Hacker News Reader

Comment by rthomas6 | Hacker News Reader

How is this different than Google making its own phones?

Android is free. Samsung, LG, et al aren't paying for the privilege of competing with the OS-builder. Microsoft also has much stricter rules re: customization for WinPhone, presumably as a response to the craptastic custom UIs LG, Motorola, and Samsung have been implementing for Android.

In other words, OEM WinPhone users are already cornered into producing only the stock vanilla experience, and now they're competing against the platform owners themselves who are allowed to break whatever rules necessary to gain market share.

All on a platform that wasn't doing well to begin with - I can't imagine a sane OEM wanting to stick around. Maybe if WinPhone was selling like hotcakes you might expect OEMs to just bear it, but as it is MS in a poor place.

There is also another key difference to Nexus: the Nexus phones have never been heavily marketed, and even till now are the tools of developers and industry enthusiasts. I imagine if Google ever took the Nexus mass-market they'd see much more blowback from OEMs.

>Android is free

As I noted in another comment in this story, this is wrong. AOSP is open and free, but it is not very useful without access to the half million apps in the Google Play store, Maps, Navigation, Youtube, Google Now etc.

>In other words, OEM WinPhone users are already cornered into producing only the stock vanilla experience, and now they're competing against the platform owners themselves who are allowed to break whatever rules necessary to gain market share.

Perhaps in the future, but right now the Microsoft Surface runs the exact same software as the equivalent OEM devices.

>There is also another key difference to Nexus: the Nexus phones have never been heavily marketed, and even till now are the tools of developers and industry enthusiasts. I imagine if Google ever took the Nexus mass-market they'd see much more blowback from OEMs.

Except for advertising it on the most heavily trafficked site in the world?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57501546-94/googles-nexus-7...

Also, I don't see how the Nexus is not competing with the OEMs like you say. Where are the $199 Android 7" tablets from the OEMs? Why does the Galaxy Tab 7 cost $250?

What's common among the three tablets in that price range? Kindle Fire, Nexus 7 and a Nook ? They're all subsidized by the ecosystem, which Acer, Samsung, HTC, Lenovo, Viewsonic etc. cannot duplicate and compete with.

It's not the same brand as open source "free", but access to the Google apps is indeed free.

>but access to the Google apps is indeed free

It certainly is not free. Either the OEM who sold the device to you paid off Google for your access(i.e included in the hardware cost you paid the OEM) or you have to violate copyright(along with whoever uploaded them to the host who is vulnerable to a DMCA takedown) to get those apps.

Can you find me a legal link to some or any Google apps .apk file(s) to load on to, say the Kindle Fire?

I don't know about legality (although I know they're widely distributed on reputable sites and Google hasn't taken them down), but my HP Touchpad has the Android market installed including access to all Google apps.

I have a Touchpad with Android on it too :)

I would disagree on the "reputable" part. Which reputable sites are they distributed on?

I was linked to the apk on XDA, which, while it's a hacking site, I wouldn't describe it as disreputable. At the very least, it's high profile.

You are right in that access to the core "gapps" is commercially restricted to whose who have deals in place with Google.

Speaking as a purely practical matter, as an end-used you can easily get "gapps" builds for virtually any Android device though technically you will be violating copyright (unless you are using those "gapps" as a replacement for a 'backup' of the distribution that came with your phone originally).

After a botched cease-and-desist on Cyanongenmod back a few years ago (2009?) Google turns a blind eye to this sort of sharing of gapps. I've never heard of them taking any action against any gapps provider since that whole C&D debacle despite the fact that these files are shared openly all over the place.

They definitely wouldn't turn a blind eye to an OEM distributing them illegally, though. OEMs shipping Android phones pay Google licensing for the Play Store, Gmail app, etc. From what I understand, most Android OEMs also pay Microsoft royalties per handset.

In other words, these are definitely not free to the end user, the cost is just incorporated into the overall price of the phone.

No. This is not true. It's not free as in freeware or shareware or open source, I already conceded that. But Google does not charge for access to the apps. If you want to package them with your device, all that they require is that you talk with them and ensure you pass the compatibility toolkit.

OEMs do not pay Google in exchange for bundling Google Apps.

>If you want to package them with your device, all that they require is that you talk with them and ensure you pass the compatibility toolkit.

>OEMs do not pay Google in exchange for bundling Google Apps

Do you have a reference to those two points? A lot of the small Android tablet OEMs have a lot of trouble getting Google apps.

It's not free (as in beer) to OEMs, who have to pay buy a license to put Google Play and/or apps onto their devices.

Exactly. What the above poster doesn't realize is that he has already been misproven. There are many companies willing to go up against the guys who make the operating system. It's not the end of the world, it's just the addition of strong competitor into the system.

You don't pay Google for Android.

Actually you do, unless you're Amazon. For access to the Google Play store, GMail, Maps, Navigation, Youtube etc. etc. Those are neither free nor Free.

http://www.reghardware.com/2011/09/21/andy_pad_chief_admits_...

It's very telling that most people do not know this.

Google sent a C&D to the Cyanogen Mod folks for bundling these apps. If you install CM, you have to download the app store app from someone committing copyright infringement.

>It's very telling that most people do not know this.

Welcome to the HN info bubble.

That doesn't say anything about cost. The deal on Google apps is (or used to be) membership in the OHA, which is about app level compatibility.

There are two possible impedients for cheap devices there: 1. minimum hardware requirements (which exploded over the last few Android releases), 2. Google might not care about herding a bunch of small vendors.

reghardware merely "implies" that it's about cash.

If you want to call the phone an Android phone and include any of Google's apps or services, you do have to pay Google.

...you pay Microsoft though! Microsoft has per-device fees for Android arranged with most major manufacturers (including Samsung), in exchange for which they don't sue for patent infringement.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/06/motorola_samsung_pat...

It has been suggested by some people (somewhat tongue in cheek) that in some cases the license fee for Windows Phone is less than the patent licenses for Android.

It's not. HTC only pays $5 per phone for example. HTC pays up to $45 for other royalties (unrelated to Android), though, so it's not a big deal.

I think the articles were about Microsoft making more money(in total) on patent licenses on Android phones rather than the Windows Phone nascent platform.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com