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?'"

Comments

This is why we can't have anything nice

[Haedrian]

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.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[zero.kalvin]

The analogy is flawed, they can't compare Android to IE. IE was shipped with WinOS. WinOS was the more or less the only used OS out there ( I mean for the general population) , that's why it was anti-competitive to give for free ( or why it was anti-competitive by MS ). Now the case with Android is that it does not enjoy a monopoly, the hardware is diverse, and on the same hardware provider ( Like HTC for example) is offering different OS. If they want to offer it for free then it's not the Open Handset Alliance's problem, if others want to out compete Android, then they must offer something distinguished so that people will consider paying for it. It is the same more or less with Linux on the desktop.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a 110% Apple fanboi, and completely agree with this. Google has every right to ship Android for free. It's garbage (imo), but still their right in every way.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[rudy_wayne]

The price of Internet Explorer was never the real issue. What created anti-trust problems for Microsoft was telling computer manufacturers that they couldn't install any other browser on the computers they sold.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[erroneus]

It's not free. Android needs hardware to run on. In most cases, hardware makers are reluctant to create upgrades for the hardware they sell because it gives them less incentive to buy the next model they want to sell. With the exception of a fairly small, though busy community, most people keep their phone's software as-is unless an OTA update comes down.

This is not at ALL the same as bundling a browser with the OS. The only ones who see a benefit from "free" is the phone makers and with all the hacking and modding going on, I am sure the carriers are a little annoyed with Android so free is no benefit to them. And before anyone says "it makes the phones cheaper" that's bullshit. It just means the manufacturers get more profit because unless you are buying a close-out model of an android phone, you are buy an expensive phone.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[unrtst]

Agreed, but more importantly (IMO), they aren't bundling Android with their "monopoly" produce of search.

Microsoft didn't just give IE away for free... they took their dominant position of OS distribution, and bundled in a free-as-in-beer IE, AND (initially) did not provide any way to remove it. They also provided major "incentives" (read; deterrents) to hardware distributors to encourage them to only ship Windows.

Google is not providing any additional incentives to handset makers who use Android. And many of those (ex. HTC) make just as many handsets that run other OS's, and push/market them equally. When Dell started selling some boxes with linux on them, it was only a couple, and they were underpowered; ditto for their no-os choices; and the price difference was not the equal of the cost of a Windows license.

Google's offering is also free-as-in-freedom, which IE was not. You can argue about v3.0 if you like, but it's not officially in distribution yet, and the source to IE was never free.

Also, when you go to google.com, you don't have to use Andoid, and it's not pushed on you either. A more comparative example - when a mobile user goes to google.com, they can still use the site just as well as if they came from Andoid. When a Netscape user went to Windows Update, it simply did not work - and still does not work - it requires IE.

Can some similarities be drawn? Yes. Fortunately, by doing so, it should be obvious that they are actually making the right decisions with how to distribute this product, as opposed to the many anti-competitive choices that Microsoft made.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[derGoldstein]

I'd have to look it up to be certain (and who has time for that?), but I think the main complaint is that they intentionally designed the browser to be inseparable from the OS's GUI. So not only was it bundled with Windows, it was also impossible to remove. But in those days I'm sure they didn't think twice about strong-arming manufacturers to keep other browsers out as well.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[derGoldstein]

While I agree that it doesn't make the phones cheaper, and that it's not in the hardware maker's best interest to allow upgrades (for the reasons you mentioned, as well as the added support required by users who have problems with the upgrade), Android itself is still free. You can use it on multiple platforms (architectures), and no one's forcing you to "hook it up" to Google. You can download the source code, you can use it without paying anyone, and you don't have to sign up for anything in order to do so. That means it's free.

You can make the argument that it ends up costing the end user who buys a smartphone, but that's a discussion about the smartphone market. Android is software, and it's free.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[93 Escort Wagon]

I'd have to look it up to be certain (and who has time for that?), but I think the main complaint is that they intentionally designed the browser to be inseparable from the OS's GUI. So not only was it bundled with Windows, it was also impossible to remove. But in those days I'm sure they didn't think twice about strong-arming manufacturers to keep other browsers out as well.

IIRC correctly there was additionally the complaint that Microsoft designed Windows to crash Netscape.

Basically there were all sorts of different ways Microsoft was (rightly) accused of anti-competitive behaviors. Pick and choose your favorite.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[larry bagina]

You can compare Android to Bing. Company rakes in cash from core business, uses it to subsidize entry into another business. Android has kind of moved to the Doom business model -- you can have the old engine for free, but if you want the current version, google apps, and google marketplace, pay up.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[postbigbang]

And it was a lie; it was removable and not intrinsic to the operation of the OS. Microsoft just *wanted* it that way after standing on the shoulders (and farting on the head) of Netscape.

The overall argument doesn't hold water. Free is fine. There are other Linux derivates on smartphones and tablets NOW with a similar price. Does Google do other evil stuff? Yeah, including not defending Android from litigation foisted on its OEMs.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Karlt1]

"You can download the source code"

Where is the source code for HoneyComb?

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[sjames]

Exactly. Google in no way forbids Samsung or HTC from installing iOS on other phones in their product line. OTOH, APPLE forbids that. Also MS retained all rights in IE, they just happened to set the price at free. Google has GPLed Android. The practical difference is that they can't wipe out the competition and then jack the price up to $1000/unit on the existing product.

This is nothing more than oxygen tank makers claiming that free air is an unfair infringement on their profits.

That or they're well aware that their behavior is just short of mustache twirling and they are trying to talk their way into a good night's sleep.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[HermMunster]

You cannot lend any credence to Thurott, he's a long time microsoft shill. He's also a proprietard that believes there is no room for free. That in and of itself is an indication of his fanboism.

Offering free in exchange for some other remuneration is at the heart of barter.

Microsoft's trial and subsequent conviction had little to do with free and everything to do with other practices stemming from favorable pricing policy that excluded competition from entering the market. It went like this: if you include other products besides ours you will lose your special pricing, which would in effect place their product out of reach of the consumer. If they sold a computer without their OS then they'd charged for a sale anyway.

It had nothing to do with free rather it was due to exclusionary practices. By then Netscape was free too

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[symbolset]

I don't know if you knew this, but Verizon Binged their Droids. There's no tying here.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Alien Being]

No, they're not bundling Android with Google Search, but are they bundling Google Search with Android? I don't know, just wondering. MS became a powerhouse because of its pre-Internet systems software whereas Google's beginning *was* the Internet. Their paths were different but they do seem to have converged.

