AT&T replaces Google with Yahoo on Android phone | Hacker News Reader

AT&T replaces Google with Yahoo on Android phone

itworld.com

12 pointsabennett21 comments

What can google do? When you release under the open source license they did anyone can fork it and create whatever they want from it. This is what exactly what AT&T is doing.

They can push an update to Android and can switch the search provider to Google with/without user consent.

I don't think this works the way you think it does.

The updates to Android are pushed by the carrier, not Google.

Or sometimes by the user, if they're sneaky. Or tech savvy. Same thing most of the time.

It's a tribute to Android that this is possible.

And a head scratching mystery as to why AT&T would want to....

revenue. at&t can charge yahoo/bing as the default browser/search engine on their android handsets

This is exactly the same as OEM computers and Windows. Microsoft have such dominance in OSes that they can't object to manufacturers making their own deals to set default search engines in browsers. It's an anti-trust issue. OEM manufacturers get paid by Google, Yahoo, etc to set the default to them.

Google can't get into the Mobile space with a platform and then expect they can enforce that their platform maintains their dominance in search. It's not competitive, and I'm sure they were expecting this to happen.

Disclaimer: I work for Y! but not in search.

I could be wrong but I don't think this situation is the same as Microsoft's.

Apple has full control over whats installed on an iPhone. They openly admit that they block any applications that compete with theirs. Couldn't Google do the same?

But Google aren't making these devices. They are providing an OEM operating system which can be installed on a device made by another manufacturer and sold branded by yet another company.

It's exactly the same circumstance.

When Google released the Nexus One it revealed another very important strategic imperative for offering Android free of charge. Google realized that all the smartphone manufacturers were scrambling to build/acquire mobile operating systems that would stack up to the iPhone OS. These handset manufacturers were vulnerable, in other words, to the kind of offer Google would present to them in the form of the open source Android OS. They needed what Android had to offer and the risks involved with sacrificing so much leverage over to Google (by relying on a third-party company for a key component of their product) did not outweigh the benefits of the collusion-like behavior all these manufacturers planned on partaking in by together building-out a large mobile app store that could champion iPhone's app store. Now that Google has released their very own handset, the Nexus One, it's obvious why Google wanted as many Android handsets in hands as possible: higher the market share, more developers willing to build apps, the more apps in the Android app store the better the Nexus One looks in light of iPhone's enormously successful app store, the more Nexus One handsets Google will sell.

Google has always explained that they give Android away because it will encourage more usage of their web services. But after Nexus One, it's obvious Google has more of a vested interest in Android than just "the more people on the internet, the more money Google makes".

I think Google will do nothing about this. If the Yahoo users are not satisfied jwith the non-google experience they will install apps from then android market that do use Google or whatever they wish to use. It would be interesting to see what happens if the first distributor is closing their Android distribution so this is impossible for users. I hope the OHA forbids labeling such a closed system Android.

This is going to probably become a branding nightmare for Google.

I know many of the Android phones have "with Google" printed somewhere on the casing (on my Eris it's on the battery door), and the Android brand has been fairly well associated with the concept of "Google Phone".

AT&T is presumably free to switch the services out as they wish - but I have to wonder if their replacement apps will provide a user experience that is at all tolerable. If things break, don't work as expected, etc. the assumption from the average user is going to be that Google is broken. They don't know or care that AT&T has replaced their services with Bing/Yahoo/etc.

On top of which, users who hear the Android name may expect certain things such as Google Voice, support for GMail, Google Calendar, etc. and be mighty upset when they aren't there.

There is a branding issue here - technically, there's a distinction between "Android" and "Android with Google"... but what users can tell the difference?

On the other hand, most of my friends and acquaintances don't actually think of "Android" as a brand either - they know the Droid, the Nexus ("Google Phone") or the MyTouch.

"With Google" handsets such as the Motorola Droid or (obviously) the Nexus One are part of the "Google Experience" program where the handset maker and carrier have to agree to use Google's first-party version of Android bundled with the proprietary Google apps.

Other handsets that aren't part of the Google Experience program, such as ones from HTC that run the Sense UI or from Motorola that run the Blur frontend, can do whatever they want within the terms of the open-source license.

Google created the android platform to drive forward technology and openness on the mobile. As long as people can use Google search, access GMail, and most importantly view Google ads, I doubt it's a big deal to Google.

Whats so bad about this they are still using android? I don't see this as a problem since google still gets to own the handset market by using their software.

as far as I'm concerned this is exactly how it should be if windows os's in the EU gives user a choice of browser/search engine and does just push IE. The same should apply to smartphones. I dislike the fact that google products are so tied in into android. I should have the option to choose the apps I want even if they are from google.

You do realize that an OS is basically a kernel with a bunch of supporting applications that your vendor decides to ship with the kernel, right? If you're going to be uppity about "picking your own apps" you're going to need to be properly outraged about the vendor picking everything that makes your system run before you ever install a third-party app.

This site doesn't load on Chrome 5.0.307.11 beta on x64 Linux with Adblock 1.3.30. All that loads are a search box and orange header/banner with the ITWorld logo on a grey gradient background.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com