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

191–200 of 206 posts

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

#191

Post by [deleted] »

kstrauser wrote: post #45
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…

For the record, none of those are objectively "better". You and I may think they're better. Lots, lots , as in billions of people, couldn't care less: > Open source Android vs. closed iOS Almost no one outside specific tech circles cares, and even if they understood what it meant, still wouldn't care. > Install apps from any source on Android vs. total restriction on iOS That's one of the primary reasons I suggest th…

[deleted]

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

#192

Post by bitpush »

robertlagrant wrote: post #156
adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You're talking as though Android owes other phone developers free apps. I don't see why it does.

+1. The entitlement on some of these people are out of the world. There's a perfectly capably operating system being made freely available for everyone, but nope - they want the source code of google maps, google search or whatever.

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

#193

Post by dredmorbius »

bitpush wrote: post #190
dredmorbius wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open Source requires buildable code: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43779597 >

So if development happens privately, and if they release the source with makefiles (or whatever they use), it is still open source yes? Because it is exactly what is going on.

I'm not familiar with the specific process. I've heard various claims that Android is not independently buildable, though existence of alternate Android builds suggests otherwise.

Taking the original claim at face value, viz "No they changed their development process to do it behind closed doors and release the code after final release" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43778333>), then no, the process isn't Open Source.

The argument then becomes not one of definition (law) but of the facts of the case. Again: I cannot make a determination here, but your haranging wordofx appears misdirected and weakens your case. That's not saying you're not correct, but you're coming across poorly and unpersuasively.

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

#194

Post by realusername »

hedora wrote: post #155
realusername wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legally or illegally? If you don't care about doing it legally, sure you can make a stub Google play service and fake the device integrity by extracting certificates from other devices. If you care about the laws though you cannot really get rid of the play services.

What’s illegal about stubs + extracting certs? If the certificates were used for copy protection, the DMCA might apply. If they weren’t part of the API, copyright might apply. Patent law doesn’t apply, and trade secrets don’t enjoy legal protection. They could argue you’re in violation of their terms of service, but their remedy for that is to kick you off the services you’re actively avoiding. Is there some other la…

The stubs still need to use Google servers for FCM but without following their terms, is that okay? Probably a grey area at best.

Extracting the certificates used for protection is against the DMCA in the US and probably legal in the EU as part of the interoperability exceptions.

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

#195

Post by NotPractical »

kstrauser wrote: post #45
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…

For the record, none of those are objectively "better". You and I may think they're better. Lots, lots , as in billions of people, couldn't care less: > Open source Android vs. closed iOS Almost no one outside specific tech circles cares, and even if they understood what it meant, still wouldn't care. > Install apps from any source on Android vs. total restriction on iOS That's one of the primary reasons I suggest th…

OP didn't say they were better overall, rather that they were a better "actor", as in, they play nicer than Apple with other actors (companies) in the tech space, and as such you'd expect them to be less targeted by antitrust laws than Apple, but the opposite has occurred.

> I'd love to install unsanctioned software from GitHub on my iPhone

You can, but Apple won't like it:

https://sidestore.io/

https://altstore.io/

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

#196

Post by jpc0 »

jsiepkes wrote: post #119
robertlagrant wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you name an OS that gives more support to OEMs than Android?

> 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…

Counter argument then.

Why can’t I as a laptop manufacturer decide to install a different default browser on Windows for my devices? Or change the start menu?

The phone manufacturer can choose to ship another OS.

Now sure there is absolutely an argument about their monopoly causing other apps to not be compatible on your own custom os but the same argument applies to windows and the only way to make apps run on linux is through an emulation/compatibility layer and even then it might not work.

So by that argument Microsoft should also be taken up for antitrust, which Im all for but I doubt thats going to happen.

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

#197

Post by robertlagrant »

jillyboel wrote: post #163
robertlagrant wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's stopping me is I'm not trying to build a phone. If I were, I wouldn't be blaming Google for not making things easy enough for me.

lol and you've clearly never heard of a thought experiment

Try re-reading the second sentence.

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

#199

Post by bitpush »

dredmorbius wrote: post #193
bitpush wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if development happens privately, and if they release the source with makefiles (or whatever they use), it is still open source yes? Because it is exactly what is going on.

I'm not familiar with the specific process. I've heard various claims that Android is not independently buildable, though existence of alternate Android builds suggests otherwise. Taking the original claim at face value, viz "No they changed their development process to do it behind closed doors and release the code after final release" ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43778333 >), then no, the process isn't Op…

So how does graphene OS people build the OS from Android? Or Samsung build Android for their phones? Or Motorola?

Do you think Google is compiling the OS for these folks, and releasing to them?

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

#200

Post by lern_too_spel »

Daedren wrote: post #145
robertlagrant wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is a relatively simple technical problem. If Amazon implements compatible APIs, they can trivially rebuild apps to use them.
Post reply on HN