So far, I think Google has been a fairly respectable company. Microsoft? Not even on their best day.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[theVarangian]

Agreed, but more importantly (IMO), they aren't bundling Android with their "monopoly" produce of search. Microsoft didn't just give IE away for free... they took their dominant position of OS distribution, and bundled in a free-as-in-beer IE, AND (initially) did not provide any way to remove it. They also provided major "incentives" (read; deterrents) to hardware distributors to encourage them to only ship Windows

I don't really care if Google is doing exactly the same thing as Microsoft did back in the day. I don't care whether corporations are doing what they do out of a desire to be evil or not. If somebody becomes so dominant in some market segment that they have a 80-90% market share that company has become too big a player. Why did you put the word monopoly in scare quotes when referring to Google and the internet search business? The last time I looked Google had something like a 85% share of the internet search market. That sounds like a monopoly to me and monopoly is always bad. Microsoft has a similar dominance on the desktop computer OS market, which is also bad. I'm sure the all knowing, self-correcting and ever perfect free market will eventually sort this out. Unfortunately the all knowing, self-correcting and ever perfect free market seems to have a habit of taking it's own sweet time when it comes to taking down monopolies so I'll applaud any help the free market gets from competition/antitrust watchdogs or anybody else willing to light a fire under the monopolist's posteriors. I have made my own tiny contribution by making increasing use of Bing and other alternative search engines instead of Google. I generally don't like Microsoft but I like Google's search monopoly even less. I became a OS X/Linux user for the exact same reason vis-Ã-vis Microsoft's OS monopoly.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[umbrellasd]

It may not be like that, but it certainly is like giving away the OS of game systems for free and heavily subsidizing the cost of the hardware to get people on your platform and then generate profit off the software sales. Every vendor does that, and we've got Simian running on millions of devices. I believe they are still the biggest install base, but were for a long while even so. I don't pay money for iOS on an iPhone either. Or maybe I do, but who can tell since it's all rolled into a big contract which ostensibly covers the hardware and service for 2 years, makes no mention of licensing fees for iOS.

Google isn't doing anything different than the rest. Fuck, iOS is locked to one companies hardware platform. And people are whining because anyone can use Android? Shame on you, Google. You're supposed to screw everyone more; that's why we think you are doing something illegal. I'm not a Google fanboi, but this particular topic is a non-issue. It's just patent-trolling bastards trying to justify their predatory exploitation of a broken patent system. That's it.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Alex Zepeda]

Yes, but, for instance, Verizon sells Android phones with Bing preinstalled.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Trahloc]

Probably because everyone who does take issue with it avoids KDE all together.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Aighearach]

No, being inseparable was their defense.

The accusation was that they leveraged their windows monopoly to get an unfair advantage for their browser. They claimed it wasn't a separate software product.

What is missing in this case is google using the search dominance to assist android. They seem to just be claiming that since google makes a lot of money, spending that money is an unfair advantage. It just doesn't pass the laugh test.

If google was refusing to include iPhone in search results, for example, that would be equivalent to the MS case. Going from the MS case opinions, if google was putting iPhone results on the third page or something, even that would probably be okay. They're not prevented from getting any natural advantage from their monopoly, they're just not allowed to use it to de-facto prevent competition.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Alex Zepeda]

Ah, but Android is free as in beer, and a poorly cobbled together one at that. Not free as in speech. Go ahead, buy a phone from a carrier and vendor combo that doesn't bundle a bunch of crapware. Then take what you can find from the Android source repository, build it, and see how it stacks up to what your phone came with. If you've got a Samsung phone good luck getting that kernel built. If you're using a phone with a Qualcomm MSM7xxx chipset, good luck getting the GPS working (well). If you're using that same Qualcomm chipset, the (GPL) bluetooth enabler that Google ships with simply doesn't work. Want to use that fancy Adreno GPU? Well, the FOSS driver that Qualcomm publishes is crap. If you're saying Android is free as in speech, you'd probably be pretty surprised at the number of proprietary binary blobs needed to get everything working the anywhere near as well as they did out of the box. Want to get "off-mode" charging working? More binary blobs. Thankfully HTC separates them out from the init daemon (LG does not).

Let's say you want to build on OSX, a supposedly supported platform. Want to run dexopt? You're SOL. Maybe you'd like to build on FreeBSD. You're SOL there too. Sure there's BSDroid, but Google won't officially acknowledge its presence because they don't want people thinking it's officially supported (despite being more feature complete than Google's NDK for OSX).

Sure, you could blame Qualcomm, LG, HTC, Broadcom, etc for being jerks. But at the end of the day a lot of their GPL'd bits end up in Google's distribution. And Google is already fiercely closed about letting third parties submit fixes. The only part of Android that's free as in speech is the kernel, and, really, if you've learned nothing from GNU/Linux, the kernel alone will only get you so far. You need the full ecosystem. Okay, there are some other GPL'd odds and ends, but it's generally done without any sort of documentation or support. On one hand, to some extent you CAN tinker with Android far more than iOS. On the other hand, you NEED to tinker with it to get anywhere near the same level of functionality. Free speech in name, not spirit.

Let's not talk about the marketplace and the bullshit half-baked copy protection, mm'kay?

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[icebraining]

But MS was using their OS monopoly to push IE, while Android is not a monopoly (far from it, in fact). The fact that Google Search dominates the market is irrelevant.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Alex Zepeda]

Hell, where's the source code (or even documentation) for my bootloader, for my graphics driver, for my GPS userland libraries, my (carrier modified... sigh) SMS/MMS libraries, for my camera userland interface? The core OS is sorta free, and the kernel is GPL'd (hopefully you'll get a buildable one from the phone mfr), but you ain't gonna get much use of that without a lot of binary blobs from the phone manufacturer and carrier.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[icebraining]

Google Search is a much, much less dangerous monopoly than Windows is or ever was, because they don't really have a way of locking you in. The cost of switching search engines is close to zero, while the same can't be said for OSs, especially since they have exclusive and widely used applications like MS Office.

Google's dominance in the online advertisement market seems way more dangerous to me.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[jo_ham]

What exactly does Apple forbid? Who else makes iPhones that would be "forbidden" from shipping them with a different OS? I don't think that's quite the point to make.

