Hacker News Reader

Comment by shin_lao | Hacker News Reader

I don't think this is how things will turn out.

People will like Google less and less because you can't do anything without them and there is no alternative, and what will happen to Google is exactly what happened to Microsoft: antitrust lawsuits, patents lawsuits, etc.

This is not because Google is "evil" or anything, just because they are #1 and therefore are target for more and more people.

In the end, this is all for the better because this may help alternatives to emerge as it helped alternatives to Microsoft to emerge.

View on HN

But Android is the alternative to the Apple hegemony. You can't get an iPhone for $50 in Asia, but you can get a $50 Android phone.

No, iphone and windows phone are the alternatives to google's > 80% hegemony at this point. Still, google is a far nicer market owner than apple or microsoft ever were. They don't abuse their dominant position, which is why their competitors are forced to take private legal action instead of running to the government for help.

Google doesn't have >80% of the market. Android has >80% of the market. Google does not control Android. Yes, Google provides a lot of services for Android users, but Android works fine without Google services.

Everybody is so quick to forget about "Android fragmentation," but fragmentation is a clear indicator of Google's lack of control over Android.

So who picks up the slack if Google developers aren't contributing to Android?

You can fork android and not license the google services, but it means doing without youtube, maps and chrome. That's a horrible experience.

In reality almost everyone nicely complies with google's compatibility definition, constraining how far they can fork android, just in order to get access to google's closed source apps: https://play.google.com/store/apps/developer?id=Google%20Inc...

Only amazon has managed to make a viable usable fork of android that complies with legal requirements, and the amount of work it took them was prohibitive for anyone not on amazon's scale.

Android as OS is open source, but android as experience is very much under google's control. Like i said though, they have been quite benevolent, because they view android as a vehicle to get you to use the google services.

Depends where you live, i'm pretty sure Google's Chinese services are pretty dire compared to the native alternatives.

> You can fork android and not license the google services, but it means doing without youtube, maps and chrome. That's a horrible experience.

Not to hundreds of millions of Chinese Android users.

Same in Russia, where Yandex presents a very viable alternative. Their maps, for instance, are better.

well at least you can say android can and has been forked, you can't say the same about iOS or windows..

> In reality almost everyone nicely complies with google's compatibility definition, constraining how far they can fork android, just in order to get access to google's closed source apps: https://play.google.com/store/apps/developer?id=Google%20Inc....

The point of the CCD [1] is to ensure that new devices can run a test suite that ensures they work correctly with Android as it currently exists. CCD isn't just about Google Play and Google Play Services, its about the fundamental functioning of the OS.

[1]: http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrust...

Isn't it more like "they can't abuse their dominant position" because Samsung etc. can just fork Android in that case and go away. Yes, it will take resources but Amazon has already done it.

I don't think they are more responsible, they have to be this way. When given dominance, they also use it to get you signed up for other products. See Google+, it is not is search, you need it on Youtube and what not!

Amazon was in a unique position to do it. MS or Apple could do it too but they have their own backyard to tend.

Samsung is a hardware giant. They suck at software and can barely handle a thin customization layer on top of Android and anyway they seem more interested in flooding the market with hardware rather than consolidating.

The other Android players are not making any money, building the backend infrastructure to compete with Google is a billion dollar type project.

It also takes time to determine what is abuse and what is not. Especially in behind doors deals. The case of Google threatening licensee to lose their license if they ship unrelated product Google does not like would definitively be abuse plain and simple. But as most things people discuss on the net, that's just based on rumors, who knows the real dynamic at play.

Apple and Microsoft and joining to sue Google with FRAND patents, that they bought from other companies, and people will like Google less because of it?

Is that how the patent system is supposed to work, or are Apple and Microsoft abusing it to the extreme?

These aren't frand patents. And even if they are found to be, they are still entitled to a /reasonable/ license fee.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com