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

81–90 of 101 posts

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

#81

Post by dalbasal »

dartos wrote: post #74
voisin wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> WTF does "breaking up Google" actually mean? Well for one, the ad business could be separated into the auction system and the use of the auction system on their different services.

A few more off the top of my head Android could be spun off. The whole pixel phone business as well. GSuite could be its own thing. I think google is still an ISP in some parts. They’re research sections too.

Is android viable outside of its role ass asset to search/ads.

Google's money comes from adwords. Adwords has two key assets. One is Google search. The other is Google's systemic ability to gather ad-useful data using android, maps, etc.

Everything else is stuff that exists to support the search/ads/data money maker or it is ways of spending the enormous profits generated by this monopoly. EG Waymo.

The first group can't be separated and retain value, unless the post break up shards contract to operate like they did before. That is basically a trust. The second group just aren't viable businesses, or aren't big.

I'm not saying it's impossible, just saying it gets real squishy and there aren't many guiding principles.

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

#82

Post by danaris »

nextaccountic wrote: post #65
smallerfish wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> there are alternate clients to it They are increasingly being killed off by Google in their march to outlaw adblockers in the Internet

But Google ultimately won't be able to entirely get around the basic problem of DRM:

How do you give people something (so they can watch it), without giving it to them (so they can copy it)?

The more they try to prevent people from accessing YouTube without seeing their ads, the closer they come to the line of "actually, don't let people see the content they're here to see".

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

#83

Post by Xeamek »

deely3 wrote: post #67
Xeamek wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ofcourse You can make Android device without google. AOSP is open source and google can't prevent You from using it. What google can prevent you from using though, it's all the 'feels like core android but actually is google proprietary' stuff. That's what the whole Huawei battle was about.

Does it make sense to use AOSP without Google ecosystem? If you can't use Android Market, Gmail, YouTube, Google Maps what the point? And to use Market you have to accept Google license.

For enthusiast it's doable - you can simply side load those apps, things like graffene os (afaik) let you even install entire Google services and run it in sandbox to prevent it from spying on you.

But if You want to hit the mass market, you can't rely on this 'tricks', and there is no easy way to make the process streamlined for average user. That's why the only big phone manufactured who isn't using google services anymore is Huawei, and it wasn't by choice.

(I guess amazon tried it as well but only kinda)

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

#84

Post by danaris »

dalbasal wrote: post #81
dartos wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few more off the top of my head Android could be spun off. The whole pixel phone business as well. GSuite could be its own thing. I think google is still an ISP in some parts. They’re research sections too.

Is android viable outside of its role ass asset to search/ads. Google's money comes from adwords. Adwords has two key assets. One is Google search. The other is Google's systemic ability to gather ad-useful data using android, maps, etc. Everything else is stuff that exists to support the search/ads/data money maker or it is ways of spending the enormous profits generated by this monopoly. EG Waymo. The first group c…

That's the whole point.

Google is able to prop up otherwise-nonviable businesses with the revenue from their cash cows. This means they are able to undercut any possible competitors in those spaces by operating those businesses at a loss.

That's the very definition of using monopoly power to push into and dominate another market.

It's not a reason to say, "Welp, we can't break that up! Then those businesses would just flounder and die!" It's one of the primary reasons to say, "We must break that up."

If the otherwise-unprofitable businesses that get spun off want to continue to exist, they'll need to find ways to raise prices and/or cut costs. In other words, they'll need to compete on a level playing field.

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

#85

Post by GeekyBear »

Xeamek wrote: post #60
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…

Ofcourse You can make Android device without google. AOSP is open source and google can't prevent You from using it. What google can prevent you from using though, it's all the 'feels like core android but actually is google proprietary' stuff. That's what the whole Huawei battle was about.

Modern Android apps need access to closed source apis that only get installed as part of Google's Play Store.

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

#86

Post by JeremyNT »

wdr1 wrote: post #66
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…

> Amazon attempted to sell phones with their own fork of Android without permission, but didn't have much luck. FYI - Amazon's Fire OS is based on Andriod: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_OS#:~:text=Fire%20OS%20is... . There was a Fire phone, but I thought the issue was it didn't find commercial acceptance.

Right, people are talking as if this is somehow impossible, but the Amazon Fire tablets have been on the market for ages! They're based on AOSP without the google stuff, and even have their own app store.

Maybe it's the exception that proves the rule though - it takes another megacorp to pull off a mass market Android device without Google's blessing.

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

#87

Post by a1o »

mastercheif wrote: post #72
a1o wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate this on iPhone, I want the GitHub app because of the notifications and the authentication capabilities. But repositories are much easier to read in the web version, and it forces every GitHub link to go to the app. I wanted some control, like only going to the app if I touch hold something ("right click") and purposefully chose this option.

If you long press on a link and choose open in Safari it will remember your preference and not open the app going forward. Terrible UX, but it works.

Oh, this worked! This is the most not intuitive thing they could have done. Why not a simple setting?

Thank you anyhow, as I wouldn't discover this in a billion years.

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

#88

Post by cherryteastain »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #70
cherryteastain wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huawei did it. Samsung can too.

maybe it would make sense for the two of them to put it together, that would be a reason for devs to support it, not just huawei but samsung too? suddenly the investment looks worthwhile.

Samsung have had their own app store for a while, but they'd never collaborate with Huawei on it, in my opinion. Corporations tend to be control freaks. They'd usually rather own 100% of a thing of size X than 50% of a thing of size 5X.

In addition, there's the sanctions angle. Bet this'd put them more in the crosshairs of the US. Can easily see e.g. the US saying you either stop the collaboration with Huawei or we slap tariffs on your phones.

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

#89

Post by philistine »

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…

Your question rests on marketing pablum that you swallowed whole; that Android is open-source and that anyone can freely use it. The reality is that if you want the crown jewels of Android, its app store, you need to sign a very monopolistic agreement with Google.

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

#90

Post by hfjjbf »

jraph wrote: post #78
deely3 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it make sense to use AOSP without Google ecosystem? If you can't use Android Market, Gmail, YouTube, Google Maps what the point? And to use Market you have to accept Google license.

Yes. If you need a smartphone but want to avoid as much Apple and Google (GAFAM in general) and/or reduce your reliance on proprietary software as must as possible, that's the easiest way to do it. Linux mobile goes further but is not there yet for most people. If you need a smartphone to call, message people, browse the web, for maps/directions/location/gps, to display PDFs, you can do it on a Google-free Android: -…

But this is the problem: everything you describe is 10-20x the effort for an average consumer. As they say “Linux is only free if you don’t value your time”.

No company cares if they lose the Linux nerd market segment for consumer tech, they have never been in play. The real market is for the “it just works” crowd.

Personally despite me being entirely competent to do what you describe I have a family and a small business. I don’t have time to screw around with my phone as my time is very valuable. To the point where if something breaks I don’t even bother to figure out how to fix it anymore I just get a new one as it’s the rational time investment.

I say this as a person who has several kits of tiny smartphone screw drivers, has run a million flavors of every OS, and has taken apart tons of phones, PC, laptop and the like. At some point either you have infinite cheap time or limited expensive time. Once you cross that barrier it’s economically irrational to be screwing around with k-9 mail.

Post reply on HN