Slashdot Mirror
Finding Fault With the Low, Low Price of Android
bonch writes "Google's accusation of patent abuse toward its competitors has generated many responses, some of which have asked whether Android's free price is anti-competitive. Drawing comparisons to Microsoft's antitrust trial, in which they were accused of giving away Internet Explorer to drive competitors out of the browser market, Thurrott argues that Google's rivals are 'leveling the playing field' through patent fees by removing an artificial price advantage funded by monopoly search revenues. 'One could argue that Google is using its dominance in search advertising to unfairly gain entry into another market by giving that new product, Android, away for free. Does this remind you of any famous antitrust case?'"
Its free. Lets be happy about it.
Oh noes, its ruining my ability to sell stuff. Lets attack their patents to ruin it. Its got nothing to do with Microsoft's antitrust trial - that was something bundled with a sold product - this is something free which Google is using to sell something else (apps for example). Its kinda like how certain open source stuff works.
Android is open source.
Well, then Linux certainly has an advantage, and since companies like
Novell and canonical are so huge, they are obviously doing the same thing against windows... right?
I assume that the author quoted in the summary refers to Internet Explorer, which was bundled and forced down the user's throats, as you could not even uninstall it or the Operating System would stop working.
How can this be compared to Android, which is just an open source project? CHOICE remains, as far as I know.
Haven't we seen enough of these paid shills over the years to understand their point of view? They get paid money by Microsoft to influence opinion so that Microsoft can sell more stuff. They are corrupted by the money, so it isn't an honest opinion. Therefore, why pay attention?
I suppose some variety from the usual Florian dreck is nice, though.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Isn't this a free-as-in-beer vs. free-as-in-speech argument? I may be way off-beam here but I think Android is open source and IE isn't. So no, this would be nothing like the MS antitrust case.
sustainable living
While Android may be free (if you exclude the price to use the android market) it is still very different from the Internet Explorer case. Internet Explorer is bundled with the Windows operating system, so its installed already whether you like it or not. Android is a choice by the manufacturer and a relatively cheaper choice then the competition. Manufacturers CHOOSE to use Android, and consumers CHOOSE to use Google for their search queries. Nobody is being forced into anything.
Thank you, Slashdot, for informing me of a website I never, ever, want to read again.
Free as a hole in your head. It was firstly shit (I know IE8 and 9 are finally passable products, but IE6 was not). It secondly came with Windows whether you wanted it to or not, and could not be removed. You could install other browsers along-side, but everywhere where applications or the system tied into the web, they went through IE.
None of these apply to Android.
Who cares what Google's prime business is? The similarities to the MS antitrust case are nonexistent.
Dog is my co-pilot.
google is using money that they receive for providing a valuable proprietary service based in part around free software to then fund free software development.
microsoft use the money they receive for providing technologically multi-man-century-backed proprietary products and services to further fund the development of technologically multi-man-century-backed proprietary products and services.
whilst i don't like much of what google is doing (including releasing software under the Apache2 Software License, and including restricting access to free software it develops and then dumping it on people, in bazaar-like "like it or lump it" fashion and in many cases overwhelming unfunded free software communities to pick up the dog's dinner mess that google's developers made in "secret, bazaar-like fashion") it is nothing compared to what microsoft is doing.
you literally cannot compare the two.
Lets make collecting rain illegal. Since rain is free, it's anti-competitive. That way, us water utility companies can make more money.
Microsoft used their browser to try to lock in the market. They developed client-side CGI that only works in their browser and developed server-side software that works best with IE and uses those proprietary extensions.
Google does not engage in lock-in with Android; non-Android and non-Google browsers work with Google services essentially as well as the browsers they provide, and their browsers (both the Android-integrated browser and Chrome) work on competitors' services. I can use Yahoo or Bing or Mapquest or whatever just as well as I can use Google.