The original point was that IE was free and bundled, and they were strong arming OEMs into not selling computers with competing browsers or OSes using the cost of Windows licences as the stick.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[GigaplexNZ]

and KDE entrenches Konqueror just as much

It does? Last I checked, I used KDE's own Dolphin file browser and the Chromium browser. Can't say I've ever used or even noticed Konqueror since KDE 4 came along.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[poetmatt]

Whoa, fud spreader and microsoft lover. Google didn't jump in right away to defend their OEM's - there's about a million reasons for that, and guess what? Now they are starting to jump in, and be a lot more vocal about it too.

Meanwhile, your post about removing IE is 100% and total bull shit. It was not until Microsoft was found guilty of antitrust, in that same lawsuit where the documents show that they deliberately tied it in to the core of the OS, that they decided to make a version of the OS where it could be removed. IN EUROPE, which was then later removed as an option from europe. The rest of us were told to get bent. To this day, you still cannot 100% remove the browser as there are still dependencies in the OS itself.

The overall argument about browser tying is fact, not invalid. the IE situation is not even close to the first time they have done things to prevent interoperability. and MS has a history of being anti-linux..

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[GigaplexNZ]

Google has GPLed Android

They used the Apache license for pre-3.0 and it's essentially closed source for 3.0. Their kernel modifications are about the only thing that they've GPLed.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[node 3]

Well, that's odd, my post was meant to be in reply to hairyfeet, sorry for the confusion.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[node 3]

Apple will be able to compete with "free" forever. See my reply one level down (was supposed to be in response to you).

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[ozmanjusri]

Here's the Kernel Code for Android Honeycomb 3.1 OS (V8.4.4.11) on my Asus Eee Pad Transformer:

http://support.asus.com/Download.aspx?SLanguage=en&m=Eee+Pad+Transformer+TF101&p=20&s=16

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[sjames]

That's largely irrelevant to my point, Apache is still an open and Free license. They have delayed any release of 3.x source but say they will in the next release. Should they not do so, then it may be reasonable to revisit the issue, but it sure doesn't explain all the patent suits based on 2.x releases.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[grouchomarxist]

> Google has GPLed Android.

The Linux OS and the kernel patches are GPL. The rest of the OS was under the Apache license, at least for Android 3.0.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[GigaplexNZ]

Should they not do so, then it may be reasonable to revisit the issue, but it sure doesn't explain all the patent suits based on 2.x releases.

Google's choice of copyright licensing has virtually nothing to do with patent infringement claims.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[stegre]

...they aren't bundling Android with their "monopoly" produce of search ...Google is not providing any additional incentives to handset makers who use Android ...Also, when you go to google.com, you don't have to use Andoid, and it's not pushed on you either...

If you're browser identifies your O/S as Android (e.g. "User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.0; en-us; Droid Build/ESD20) AppleWebKit/530.17 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/530.17") they return a highly customized web page, with a strange little tab on the top and specialized little coffee cup & fork and knife icons. They don't customize the page like that for other O/S's, do they?

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[jc42]

When I try to navigate to maps.google.com on my windows 7 phone, it does not work (nor do I get any indication on why it does not). It works perfectly on my wife's android phone.

Out of curiosity, on your wife's phone, are you/she getting to google maps via the browser, or via the "Maps" app? When you write "navigate to", this sounds like you're using the browser.

I have an android phone, too, and my wife has an iPhone. Both of them have special google-maps apps that work quite well. But when we try to get to maps.google.com via the browsers, it sorta works, but not very well.

I think this is because most phone browsers are rather crippled, and lack some of the features present in most laptop browsers that maps.google.com uses, mostly a full javascript package with lots of libraries. I'd guess that your windows phone has a browser that is similarly crippled, and can't fully handle the maps.google.com pages. Is there a separate google maps app for your windows phone? If so, try it and tell us how it works.

(A quick check with google shows a maps app from a third party was announced last December. I didn't investigate further, but this implies the same sort of problems with accessing maps.google.com through the windows 7 browser. You might want to check this out. If you do, please let us know how well it works.)

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[grouchomarxist]

Damn. I meant Android 3.0.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[sjames]

But it has a HUGE amount to do with claims that the patent suits are just attempts to counter anti-competitive behavior rather than being trollish in nature.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[dudpixel]

this is in response to Android being free...you have only given examples of manufacturers who have not provided their OWN software for free. the kernel is definitely covered by GPL so if you pushed hard enough you could definitely get the samsung kernel. However they would be free to produce kernel modules for their hardware that is not free. This has nothing to do with Android.

Dont confuse the issue. Android is free, but no one claimed that the software on your phone that you may refer to as "Android" (or more correctly, "based on" android) is free.

You can absolutely grab one of the Google experience phones (available here in AU without any carrier crap in some cases) and download the android software stack, compile it up and run it on your phone. the fact that almost every other manufacturer doesn't release their stuff for free is irrelevant - and doesn't change the fact that android itself, is free.

If you are expecting to grab any android phone and run any software you want on it, you are simply misguided. The article is all about Google giving android away for free, which they certainly do.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[dudpixel]

those things are all the responsibility of the manufacturer, not Google, and they are not "Android". Are you going to claim that Linux isn't really free because the nvidia driver isn't open source?

If you wanted all of the things you mentioned, then you bought the wrong phone. Get a Google experience phone and you'll have everything you wanted. The fact that others dont do this does not change the fact that Google do it.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Tubal-Cain]

It does? Last I checked, I used KDE's own Dolphin file browser and the Chromium browser. Can't say I've ever used or even noticed Konqueror since KDE 4 came along.

It does. You and I may never explicitly launch it, but KDE relies on it for something (my Debian system lists it as a dependency of kdebase-apps).

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Tubal-Cain]

What exactly does Apple forbid?

They don't allow running Apple OSs on non-Apple hardware.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[GigaplexNZ]

I think that could be a case of kdebase-apps being a meta package that depends on Konqueror just to make sure it gets installed.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[CharlyFoxtrot]

The price of Internet Explorer was never the real issue. What created anti-trust problems for Microsoft was telling computer manufacturers that they couldn't install any other browser on the computers they sold.

While that's true there's no denying they ruined Netscape's business by giving away what Netscape were charging for. Around the time of IE3 vs Netscape 3 most people still preferred Netscape but IE3 was free and Netscape wasn't. Then along come IE4 which wasn't only free, but actually better (according to most people at the time) and it was all over. Choke off revenue for your competitors, slowing their development while you ramp yours up. Sounds exactly like what Google's trying to do but failing to since the iPhone is still by far the most profitable smartphone out there.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Archangel Michael]

You are right, in that they are not bundling Android with their Search, it is the other way around, bundling Search (and Gmail) with Android.

