781–790 of 975 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not in disbelief, but could you link me to a source detailing this bribery?
It wasn't Bribery, it was intense lobbying and campaign contributions. There's a subtle difference between them in America politics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So I can create an open platform and control how it is used? That doesn't make sense.
Err, no, they controlled only the people who chose to use their apps or play store. That's still open, you can do whatever you want, it's just if you want their stuff, you play by their rules.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why all comparisons here to iOS? they are not in a dominant position. anti-trust laws apply to you if you are in a dominant position. how iOS handles things are completely irrelevant here.
Because iOS is the major competitor?
iOS can do exactly what android does without any penalties.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s essentially a bait and switch, which is why I believe Google deserves that fine. Seems like you're projecting your own expectations onto what Google has really been selling all along. Google doesn't advertise Android as "free as in freedom." OEMs comply with their conditions. It's how it works.
>you're projecting your own expectations onto what Google has really been selling Andy Rubin in 2010 speaking on how open Android is: >the definition of open: "mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make" https://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429
All it takes is a little thought experiment to see why this doesn't make sense: Let's say Google didn't license Android but instead only sold their own Pixel devices and somehow managed to achieve dominant market share this way. With good marketing and multiple price points this could easily have happened. Google search is the default but users can switch it to something else. This would be fine under the current rea…
It wouldn’t be ok. You can’t use one monopolistic product to gain advantage in another market. Microsoft was forced to randomize browser selection in Windows, remember?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So I can create an open platform and control how it is used? That doesn't make sense.
Err, no, they controlled only the people who chose to use their apps or play store. That's still open, you can do whatever you want, it's just if you want their stuff, you play by their rules.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"It was a calculated risk that had a handsome payoff, if it worked, which is why it had to be open source, anything short of open source and Android would never have taken off like it did with several handset manufacturers via the OHA [0]." This is actually not why it was done (I was there :P), and didn't really factor very much into the calculation at all. So your perspective, while interesting, was not the one used…
How does the business model relate to the source-code being published under a Free Software license? I don't see how the license of the software relates to it it giving you a shitty experience or not. The shitty experiences I had on Android were largely due to carrier and OEM spyware and bloatware preinstalled on devices -- deals Google struck. I had always attributed the security problems to Google having inadequate…
That's why project Treble was done.
The net outcome of this decision will be that nobody will create significant open platforms of this type anymore, because once you are successful you will no longer be able to have any control over the experience. Someone will always be able to find a market that you are hurting. If you actually read the decision that's essentially their underlying complaint. They dress it up in terms about search market blah blah bl…
So in fact it is not about "whether Google is allowed to control the experience of Android phones that want to use the Google apps and app store or not".
Regarding open source, Android v1 was an underpowered and underfeatured newcomer in a market dominated by Symbian and Blackberry where Windows was at a few percent and iOS was making inroads.
There's a very good chance that without it being open source it would have went precisely nowhere. Let's not rewrite history and make it look like Android was a clear winner from the beginning, back then even iPhone was pretty crap, and Android was that times two.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly, without Search pushing so hard the adoption rate would have been much slower and would have given Mozilla, Apple, and Microsoft time to respond. Firefox has rapidly improved since it's inception and was rapidly stealing IE market share prior to Chrome. Had Chrome not been rammed down people's throats then we might have a more even landscape than we do today.
Search. And Gmail. And YouTube. And every other google-controlled site on the internet. Plus email-SPAM(!!!) about installing Chrome when you signed in to your Google-account on a new computer using a non-Chrome browser. It also used dubious wording: “You need to upgrade your browser. Click here” And paying to have it bundled as a drive-by installation with other software. And Chrome-only websites. And the list just…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OT, but what kind of Brexit would you have wanted?
Well it's hard to say that because the EU is the wrong way to organise European cooperation from the start. European cooperation should be done the way it used to be, as many multi-lateral agreements and organisations that are only loosely affiliated or not at all. But most of the European political elite want to unite the continent under a single government instead. Given that, the best kind of Brexit would be one w…
Maybe the UK media points a wrong picture of the mood in the EU, but I seriously doubt that it would cease to exist if your alternative would be put forward. But that's something all Brexiteers tell themselves repeatedly, over and over, like a mantra.