Google provides a lot of services. Internet search, Maps, E-mail, Productivity, Browser, Mobile OS, and the like, but they don't require one to use all. Certainly there's some question as to whether they're in a little hot water for providing links to their maps or other services through their search, but Yahoo and Bing do the same thing for that, so we'll see.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Let's not vilify Android because it is free. Let's stop prosecuting companies for competing. Let everyone build the best products they can at the best price they can offer and let the cards fall where they may. In this way consumers will have the most choice and the least expense for the products they choose to purchase. Or... we can continue with the patents malarkey so that no small company will want to innovate and we will end up with an oligarchy of only the biggest companies with the most lawyers. I promise you won't be happy about that.
Microsoft is still using revenue from Windows and Office to fund its other adventures, including Windows Phone.
Apple's virtual monopoly with iPod/iTunes funded (and led to) the iPhone/iPad/App Store.
Also, I would argue that Google has a clearly stated plan to make money from Android while continuing to give it away: advertising. So, it's not like they are giving it away to achieve dominance and will then start charging for it.
"One could argue that Google is using its dominance in search advertising to unfairly gain entry into another market by giving that new product, Android, away for free. Does this remind you of any famous antitrust case?'"
No, because Google isn't forcing OEMs into signing exclusive contracts that forbid them using other software stacks.
and they're still stalling 3.0 source release.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
> "'One could argue that Google is using its dominance in search advertising to unfairly gain entry into another market by giving that new product, Android, away for free. Does this remind you of any famous antitrust case?'"
Yes.
And Google's competitors are also abusing flaws in the patent system.
Having one set of abuses to correct another set of abuses doesn't mean that Google's competitors are good, or that the patent system is working. They are all opportunistic and sociopathic. You have identified a second kind of distortion which is harmful to free market capitalism. Both flaws should be addressed at the system level, and these companies that are abusing these flaws should all be castigated.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
This entire proposal rests on the assumption that Google has a monopoly in search. Does it? The latest figures show Google Search has 63.6% of the market. What percentage of the desktop market did Microsoft have in the nineties when it decided to tie Windows and IE together (in violation of its 1994 settlement with the DOJ)? I'm sure it was at least 90%.. Apparently it was news in Dec 1998 when Windows marketshare dropped below 90% "for the first time"...
There's a big difference between Google's 63% and Microsoft's >90%.
They didn't have a monopoly. There were alternatives. Alternative hardware, alternative software, alternative browsers, alternatives for everything.
Get rid of BS intellectual property laws which create actual monopoly privileges and let everyone compete in a freer market. Real monopolies are always and have always been creations either directly or indirectly by the State.
It would seem to be a new legal theory regarding the nature of leveraging a monopoly. Presumably the notion is that the money earned from the monopoly is the leverage, not the monopoly per se. However, last I checked, Google doesn't have a monopoly on search.
If this were to pass the smell test, I imagine any sufficiently large company that has ever run a loss leader would be guilty.
Note I'm not a lawyer, I just like giving bad advice in general.
In today's world there is only one meaning of the world 'anticompetitive', and it means: didn't pay the politicians enough to be left alone to do business as one sees fit.
So what if somebody is giving away free product? How about a free OS altogether? If they can do this and not go out of business, they should and consumers are the winners, not losers in this game. If the competition can't do anything about it, then it sucks for the competition. If the competition goes out of business because of it, it sucks for them. If eventually the company has to push prices above 0, this will just signal the market that there is a possibility to compete on non-zero price again.
You can't handle the truth.
However, what is a MUCH FAIRER comparison is the iphone and the apple app store. Want to use a different app store, sorry, your out of luck (relatively speaking). Andoird's open-ness is actually driving markets (amazon app store being an example of that) where Apple and iphone (or anyone else for that matter) are very actively trying to shut them down.
Its also not fair to say android is free. Open source, yes, but if you want to produce a phone thats useful, you need those (licensed) google apps.
Actually, calling andoird an open-source project itself is even erroneous, google have done a truely terrible job of keeping up with their "WE'RE ANDROID AND WE'RE OPEN SOURCE rah rah rah" moniker - still no AOSP for 3.x and we're up to 3.2 already - if there is one thing that'll make me depart the android shores for something else its that one huge chunk of, lets call it for what it is, lies that really do piss me off.