Go ahead, try to get an Android without gmail account.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[mug funky]

you had to pay extra for the OS on your iPhone? really?

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[mug funky]

damn that KDE exploiting it's dominant market position to raise more money!

those OSS fat cats oughta have their assets seized!

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[mug funky]

COHAGEN, IT'S ME YOU WANT. GIVE DIS PEEPLE AAIIIRR!

lowercaselowercaselowercaselowercaselowercaselowercaselowercase

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[hairyfeet]

I love how I get modded down simply for explaining the guy's position, even though I made it quite clear that BOTH Thurott and Nichols are trolls and thus nearly always full of shit.

The only problem I have with Google is this: They offer this "free" software, be it chrome, Android, WebM, whatever, to all these OEMs and then are happy to make big profits on the search but if someone like oh say MPEG-LA shows up with a lawsuit its "hey, where did Google go?".

Personally i think software patents are bullshit but by throwing the OEMs under a bus Google is doing a disservice to EVERYONE. Google has enough cash not only can they send the attack lawyers like the fricking Nasgul coming off the mountain they can afford to pay an army of geeks to go through every patent with a fine tooth comb. they also have the geek cred if they put out a web wide call for prior art they'd have geeks the world over busting their asses to help.

but instead of using "Do No Evil" as "Do Some Good" they instead take the sackfuls o' cash and let the OEMs get run over. If you truly want FOSS to succeed we all need to get together and let google know we'll be boycotting the living hell out of them until they start standing behind their products and using their power to help us out. We are the geeks, people listen to us. it would be trivial to get folks to switch to bing, or yahoo, or Ask, or whatever. frankly there isn't much of a difference. But I bet if the geeks got together and called for a "No More Google" boycott and their numbers started dropping? Then maybe they'd throw their weight into backing the OEMs which would help us ALL by putting the brakes on these patent trolls.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Pieroxy]

What exactly does Apple forbid?

They don't allow running Apple OSs on non-Apple hardware.

Where did you read that? They don't support it, but how can they forbid it?

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[AmberBlackCat]

I don't know. When I use Windows, I don't feel like every little thing I type is being sent back to Microsoft. With every Google product, I do get that feeling. And I can get Windows out of my computer. I can't get Google out of my phone. Also, everybody I know uses Windows but Microsoft never got my phone number. As soon as one friend of mine got an Android phone, Google got my name and phone number, and probably my address too.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Zontar The Mindless]

IIRC correctly there was additionally the complaint that Microsoft designed Windows to crash Netscape.

Um, no. But perhaps you're thinking of "Windows ain't done till DR-DOS won't run"?

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Q-Hack!]

No, GP is correct. There were 'complaints' that Microsoft designed Windows to crash Netscape. Back in the late 90's, there were three security patches in a row that caused Netscape to crash. While there was no proof that Microsoft was doing it on purpose, that didn't stop the accusations.

Those of us, non-conspiracy theorist, just chalked it up to the poor documentation provided by Microsoft on their ever changing system API's.

 

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Zontar The Mindless]

Except IE could be removed... and KDE entrenches Konqueror just as much, and nobody (even open source geeks) seems to take issue with that.

KDE isn't a standalone OS.

You were saying...?

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[eagleyes]

When I try to navigate to maps.google.com on my windows 7 phone, it does not work (nor do I get any indication on why it does not). It works perfectly on my wife's android phone.

Works perfectly fine on my Windows Phone 7.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Zontar The Mindless]

This is nothing more than oxygen tank makers claiming that free air is an unfair infringement on their profits.

</thread>

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Tubal-Cain]

Don't you remember Psystar?

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[walshy007]

And I can get Windows out of my computer. I can't get Google out of my phone.

Sure you can, just most people find the integration more convenient by a long stretch. You can run android without it reporting anything to google.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[walshy007]

Google can never match the iPhone experience with Android.

Considering almost all 'new' ios features released in the last two years have been on android six months to a year beforehand, it seems apple is the one playing catch-up there. Even the basic notification system in ios was extremely lacking.

So, not only can Apple compete with free (and do so extremely successfully), with Android, they don't even have to!

This I agree with, who needs to compete when you have a product that people will purchase and praise regardless of flaws.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[walshy007]

Wait a second.. you are proposing boycotting google because they have not single handedly disposed of the entirety of software patents?!?

That is just silly. Google has to work with what it has to work with. While it would be ideal if google could single handedly lobby *cough* bribe *cough* enough politicians to remove all software patents it is unrealistic and unfair of you to expect them to do so, same with just handling every existing patent threat only to have thousands more continue to try, patent suits are the symptom, the cause is patent law.

If you truly want FOSS to succeed, then don't boycott google, that achieves nothing, instead educate and rally people together that the very basis of a single person owning an idea in an age where there are six billion of us is absurd.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[sirdude]

Have you heard about these guys? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CyanogenMod

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[MrMatto]

and the only reason for that is because it's free. It's certainly not due to quality.

I don't think users are only buying Android phones because they are less expensive (if that's even the case). I bet many of them genuinely enjoy the Android experience.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[qxcv]

MSHTML40.dll != Internet Explorer. Internet Explorer is a browser, a user facing application browser chrome and a renderer. In this case, the renderer is MSHTML. MSHTML is also used in Windows applications for rendering HTML markup (i.e. for documentation). This is not anti-competitive behaviour, this is ensuring a consistent user experience when rending web pages.

Removing MSHTML is roughly equivalent to removing the shared library for Qt WebView on a KDE system.

Aside: Has anyone ever tried removing M$N messenger from an XP system? It's almost impossible to get rid of.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[exomondo]

Sounds exactly like what Google's trying to do but failing to since the iPhone is still by far the most profitable smartphone out there.

Not really, google doesn't care about the profitability of smartphones at all, all they care about is the advertising revenue generated by the platform. The profitability of the phone is irrelevant, what they want is marketshare, more eyes on ads, that's what makes them money and given their marketshare they are winning at that game.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Alex Zepeda]

Nah, I gave you an example of broken tools that Google ships (anything that uses the Dalvik VM directly) and that you can't compile from source on certain platforms. Plus I've given an example of a third party (BSDroid) that's ported the dev environment, and Google's refused to acknowledge its existence. That's free as in beer, not open by any stretch.

As for the manufacturer stuff, what's the point of an "open" platform if you are still entirely dependent upon proprietary blobs. Go ahead, show me an Android phone where you can compile a usable OS entirely from source. P.S. Google ships plenty of the manufacturer specific stuff in the AOSP repositories that's still not nearly what the vendors themselves get access to. Qualcomm has their own pseudo open site as well (Code Aurora Forum). That's not open. That's free as in beer.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Alex Zepeda]

Is that anything like https://github.com/inferiorhumanorgans/android_device_lge_thunderc ?

