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

81–90 of 206 posts

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

#81

Post by surajrmal »

bitpush wrote: post #57
wordofx wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they changed their development process to do it behind closed doors and release the code after final release.

Again, I ask isn't that still open source?

It sure is. Open source doesn't require open development model or even taking outside contributions. It simply requires that you have access to the source and can do things like fork it, which you absolutely can with Android. I think people android to be more like Linux, but that's a very difficult arrangement and has tradeoffs.

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

#83

Post by CSMastermind »

benoau wrote: post #53
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…

They blocked Perplexity via agreements, amongst many agreements to fortify their monopoly, the legality of which has been challenged in court and this testimony is to demonstrate that this agreement also belongs in the "illegal" bucket.

Google Cloud has also gotten a huge boost from large retailers who, understandably, don't want to run their software on Amazon owned AWS.

When I asked out of curiosity why not Azure, especially given that these companies almost all use Office, Teams, Outlook, etc. several have told me it's because of Google Shopping and SEO. Though never formally stated or part of the contract it's often mentioned by Google that "They already have a relationship" with these companies via the feeds they provide for those products. And there are consistent talking point among the GCP sales reps about how they "help deliver you customers" and you "shouldn't fund a competitor".

Obviously not the same thing but it does indicate that Google isn't afraid to leverage their search monopoly in the other parts of their business.

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

#84

Post by scarface_74 »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #66
kstrauser wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I would agree with that in principle if it were remotely true, but on my iPhone, when I searched for chatgpt or openai when they came out, I got half a dozen fake apps before the real one. And that's been the case for so many search terms for popular apps or areas. There are 1.8 million apps on iOS app store! How do they get this aura and image of safety and reliability? Or, how do I find that safe walled garden? :)

And those fake apps are still subject to the sandbox.

But yes, the App Store is a shit show

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

#85

Post by scarface_74 »

cyberax wrote: post #67
osti wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As opposed to bow down to Apple and oh, still can't make an iOS phone?

Apple also is a monopolist.

So two companies in the same market are monopolists?

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

#86

Post by kmeisthax »

HenryMulligan wrote: post #38
kmeisthax wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're being harassed for lying about being a better actor. Apple gets to be a controlling asshole because there's no legal requirement for tech companies to not be. Google tried to have their cake and eat it too. iOS is a package deal: you use our OS on our phones with our App Store and browser. Very straightforward and honest, even if we rightly hate the deal. This all relies on basic protections of IP law that th…

The factual info in your reference "[0]" makes no sense. The writer (and illustrator) of the Dilbert cartoon is Scott Adams [1]. I have no idea what the name you referenced has anything to do with it, other than some Japanese software. Or was all of part of your comment written by an LLM? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilbert

That whooshing sound you hear is the joke going over your head.

As for my comment being LLM slop, it's not. LLMs are way too corporatized - yes, even the local ones - to put in-jokes or references in citations.

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

#87

Post by keeda »

surajrmal wrote: post #79
keeda wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure a contract was signed, but as has been pointed out many times about Google's heavy-handed control over Android, it doesn't mean it was fair to all parties: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on... Given the recent judgements about Google's anticompetitive behavior in multiple other arenas, revisiting these licensing agreements seems justified.

Android is open source and Google play services is technically possible to avoid. What other major operating system vendor for consumer electronics goes out of their way to make this sort of thing possible? Apple and Microsoft sure don't.

If you read the article I linked and many of the criticisms in these comments (not to mention TFA) smartphone vendors need to cede a huge amount of control to Google to have a viable product. As such, the open source aspect of Android is just a very effective distraction from the anti-competitive practices that Google has been plying with it.

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

#88

Post by alextingle »

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…

You could have simply written "I have no idea what anti-trust is all about", and saved yourself a lot of words.

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

#89

Post by serf »

Zigurd wrote: post #40
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…

Camera apps on Android are very loosely coupled to the OS. They are intentionally left to OEMs to provide because that's the most visible aspect of hardware differentiation, and that differentiation probably depends on software support. On top of that, it would be hard to design an API for every possible camera hardware, apart from a high level API for apps to acquire an image.

>On top of that, it would be hard to design an API for every possible camera hardware, apart from a high level API for apps to acquire an image.

APIs themselves are hard to make, but why is a camera one especially so? The language is well understood, the math and science are well understood. There are only a few ways that cameras themselves work, and even few ways that cell phone cameras work.

Why is it hard?

In advance -- No, Sony/Panasonic/Toshiba/Apple/Whoever locking functions behind magic numbers and proprietary blobs and other 'un-Gentlemanly' things shouldn't count as difficulty in making a Camera API; that's just shit companies being shit to people, not an API problem.

Post reply on HN