The reality is, google really have disappointed in the android open source project to the point where it should be called the "android, we'll maybe open-source it if we feel like it, yeah we know we call it open source, but its not really" project. And before anyone comments saying "android isnt licensed under the gpl" or some such a big reminder to you here. Google sold android to the community (as a concept) as an open-source platform - not a "here's some kernel drivers you might need for some irrelevant arm platforms" open source project. They have truly let the community down in this instance and for that they should be thoroughly ashamed. We're also not talking about the google market, maps, etc that google license, those are definitely closed-source and thats googles fair and just choice.
Yes, Yawn bu good that Mueller didn't get the coin!
I don't think the article or summary writer actually know how anti-trust works. IE being free wasn't what caused the anti-trust case, it was the fact it was bundled to a product that was already considered a very strong monopoly in the market.
About the only thing that could make Android an anti-trust case is if advertisers were forced to use an android phone to create and administer their ads on Google's services.
As mentioned, android is not bundled with every google search you perform. This is not leveraging the monopoly, merely running a side business. I think ideally google would like to see android generate revenue for them in non-search arenas.
Paul Thurott is an unabashed shill. Nothing to see here move along
...and also give Android away free.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Well, the android OS is free. But selling a phone is based on features and price. In theory if you create a superior product people will be it. Apples product is good but I feel my android is far better. It doesn't lock me into ITunes and Apples monopoly. This was a selling point for me. Even with the "buy the phone at a discount with 2 year commitment price" my android, admittedly with small screen, cost me $29.99 USD. My last IPhone was $300 to buy with the same commitment. Quality matters of course, and a lot of people will buy apple because its a brand the like even regardless of the price, I don't see it as being unfair. Apple just needs to learn to compete on the playing field cause lets face it. At this point the real question is "Is Apple hurt by Andriod?" Yes it is, but there prices weren't so bloated they would sell more. Good product plus competitive pricing is the way to keep balance. the phones still cost money, its the OS that's free but I don't see Apple charging money for IOS updates either? You buy the phone, you get the operating system with it. For me who hardly uses the smart phone spending 300 dollars on a phone seems silly. the Android I have fits in my pockets, Find a woman who can say the IPhone fits in theirs. It is not going to happen. the IPhone is a good product but Apple greed gets in the way as is evidenced by Apples behavior toward Samsung as for late but they have a long history of suing everyone that moves. Apple doesn't want to compete on a level playing field, They want the whole market. diversity is good, If everyone has an IPhone Apple wont be very motivated to add new features. Even in recent releasess, the IPhone 3 with a 1.3 megapixel camera, or the IPhone 4 only being 3G they are not being properly motivated. I think andriod helps motivate them to upgrade.
--- Always remember. 99.36% of all statistics are inaccurate.
It was the leveraging of their OS monopoly to force OEMs to not include Netscape - not bundling Internet Explorer.
This is the essential point Microsoft shills in the media have been trying to rewrite in the minds of the public for years now.
That was never the issue. The issue was that microsoft was using their windows monopoly to push IE so if you bought Windows you got IE no matter if you wanted it or not. Google isn't using a product monopoly to force you to use android.. Completely different. Nobody cared if MS used money to push their software.. they do that all the time and nobody says a word.
Canonical is headquartered in Great Britain, and I assume it has most of its assets there. In that case, it'd be slightly harder to sue Canonical on U.S. competition law grounds than, say, Red Hat.
I'm a regular listener to Paul Thurrott's podcast Windows Weekly on Leo Laporte's TWiT network. I enjoy Thurrott's insights into the Microsoft ecosystem as well as his self-deprecating humour. But Thurrott strikes a sour note whenever the subject of Google comes up - he figuratively foams at the mouth about Google's many alleged crimes against humanity. Equating Android to Microsoft's legal travails concerning Internet Explorer is a new low even for Thurrott. It's more than a bit of a stretch to say that Google has a monopoly on search. That may have been true several years ago, but the strong competition from Microsoft's own Bing has ensured there's no monopoly in search. At the time Microsoft got in trouble for bundling IE, their position in the OS market _was_ a monopoly - well north of 95% market share if memory serves.