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Alex Zepeda]

P.S. If I didn't make it clear I was responding to the assertion:

Google's offering is also free-as-in-freedom, which IE was not.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Alex Zepeda]

Except the nVidia drivers are available to the general public. The proprietary binary blobs generally have to be extracted from the phone (hell even nVidia doesn't make you do that), and at worst you've got to decompile the libraries and pull out the relevant changes. No, the more apt comparison would be to say that Windows is an open platform because you've got Cygwin. Android itself is free as in beer, not open.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[symbolset]

I'm going to echo walshy007 here. Google's big, but they can't yet fit everybody under their shield. People need to stand up for themselves. They're making money so they can set a little aside for that. They need to put some of their margin toward legal defense because that's the world we live in. That's the cost of providing progress now: you have to build in some lawyer money to the costs overhead.

For all of me this would go away if we hung all the lawyers.

I'd like providing progress to be free too, but until we do away with patents and/or hang the lawyers that's not going to happen.

Hanging the lawyers is looking more and more feasible and cost-effective each year.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[pmontra]

http://www.androidpolice.com/2011/05/09/european-samsung-galaxy-s2-source-code-released-download-it-now/

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[symbolset]

Before anybody gets freaky, "the year they hanged the lawyers" is a cultural reference to Robert Anson Heinlein, which in his science fiction work "The Number of the Beast" happened in 1965 in an alternate universe from which time there is no entry "lawyer" in the phone book (A tell for which universe you're in).

It's not a cultural reference to Shakespeare's Henry VI (1591), nor any prior work Shakespeare stole his inspiration from (which was his habit).

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[sirdude]

Oh, touché :)

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[kenshin33]

why not?

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[sjames]

I agree that the patents themselves are the problem, I just happened to be addressing the argument that Google was engaging in anything like MS's anti-competitive behavior by giving away Android.

As for the pinching, it's really a perfectly natural human gesture and shouldn't be patentable at all. If and only if they come up with some truly amazing way to detect that gesture, then fine, but the gesture itself is just natural language and should be no more patentable than a word.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[CharlyFoxtrot]

There's a theory out there now that I find interesting which is that a lot of the Android phones out there, in particular the cheaper versions, aren't actually being used as smartphones but as "regular" phones. That would explain why Android users use (and pay for) less apps and iOS devices seem to be more prevalent on the internet (according to some studies) and use more data. If that's true then that increased marketshare actually wouldn't do Google much good unless they find a way to "activate" those people.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[donaldm]

It does? Last I checked, I used KDE's own Dolphin file browser and the Chromium browser. Can't say I've ever used or even noticed Konqueror since KDE 4 came along.

It does. You and I may never explicitly launch it, but KDE relies on it for something (my Debian system lists it as a dependency of kdebase-apps).

KDE is a Session/Window manager and has a whole lot of applications associated with one of those applications being the Konqueror Web Browser. So What! if you don't like KDE then don't install it no one is forcing you, install Gnome instead or even xfce. In fact if you like KDE but don't like Konqueror you can install just about any browser (ie. Firefox, Chrome, Opera...) except for IE. Ok you can do this but why would you :)

What Microsoft did was tie IE to its OS and that landed it in court.

As for Dolphin once you customise it a little you can get IMHO an incredibly powerful file browser that leaves Microsoft's offering for dead.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Patch86]

And Apple sells iPhones with iTunes & Safari pre-installed, and Microsoft sell Windows phones with Bing search tools and probably some mobile form of IE. What's your point?

On an Android phone, I can install many different browsers (as many as anyone could care to programme). I can use Bing on it, and if Apple wanted to release an iTunes product (I don't know if they have), I'd be able to use that too.

What we're talking about here is Google funding their software with a non-standard funding model (that is, using mobile advertising revenue rather than point-of-sale prices). There's nothing stopping the others companies doing the same (not least Apple, who we're told time and time again by their fans that they're slaughtering the competition in terms of market share, or Nokia, who were number one in market share for a very long time). They're all just complaining that their business model is being trumped by someone else's business model, and they want the law of the land to fix it for them- which is not what the law of the land is for.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[walternate]

Google Search is a much, much less dangerous monopoly than Windows is or ever was, because they don't really have a way of locking you in. The cost of switching search engines is close to zero, while the same can't be said for OSs, especially since they have exclusive and widely used applications like MS Office.

Google's dominance in the online advertisement market seems way more dangerous to me.

For the user it might look like that. But you need to have an alternative to switch to. And the barrier to entry for a competitor is much much higher in search than in OS. It requires insanse investments in technology and server farms to compete with Google on search now. This is no longer a garage startup game. Only Microsoft are really left to compete, and are spending billions of dollars on it. Very few others have the resources to challenge Google at this point. And their dominance in the online advertisement market is an integral part of it. The way this ad model works, the bigger you are the more effective you are, so you get all the ad money and continue to outspend and bleed any attempts at competition.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[satuon]

I'd argue that for the average user replacing the desktop icon with another browser would be enough. Who cares if the dlls are still around on the hard drive?

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Barsteward]

They certainly played about with realplayer (win 2000 days) where if you config'd real as the default player, it would only play 10 times before windows changed the default back to its own player. used to drive me mad.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Alistair Hutton]

It's in the EULA. It is forbiden to install OSX on non-apple hardware.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSx86

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Caesar Tjalbo]

Another theory out there is that it doesn't matter what you do with your Android phone. Or what you do with your Chrome browser.

What are the potential threats to Google’s castle? Basically, any product that stands between the user and Google and has the potential to distract the choice of search destination is a threat.

Let's say A makes a dominant desktop-OS with browser: support a competing browser, create your own browser, offer a plug-in to use in manufacturer A's browser. Manufacturer B makes a popular gadget, offer the software for a similar gadget under conditions that other gadget makers find irresistible.

I say that it doesn't matter if you use Chrome to visit Bing. What matters IMHO is that Microsoft and Apple can't dictate anymore which search & ads you'll use even though they had/have the power to dictate which browser you used or to say that Flash isn't going to run on a device.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Imbrondir]

How is not defending Android from litigation foisted on its OEM evil? You might argue it was stupid of Google not to stock up on protective patents before the patent war fully started, but evil?

Does linux offer patent protection? Does Apache? Does GCC? Any open source project whatsoever? Does that make them evil?

