Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by ravenstine | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

ravenstine·

> by requiring mobile manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Google Chrome browser

It's like 1998 all over again.

View on HN

I'd argue not. Microsoft required payment for licensing the OS, Google doesn't.

It's patently unfair for Google the invest in most of the R&D got everything Android and not even expect a return.

Not requiring a license fee makes it worse for competitors than a paid license fee, doesn't it? Going for the free version is one of the strongest business moats, only the richest companies can afford that.

Google requires a fee for the OS customers expect: Android with Google Play. (and has every right to do so!)

Both are bundling other products with it, that's the problem.

Except for the part that they forgot to pay Sun for.

What's the going rate for open source header files?

Currently the rate is around 172 euros.

https://www.iso.org/standard/57853.html

Microsoft got in trouble for giving IE away for free and embedding it in their OS so customers couldn't get rid of it and choose another option.

They get their return, they don't need to force it down our throat.

What exactly is being forced down your throat again? Device makers can fork and build whatever version of Android they want (like Amazon does with Fire tablets). So who's tying you to a chair and forcing Google down you?

Google.

> - by preventing manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices running on competing operating systems based on the Android open source code;

Baseless. Amazon has sold non-Google Android for almost a decade.

Google's abdroid has 0% penetration in China

Reply on news.ycombinator.com