Thurrott's irrational rants about Google have become so embarrassing that his own co-host on recent shows, Mary Jo Foley (herself a fan of Microsoft and blogger about it), has felt the need to correct his more egregious mischaracterizations. I'll continue to listen to Windows Weekly, but when the Thurrott whines about Google happen, I ignore them. So should everyone else.
I'm anti microsoft, but I thought the whole antitrust case there was a load of crock. They had many other business practices that were much worse that went untouched.
How come apple wasn't sued for bundling a browser in their os? What about all the apps that come bundled on iphones or android. Lets sue the company for those! Users should only get en empty unusable OS, and then have to pick and choose every single application they want to use, in order to be completely fair.
Another thing that caused the anti-trust case was the fact that IE not only checked to see if it was the default browser, it checked to see if it was the only browser. In the early days, it would even check for Netscape and un-install it if it found that it was installed.
So does Android install itself on an iPhone, and un-install IOS?
Android is an OS, not an application. A better comparison would be computers with the OS pre-installed. Shouldn't MS, Apple, Sun, IBM and HP joined forces and sued Commadore and Atari for providing a free OS and attempting to drive each of them out of the market by providing a free OS that was built into the hardware without providing an alternative OS?
Great civilizations have lived and died on false theories. Don't mess up mine with a few facts.
It seems that Android has to either be anti-competitive or fragmented, because it cannot be both. Fragmented in this context seems to mean that a lot of different people are making money off it, including Microsoft. The argument that it is fragmented also seems to imply that no single entity really controls Android or the revenue stream it generates, so that would tend to undermine the argument that Android is anti-competitive.
Assuming Google is using Android in some other anti-competitive fashion, how is this taking place? Google is trying to monopolise what market with Android? Are the people who use Android forced to use Google for search? Are they forced to use other Google services and not allowed to use those that compete with Google? Does Android force people to use Gmail? The argument that Google is using Android as an anti-competitive measure seems to be unsupported by anything even vaguely approaching evidence or reason.
from neutral eyes you've got a good point. legally there is no difference. Both android and windows should come unbundled from any browser and should be compatible with any browser. the thing i really disagree with is the need for either to be lumped with the other. on opinion i'm with android and chrome but that should be through choice, not by force. competition should be the deciding factor and users should have the choice of any/or/both at all times. at the end of the day users are paying therefore they should be left total free will to mix/match/ignore as they see fit.
No, because Google isn't forcing OEMs into signing exclusive contracts that forbid them using other software stacks.
And isn't bundling their phone OS with their search advertising. Between those two things, I can't see how it would remind anyone of the MS antitrust case.
Shame there is already a precedent that makes his trolling totally irrelevant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_v._International_Business_Machines_Corp._et_al.
No it does NOT remind me of any anti-trust case.
Glad we got this resolved.
I have to get back to my coitus interruptus. I can only do one thing at a time so don't bother me.
Patent System the current system will just encourage companies to develop off shore, especially small ones and startups, that if it does not stop them in their tracks before even stepping in market. How can many companies hold thousands of miniature patents like that? thousands of patents sound absurd. I wonder if this level of "innovation" exist in any other sector....
Please don't compete with us by lowering prices.
Thanks.
If Android is anticompetitive, then Bing most certainly is. Microsoft entered online search and advertising for the sole purpose of using its OS monopoly and buckets of cash to deprive others (specifically Google) of revenue. Proof? Losing more than $8Billion over the past 6 years isn't "trying to get a foot-hold". It's dumping. It's bundling. It's taking a dump in the pool so that nobody can swim there anymore.
Slashdot: come for the pedantry, stay for the condescension.
"Drawing comparisons to Microsoft's antitrust trial, in which they were accused of giving away Internet Explorer to drive competitors out of the browser market," The difference between the two is MS was using it's dominant position in the OS market to install IE free and by default and "forcing" OEM's to do so, google not only did not have a dominant position in the mobile market, it barely had one at all.
I was interested in reading the full article, until I read the second sentence and found that this is more BS ramblings by pro-MS fanboy Paul Thurrott. This article is useless, as are all articles by him.