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[AmiMoJo]

There were also allegations that IE benefited from being able to use undocumented APIs in Windows. Some companies started using them by analysing IE and various Windows components, but Microsoft could easily break their software and claim that it was simply a result of not sticking to the published standards.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Pieroxy]

I do. What I fail to see is the connection between our discussion and Psystar

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Pieroxy]

I stand corrected. Although I don't think Apple would care nor do I think it has any legal grounds to sue me if I was installing a legit license of OSX on a PC, provided I modified ("hack") the bootrom myself.in order to boot on a PC.

That's probably besides the point though.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[grahamm]

Linux is free and Windows has to be paid for. So using this same argument, Linux should be the dominant PC Operating System, but it is not - Windows is. Therefore being free cannot be the only reason an OS is the dominant one.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[CharlyFoxtrot]

I say that it doesn't matter if you use Chrome to visit Bing. What matters IMHO is that Microsoft and Apple can't dictate anymore which search & ads you'll use even though they had/have the power to dictate which browser you used or to say that Flash isn't going to run on a device.

You do realize that a device in order to call itself Android and have access to all of Google's goodies must pass the CTS ? What exactly prevents them from demanding Google is the default search engine, or video should be WebM, or add any other arbitrary restriction ?

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[thetoadwarrior]

While that may be true it is also why Android is shit for apps. As a user it's hard to say whether you can actually run it or not (and the market won't necessarily filter it out) and as a developer you have to cater to about 6 zillion configurations. It is a wonder anyone wants to develop for Android.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Attila Dimedici]

There is no such thing as a "legit license" of OSX not installed on hardware originally purchased from Apple. Part of the license is that it can only be installed on Apple hardware.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Lumpy]

My problem with android is the same problem I have with Linux in general for the desktop.

Too many people sitting in corners going "MINE! GO F yourself, I'm doing it my way!" so all you get is half assed messes that kind of work. Examples? Sure.

Linux = great, most server installs are super stable and fast.
Gnome3 = giant turd.
KDE = giant turd.
Ubuntu 11.04 = Giant turd.

Unraped Android direct from google = Good works great and speedy.
Verizon changes to Android = Giant turd.
AT&T changes to Android = Giant Turd.
Motorola Changes to Android = Giant Turd.

etc...

Google lost control over the OS because they allowed the carriers and phone makers to call it android after whoring it and ripping out it's soul. Most people when they touch a new or older android phone like it a lot more with one of the alternative OS installs that are closer to the Pure Android because it removes the crap the Carriers wan ton there and restores functionality.

Now the carriers are demanding the new phones be resistant to alternate OS installs and some are outright hostile. And there is no legitimate reason for it other than trying to force control over imaginary things like tethering.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[X3J11]

The analogy is flawed, they can't compare Android to IE. IE was shipped with WinOS. WinOS was the more or less the only used OS out there ( I mean for the general population) , that's why it was anti-competitive to give for free ( or why it was anti-competitive by MS ).

The other important difference, which you didn't mention, is that Android is open source, while Internet Explorer was/is not. I like to think this is not insignificant.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Dog-Cow]

What kind of fucked-up piece of shit are you? Since when is a screwdriver not a functional object? GCC is as valid a target for patent suits as any other software.

Google has no legal standing to defend OEMs from patent lawsuits. You apparently have no idea how even a screwdriver works, so I am not surprised that you don't understand patents either. Patents have to be licensed by users of a product that contains patented components, unless the manufacturer of the components have a transferable license. Unless Google establishes such a license with MS, they cannot protect anyone from lawsuits.

Google is not evil for not doing anything to protect their OEMs. You are, however, a complete moron.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Haedrian]

You need a Google account to use their store. You don't NEED to use Gmail.

In fact, I can look at the store and get myself a hotmail email client if I wanted to, or whatever mail client you want.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[postbigbang]

Excellent articulation. Your researched arguments make a lot of sense.

GCC makes things; it's a tool kit. In and of itself, it does nothing. What a coder makes that compiles using GCC into something that then does something is where patent litigation might start. What GCC makes would be the crux of an action that a patent might cover. Android has actions that others claim are patented. Google is the sponsor and principal contributor to Android. Because of this, they have nexus to bring forth litigation.

Google can indeed protect Android; they're one of the few organizations that has nexus to do so. That they let everyone else become a target for Microsoft usury is the problem here-- they don't.

As regards your question, I've learned that people that use scatalogical inference usually lack the vocabulary to do a better job. Calling people names isn't a very good substitute for a cogent argument. Perhaps it makes you feel better.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[hey!]

You're not incorrect, but you are missing the point.

What's at issue isn't whether primary monopoly (desktop OS or search) is legally obtained. What's at issue is whether once obtained that monopoly is used to gain monopolies in other markets.

The issue with the browser isn't primarily the price; it isn't even really whether or not IE was an intrinsic and inseparable part of Windows. The issue in the Microsoft/Netscape case is whether MS used its desktop monopoly power to take control of the market Netscape was in. There's documentary evidence that this was Microsoft's intent.

So the analogy's validity hinges on this question: did Google use its search engine monopoly to enter the mobile OS market or eject other players from that market?

I think the answer is no. Google doesn't prevent other mobile OS's such as iOS from using Google services, and the APIs for Google services are open and documented. Google search is the primary search engine on my iPod touch, and GMail, Google Maps and Google Earth all work fine on it. Nor are users of Android devices tied to Google services. One of the hallmarks of Android's architecture is how easy it is to replace built-in services like contact management. It is possible that some handset makers may be tied to Google's services contractually as part of an Android co-marketing or technical support agreement, but if they don't want Android they aren't barred from Google's search. And if they wanted to go their own way entirely, say make a Microsoft service-centric Android phone without Google help, they could, although they'd have to stay clear of using any Google trademarks.

Having a monopoly in one area does restrict you in others, but not to the point where you have to price and package your products to suit your competitors. It just means you can't use that monopoly to bar access to the market to your competitors.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[AvitarX]

Also, Android has a revenue stream.

It's not "We need to control all the phones", it's "If we make phones that default to use search, we make money". MS was not trying to raise revenue with IE, they were trying to prevent another company from it (though honestly, the thing they did really terrible IMO was with the APIs, Netscape sucked bad by the end, but abusing undocumented APIs to squash is real bad).

And Google does not have a monopoly on search. Unlike MS, they do not have over 95% market share, and there is nothing preventing you from using a competitor over (software compatibility for MS).

