Hacker News Reader

what you are arguing for is objectively extremely bizarre. if you take a step back, this is what is playing out: company C makes a device. it needs an operating system to run software, so they add it. if there was no operating system the device would be useless and no one would buy it. now person A buys said device. it's theirs, they have paid money for it, they own it. person B writes some software. it runs on the device's operating system. they want to sell it to person A. person A wants to buy it from them. why should company C be involved at all? I found this super weird and distasteful when game consoles were allowed to use this business model, and am even more taken aback that general purpose computers get away with it.

You seem to imply Google was forced to open source Android or even to give it for free: sounded like it was a purely business decision to capture more of the market.

Now that they have, they are also turning around on bits of that too.

Ah yes, Microsoft famously never made money off of Windows.

Are you not following? The OS maker in this case is Google.

Ah yes, Google historically lost money from Android.