I think what you mean is cathedral, that is, development centralized by one group, corp, etc. vs. dispersed development.
Bing-O! That's the whole point there. This isn't like the case with Netscape Navigator vs. IE. Even if Navigator was also being given away (free), Netscape couldn't compete because it wasn't bundled. Microsoft wasn't being punished for giving away IE ($0.00), it was being punished for bundling IE incestuously with its dominant Windows OS.
This kind of reminds me of when Microsoft entered e video game market and threw huge amounts of money into it losing money on the hardware just to get into the market.
I'm fucking sorry I **CANNOT** let this bullshit pass "Drawing comparisons to Microsoft's antitrust trial, in which they were accused of giving away Internet Explorer to drive competitors out of the browser market,"
FUCK YOU NO-ONE EXCEPT MS SHILLS THEMSELVES SAID THIS!!
It was the monopoly shit that pulled that people were mad at, Netscape didn't charge for the browser either. (They did charge for the backend web server, but then again so does and did MS (via needing more expensive versions of windows). What they did do was discourage computer shops (using a sharp stick and monpoly practices) from packaging netscape and instead packaging IE. (as well as other programs etc).
Why won't Google just use the Force?
Walmart opens a shop in a new town and A) they have extremely low prices because they force people to sell their product at lower than bulk rate. B) (maybe false) they lower their price in new stores below profit value, they can do this because of their profits from other stores. They drive all the competitors (small business owners) out of the market. Then they increase situation B to higher than profit value once they have no competitors.
Is this legal? I think so but have not studied the law. Is this moral? hell no. We are ok with it in Google's case because the other companies are big "evil" companies. We are not ok with in in Walmart's case because it is a big company destroying small business owners.
Then that would be yes, it's their fault. Who's fault could it be?
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Didnt someone attempt to sue Linus Torvalds, Stallman, the FSF and others years ago claiming Linux to be anticompetative? Saying he was selling his small time OS and sales went down due to people choosing Linux instead?
Make SELinux enforcing again!
Yes. Microsoft's operating system at the time sucked multiple body parts, so other operating system publishers could make an operating system that sucked only ass and call it an improvement.
It would make a great story, but... in reality, Android being a LINUX OS... is, well... free. So, it's not like Google is making something that costs & the giving the OS for less than it costed them. In other words - they ain't takin' any financial loss from the product in order to gain marketplace. If that was the case, then it could be an unfair advantage, but it's not the case is it?
"There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back." - Robert A Heinlein, Life-Line, 1939.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Whatever the actual issues are, reading armchair legal opinions combined with dim and distorted memories of the MS antitrust case just hurts.
Some day, someone will reply to a /. post with something like "I don't know, that's interesting but it's way beyond my area of expertise. Does anyone have an informed opinion?" And then, of course, the world will end.
If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
Errr - do you actually pay for iOS? If so, where can you buy it? How much for an iphone without it? What's that, you can't buy an iPhone without it? Intersting...
dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
stupid ass comparison IMO. Windows is the monopoly and IE was forced on computer hardware vendors to include that with the operating system. There is no comparison with users making the choice to use Google search and the free/OSS Android version( minus Google apps and app store ).
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Ignoring the legal ignorance of the summary (did not RTFA), there is one major difference:
Microsoft abused their position to gain control of a market.
Google is alleged to be abusing their position to dominate the market with an _OPEN_PLATFORM_
This is a shill article because the lie is so fucking obvious to detect. First of all, Android is made by the Open Handset Alliance. Google is of course a very major player in it same as Nokia was a major player in Symbian BUT it is called an alliance for a reason. Google doesn't work on it alone.
Second, and this is the big whopper. Where do you think MS gets the money from to fund WM7? If it had to charge full market price the handsets would cost a fortune because it would have to pay for ALL the losses of all the previous windows mobile versions. The constant rename campaigns alone would set you back a hundred bucks per license.
MS is using its monopoly on the desktop and office software market to fund its other operations, from the original x-box (which was economically a dismall failure) to MS phone software which so far has NOT had the kind of sales to pay for its own development costs.