When I hit the search button on my Android phone (it's an HTC with sense) in my "Web search" box I have Google, Bing, Yahoo, Wikipedia.

If (and it is a big if) Google is losing money working on Android there may be an argument that it's unfair, but I doubt it is. My guess is Google is making money, which means it's just good business.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[LWATCDR]

Interesting. I can install Bing on my android phone and I can install Yahoo search. I have Yahoo mail as well on my android phone.
Google does seem to be really open about allowing other search engines on their phones.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Tharsman]

Exactly. same way Google does not allow carriers to include third party location services (this was covered quite a bit over various news sites)

Also makes me ponder, does any android phone ships with a different browser or default email client?

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[jo_ham]

Right, that's well known, but we're talking about handset makers who make handset X and then ship it with Android on. Apple does not distribute iOS *at all* to external vendors, so it doesn't "forbid" handset makers installing it on non-Apple hardware, they simply do not have access to iOS to be able to do so in the first place.

In the case of OS X, the point is valid - they went after third party hackintosh vendors who were shipping machines with OS X preinstalled commercially, but so far have done little to stop the hobbyist (the OS X install DVD (older OS X)/Lion disk image is absurdly easy to use - no serials, no encryption, no hardware checks, no DRM, no activation - they really don;t care about it on the hobby scale, only if you start selling machines).

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[bioster]

I can remember at least one core function that depended on IE. Windows Update. You could not run it without IE, the bare libraries alone was not good enough.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Tubal-Cain]

Apple has a EULA clause that only allows you to install OSX on "Apple-labeled" hardware.

Psystar tried selling non-Apple hardware with OSX, and got crushed in court for it. How is that not relevant?

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Toonol]

True. I don't have either, but if I had to get a smart phone, I would pick android, even at equivalent prices. I'm just too wary of getting stuck in the whole apple ecosystem. Plus, maybe my opinion is colored by my experiences with iTunes and QuickTime, which are both HORRIBLE.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Toonol]

People buy garbage because it's cheaper, and it's cheaper because it's garbage. Those people are the lemmings.

The worst lemming of them all is the one who buys expensive garbage because it's expensive.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[fritish]

I don't know about browser or email client, but Android phones have shipped that use Bing instead of Google, e.g., Motorola Citrus, Samsung I-400, and Samsung Fascinate.

source: http://blogs.computerworld.com/17070/microsofts_bing_displaces_google_on_another_verizon_android_phone

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[nevermore94]

Apple has not released iTunes for Android, nor do they currently intended to. I think this is where they are making a huge mistake. They are so focused on making iTunes an exclusive feature of the iPhone that they are missing out on all of the revenue that they could be generating if they also made an Android version. It is no different than making a Windows version of iTunes as well as a Mac version. Where do you think iTunes would be if they had left it only available on Macs? So, now I buy my music from the Amazon MP3 Store and I have not bought anything from my Windows iTunes since getting an Android phone. One more customer lost and a lot of song purchases.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[tlhIngan]

Google has GPLed Android.

Incorrect. Android's license is GPL (Linux kernel ONLY) and Apache (everything else).

In addition, it's also available in a COMMERCIAL license.

Yes, there are two Androids. The one you get with your phone you buy is the commercially licensed one, access given only to OHA members (who get early access to the next software). The Apache-licensed one is AOSP (Android Open Source Project). Periodically Google opens the code and relicenses it to Apache, usually when a new version is released (i.e., when the premiering phone is released).

Google currently only licenses the "with Google" stuff (market, youtube, gmail apps) to commercial licensors under commercial terms. It's also how Google's enforcing new handset policies like support for 18 months and things like that (which they can't do if OEMs and ODMs use the open-source version). And for all we know, the manufacturers may be paying a fee for it - at the very minimum, the annual fee to be in the OHA.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Pieroxy]

They didn't get crush for installing OSX on non Apple hardware, they got crushed for selling it. This is a world of a difference.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[hairyfeet]

No I am NOT expecting them to singlehandedly take on software patents. What I DO expect, and frankly why they should be boycotted is that they SHOULD at least back up their OEMs when it is a major patent issue involving THEIR products. It isn't HTC putting out Android, is it? Did YOU put out WebM? No? Then WTF? The community can't do shit because it is GOOGLE whose name is on the shit, but they take their mounds of search money and slink away like a thief in the night while they leave their OEMs to get hit by a bus.

So I hope HP stomps them with WebOS, or MSFT with WinPhone, hell anybody that actually back their own products because it is just sorry. it is sorry and dirty and backstabbing and evil to take the money off the search but when YOUR PRODUCT causes someone whom YOU ARE MAKING MONEY OFF OF through search to get sued you sneak away and leave them to get fucked. i don't see how anyone here can say that isn't just some low down sorry shit.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Anonymous Coward]

My favorite anti-trust trick Microsoft used was bullying OEMs into selling systems only with Windows 3.1 installed. If a manufacturer wanted to offer their customers a choice of operating systems, such as IBM's OS/2 Warp OR Microsoft Windows 3.1, Microsoft would revoke the OEM license, forcing the company to pay full retail price for Windows. IBM complained bitterly about this practice, as this happened only a year or so after IBM and MS had their bitter divorce after their OS/2 development partnership dissolved, and the two companies went their separate ways in the desktop OS market. As everyone now knows, there was a ton of OS/2 code in the Windows NT kernel, and IBM was one of the major plaintiffs in the anti-trust case.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[sjames]

And yet, because there is a perfectly viable open source version available, none of that matters one whit to my argument.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[sydneyfong]

Sorry I was bad this time. I will be Good next time. Really, I promise!

the definition of open: "mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make"

Andy Rubin 19 Oct 2010

I sometimes can't imagine how somebody can flip flop so hard and maintain a straight face.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Caesar Tjalbo]

What exactly prevents them from demanding Google is the default search engine, or video should be WebM, or add any other arbitrary restriction ?

Nothing. Argument was that Google doesn't care about the profitability of Android but only cares about its ad-revenues. Counter argument that Android isn't used to view ads is imho atm not relevant; the mere existence of platforms that can't be dictated by 'hostile' competition is enough for Google. Should Chrome or Android ever reach complete market dominance then I'm sure Google will be very happy and perhaps become (more) evil but it's sufficient that those products are simply large enough that they won't be ignored.

