive.

Post reply on HN