And Apple? Same deal, no upstart company could have done the iPod whose profits were used to then launch the iPhone and then the iPad. The major advantage Apple always had over smaller players is that thanks to its massive reserves it could place orders so large that it got discounts nobody else gets making their players cheaper by comparison (MB for MB).
So basically Google and a LOT of other players pooled their resources to create a product they could all benefit from and made it available for "free". So? MS used its monopoly resources to create a product nobody else can use for free. Apple used it fast wealth to create a product nobody else can use or even create gadgets for without paying them and they often just refuse to license stuff.
Who is being the bad guy again? Oh of course, Google for being less evil. What people forget about Googles "Don't be evil" slogan is that doesn't say "Be good" it just means don't be as evil as the rest... and in American Business, that is a pretty low standard.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I'm surprised the article isn't tagged troll.
are any of the competitors prevented from doing ANYthing with android ?
no.
case closed.
noone has to endure higher prices because a bastardly private corporation wants to push its proprietary shit on customers from the price the want.
Read radical news here
Android is charged per advertisement. You pay every time you see one. Google also takes a cut from the application sales and any of their online services you purchase and access via an Android handset.
To top it off, Google/OHA even make the code available so you can fork it if you want. There are at least a half dozen groups who are doing just that. You could for example create an Android fork that doesn't have advertising if you want, or that even uses Bing as the search box (you just can't call it Android you have to call it something else). There is no reason Microsoft could not release an Android-based mobile platform called IH8Google if they wanted to.
Anti-competitive? Far from it. If they did put a fee on it, Samsung and HTC would probably just fork it and continue as normal. All they are doing is commoditizing the base platform and making money from value-add services, something they should be commended for.
First. Microsoft was not blamed because IE was free. The problems were 1) preinstallation on Windows systems 2) impossibility to uninstall. And I would like to add that as a consequence the entire web was held back for YEARS. Look at how fast it has been changing since Firebird first managed to jeopardize Microsoft's web browser monopoly.
Second. Seriously, winsupersite.com?
Third. The guy says that the statement from Google is contradictory because they both say that the patents are "bogus" and that "these deals are likely to draw regulatory scrutiny, and this patent bubble will pop" and that they would have liked to acquire them in order to avoid legal litigation. But that makes perfectly sense if you consider the horrible US patent system, and it is the system's fault not Google. Actually, that is the whole point that is made in the statement, which the winsupersite.com guy fails to get. Moreover, he thinks that Google should have included discussion over the specific patents in the statement, which is something I guess NO COMPANY WOULD EVER DO, in sight of litigation.
This is going to go down with the "why yes it is definitely better for the consumer if Apple bans cross compilers no I;ll keep my mouth shut once Apple reverse that decision a couple of months later".
It is close to impossible to describe the blatant hypocrisy of railing against Lodsys (which Daring Fireball has done) but then criticising Google's position on patents as being monopolistic and anti-competitive.
Breathtaking.
Puzzle Daze is now my job
Did anyone actually read the article? because everybody seems intent on trashing it for saying this is like MS antitrust when the mainstay of the article is about googles whining that 'bogus' patents are being drawn up against it. Now are apple and MS patent trolling? Who knows! Google certainly havent gone in to detail about it so it has to go to the courts. This isnt some small startup getting picked on by big corporations this is a _massive_ company with the majority of the market share and they are acting like they are being picked on! Whats more they are getting huge support over this when, should google genuinely be infringing on patents, they have the power to immediately destroy any potential for profit on the ideas by distributing it immediately across a vast network. Thats the point of the article, all of that is what 95% of the text was about.
You may think its fine for google to distribute things for free patent or not, especially when the source of the features are from equally big players. Thats a different discussion. You may think the patent system is horribly broken. (well durr.) Also a different discussion. However, if you think google is the kid being bullied by the nasty profiteering giants then youve really got to get a grip, but of course you should know this because its just parroting what the article said...
The comparison to MS anti-trust was daft and the cases are very different but the sites a freakin windows super site. So many calling him a windows shill as if he doesnt pretty much advertise his allegiances... If you didnt go in to it in the knowledge that there was going to be some bias you are being painfully naive. (Incidentally that goes for _any_ site that unashamedly labels themselves after the product they support.) That doesnt mean a lot of the points made werent valid. Google arnt the underdog any more, havent been for some time.
[Note, let me pre-empt a strawman or two by pointing out that neither his post nor mine are saying MS and Apple are any better than Google in this situation.]
Additionally the price of WinOS rose to cover the cost of development.
And additionally again, the base code was ripped off from another company for a cut of the revenues. Giving it away (and taking the money from WinOS price rises instead) took money from that company.
So huge differences there.
I'm so enjoying this. I had high hopes for Google but they seem to be as full of shit as anybody and now they're whining because things aren't going their way. Me thinks Android is in for some rough waters.
Microsoft was only giving away their software for some users. Google gives their software away to all users. If Apple or Microsoft want to use Android, they can, for free.
That's the difference.
Software patents suck for everyone, except the company that previously duped a patent official into allowing these.
It isn't just Microsoft. I've seen a large storage vendor willing to change the CAP vs SW-CAP pricing on a project to fit under a budget limit on either side. However, the total price never changed, so the vendor wasn't giving anything away. This was for millions of dollars in SW+HW, but it could have been 100% HW or 100% SW just to deal with budget buckets.
What this sounds like is a Major Retail Chain moving into a new city and selling their products at a loss to drive the Mom and Pop shops out of business. Google is effectively shutting down the OS Market to new competitors and innovation. HTC, et al are able to sell their phones at the same price as Apple because they don't have to pay for their OS.
So the question becomes when MS & RIM leave the smartphone market, what will Google do?
A pro-Microsoft, anti-Google article on a website called winsupersite.com (Super Site for Windows), yeah... no bias there.
~Syberz
what googles give it away free model does is make it close to impossible for innovation to occur by anyone other that existing competition. and google did and has dominated search, and are using that success to go break into other market segments, somer related others not, and because of their enormous cash cow, jump into new market segments and give away technology. so for a moment don't consider the incumbents, think about 1 or 2 people that have some ideas about a new mobile device platform and that to compete they content with an 800lb gorilla that gives it's software away for free.
telling computer manufacturers that they couldn't install any other browser on the computers they sold.
No they didn't. Computer Manufactures got a cheaper licensing deal from MS *IF* they didn't install competing products. Besides which if Netscape was so awesome.. the users could install it themselves. Lastly, Netscape had deals with tons of ISPs which allowed them to install Netscape on customers machines. You anti-ms trolls are hilarious.
"Oh hey.. if your grocery store stocks only Coca-Cola sodas, we'll give ya a nice deal."
It's these Android commies that are ruining our capitalist paradise!
Is it anti-competitive to use the revenues from one business area to give away products in another business area? Everyone here seems to be saying it is fine to do. To me it is not as clear. If Google did not make a ton of money in ad revenues there is no way they could support Android OS for free. The only reason Google gives away Android is to increase those ad revenues. It is hard to compete with free especially when the free product is produced by a competitive company. It may be there are valid reasons this business model is "fair". But no one is addressing the root issue.
I think patents are justifiable if the person who made the patent can actually physically create what is in the patent. if they are only patenting an idea (some shmuck patents "using a phone to browse the internet"... they need to be capable of having that idea come to life or they are just being a patent troll)
Patents have gotten ABSOLUTELY REDICULOUS as of late. as Google has said, it is counterproductive for advancement in technology.
One of the anti-competitive tricks Standard Oil used was predatory pricing. They would set up shop in a town and sell gas at or below cost, driving any other gas stations out of business. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing And yes, Microsoft was guilty of this as well by giving IE away for free and destroying Netscape's source of revenue.
There might be a leg to stand on in this case against Google. Does Google actually make any money off Android after all the money they invested in it?
On the other hand, what competition does Android even have as a licensed product? Apple does not license iOS. RIM does not license Blackberry OS. Nokia is more or less abandoning Symbian in the face of competiton and moving to Windows Phone 7. I don't think HP licenses WebOS, although they probably would given a chance. PalmOS faltered before Android hit the market, as I recall.
So by my count, only Microsoft, Nokia, or HP might have grounds to fight Google on the basis that they are giving away a product that undermines their positions in the mobile OS market. HP could argue that Android being free is preventing them from licensing WebOS to other tablet makers. Nokia might be able to argue that Android's pricing (or lack thereof) was making it cost prohibitive to continue maintaining and licensing Symbian. But then, Nokia was really late to the smartphone market space and I don't think they ever put forth a real effort. I think that would make it hard for them to argue that it was Android's pricing that pushed them out of the market. Microsoft might have a argument as far as pricing and cost competitiveness, but I figure that any move by Microsoft to push Google on anti-trust grounds wound be a public relations disaster.
So yes, I think Google might be vulnerable on paper, but I just don't think anything will come of it since Apple and RIM are not in competition with Google, and it would be a PR nightmare for Microsoft.
Reveals himself in "Haedrian": How many of the "Pro-Google" replies here are really you in one of your numerous multiple registered accounts here, "Haedrian"?
reveals itself on /.: How many of the "Pro-Google" replies here are you under diff. registered accounts here DanTheStone?
is revealed in hilather: How many "Pro-Google" replies here R U w/ your multiple reg'd /. account sockpuppet replies I wonder?
Who also proves he's not even good at his own OS of choice here vs. myself http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2006166&cid=35312558 where you didn't even realize that there were trojans for ANDROID (a Linux variant) that allow for installations w/out user consent... hell, you didn't even REALIZE THEN that ANDROID is a Linux variant!
* Grow up Linux Troll, & @ least learn more before you try to take on folks here in "things technical in computing" before you try it again - you make us "Alex's" look bad!
APK
P.S.=> I will say 1 thing in defense of hairyfeet, even though I have had it out with he here before: He was more of a challenge than you EVER were, Alex...
... apk
And, I thought I was the absolute MASTER of bitch-slap of the "Pro-*NIX" trolls around here... lol, you NOW have taken that crown from me (your style's a WEE BIT MORE "brusque" than mine though, but funnier than hell @ the same time (some of the stuff you sling had me laughing my ass off!)).
You didn't really need to use that method though - facts alone wipe most of them out.
However on THAT very note? Well, I like the facts & documentations you put out... mind if I use them myself sometime? That's my fav. way of "putting away trolls" - using facts!
APK
P.S.=> It shuts them dead up, everytime... I put one up where I have floored Alex Belits before too (he didn't even realize ANDROID was a Linux variation, & that there ARE ways to install without consent on it either - he's extremely easy to floor though, bear that in mind @ least, & try not to be too hard on the old boy, lol, he does keep trying!)...
... apk
Sorry i didnt know that Apple allowed its iOS to be used on any other phones? That definatly gives Google an unfair advantage with all those Phone manufacturers producing their version of the iPhone and paying for the iOS.
Strange - but I cant think of one off the top of my head!
*Sarcasm intended*
Microsoft sold you Windows (the monopoly?) and forced IE on you. Google (or whoever) is selling you an Android phone and then letting you use Google Search (the monopoly?) I don't see how you can compare the two? Even if you still think its unfair, then ah well lets just push an OTA with a "what search engine do you want?" and be done with it. Oh wait... my android already gave me that choice...
I must admit that I've been stymied by Google exec David Drummond's complaints claiming that Microsoft et al are trying to take down Android. OF COURSE THEY ARE. It seems such an obvious, and typical, business tactic that I'm surprised Drummond even mentioned it. The reality is that, if you have a hit, high-quality product, your competitors will try as hard as they can to put you out of commission. The fact that Google's leadership is publicly complaining about such common business tactics makes me wonder whether the company's leaders are experienced and savvy enough to adequately weather the storm of cutthroat, high-stakes business and come out on top in the long run. If I were a Google investor, such comments (as well as Google's recent fumbling of its Nortel patent bid) might make me think twice about the long-term viability of an investment in the company.