Stuff might turn ugly when ad-revenues go down despite the success of Chrome and Android. "Arbitrary restrictions" are unlikely, Google doesn't depend on those technologies. Tighter control of Android is already in effect but they'll have to find a balance: too strict and they'll lose the best device-makers and end up with the crappy ones. I assume Google knows quite well what made Android a success and won't do something completely brain-dead.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[rsborg]

You cannot lend any credence to Thurott, he's a long time microsoft shill. He's also a proprietard that believes there is no room for free. That in and of itself is an indication of his fanboism.

When Gruber publicly agrees with Thurott (and it's not back-handed agreement), it's most likely anti-Google or anti-OSS position. These two are the biggest fanboys of the respective companies (Apple, Microsoft) on the Internets.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[poetmatt]

might want to go look up the anon's post or try to remove the actual DLL's linked to IE.

As a hint, what will happen? Your entire OS will crash. Removing the IE icon is not removing IE. I don't love google, and I do have my facts straight. You should, however, try getting your head out of your ass.

Meanwhile, for how long have you been a worshipper of MS? Are you going to tell me they're the leader in business, highly ethical, etc? Cite bill gates where his money towards "cancer research" funds patents in africa? Not everyone is a blind to the world as you.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[walshy007]

So.. if I write some random piece of software for my own personal uses, and release it into the world as gplv2 for anyone to use. Then others pick up and use said software and distribute it and one of them gets sued... should I front the costs of all their legal battles? By your logic, yes.

That is pretty retarded. And would stop anyone from releasing any OSS if they were held to your standards, hell I wouldn't want that kind of liability.

The only ones who view android as their product are the phone makers who use android in their products (yes I know google have a couple of their own phones too). Aside from the phones google themselves make they don't make products out of android.

As an example, say apple sues htc which has happened, how does google as a third party have any kind of influence at all on the case? It is between the two parties of the suit.

In the open source world very few if any people indemnify people for software patents, simply because you are opening yourself to essentially unlimited liability

Asking google to open themselves up to that seems pretty selfish and having them sacrifice themselves doesn't serve any useful purpose.

Your hate for google for not protecting everyone seems quite irrational and emotional. They are simply a company making their own tech and giving it away for free.... Yet they are somehow evil for for that... how much of a feeling of entitlement can you get really?

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[postbigbang]

I'm pretty sure you'll find that I'm in no way an MS worshipper of any kind. And I'm well aware of the ostensible consequences of moving/removing certain DLLs. And I'm sure you'll agree that you can live very happily in the old dead versions of Windows and not use IE once-- all the way back to Windows 95. Not everything that Microsoft called IE was in fact part of the browser. That's your first clue. There are two distinct registry changes in Win98, four in 98SE, I don't care about ME, and by the time we get to Windows 2000, it's really easy.

As far as Gates is concerned, that's his business and not mine. As far as your inference is concerned, it's shameful.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[postbigbang]

Don't like Mueller myself. And PJ has my address. But my reply stands. You've got a serious prejudice against the facts going there.

I'm not sticking up for Microsoft, but IE wasn't superglued to their OS. They lied about the fact that it was.

As far as Google is concerned, they're no saints. If you think their competitive efforts against Microsoft gives them a "get out of hell free" card, it doesn't. They've become a bit like Microsoft; no new real ideas, just knock-offs of other innovators.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[umeboshi]

It's not the fact that they used "non-Apple" hardware, rather that they failed to stick an "Apple label" on such hardware that made them liable.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[hairyfeet]

Actually you seem to be missing the point, whether on purpose because of fanboyism or just whoosh I can't tell. let me break it down, okay? Google, unlike your example, releases a product which they then make money off of thanks to search. the VAST majority of Android devices? guess who the default search engine is, hmmm? It ain't Yahoo.

So if you released GPLV2 code that then netted you massive profits when people used it thanks to data mining? Then YES you would be a douche for not backing the OEMs that YOU ARE MAKING MONEY ON. remember Google isn't doing this so they can hold hands with RMS and dance through the tulips, they are doing this because it MAKES THEM MONEY. money which they could use a portion of to help defend those they are making money off of while STILL making bank.

This is logical. more than that, it is fair and is common sense. if someone is making you serious bank and he gets bitchslapped and beaten down BECAUSE OF YOU and the code YOU wrote? then not jumping in to try to help them is yes, being a big damned douche. this is also playing right into MSFT's hands if there is anyone there with a brain, i'd just show any OEM a list of the suits against Android OEMs and say "With Windows WE cover your back. WE stand with you, WE pay for the lawyers, WE never leave you standing alone. THEY do not" and walk out. Talk about an easy sale.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[poetmatt]

Uh, copying is inventing, by definition. It's shameless copying and *improvements*, that's the more important part.

MS doesn't even improve.

Google isn't a saint. No company is. I never intended to imply that they are, but if you are believing FUD coming from oracle and MS aka "patent doom" you might want to re-evaluate what you believe.

IE "the browser link" was not tied in. IE "the browser", has, and still is, tied into explorer among other things. Good luck trying to remove all the DLL's specifically related to IE. It will cause other instabilities. Likewise the messenger is used for system messages.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[postbigbang]

MS hasn't done much innovation. Google innovated on the shoulders of Yahoo and Altavista, among others. Google Docs is an online version of a number of "office-like" apps. Google Voice is a VoIP app. Google+ is a refinement of several ideas, all not invented at Google. I didn't say they weren't clever.

Microsoft has been shaking down OEMs, waving patent litigation threats. The problem with that is that they don't sue Google. If they did, they'd have to expose what patents are in play, and the FOSS community would write new stuff right around them, then challenge the legality and prior art of the ones that are dubious..... and many are likely dubious but we don't know. Google can sue because of the nexus of tortious interference based on the usury that Microsoft imposes on the OEMs, and force Microsoft's hand open. They'd have to lay down the patent cards, and then the games would begin.

Google instead, claims others are bothering them, without getting involved in yet another litigation. They don't defend Android, just complain that everyone's pissing on their customers. But they don't sue. That's because they're currently in a lot of hot water themselves over market dominance and privacy issues, not to mention data collection techniques that are questionable not only in the US, but in the EU and other jurisdictions. Put your heel on their dataflow, and you screw up their business model at its core, as the core is to use the data for marketing ads. That's why they mine personal gmail accounts, that's why they keep very specific track of what you surf, etc. Adwords is their oil well.

But they could make Microsoft really unhappy, and cause an enormous ruckus to defend Android and FOSS development. But they don't. For that, and other reasons described above and not mentioned, I don't find Google particularly a role model for modern moral corporate governance.

As regards IE, just disabling a good chunk of it was all you needed to get around it. You don't need to remove some of the dlls, and some of the dlls have functions outside of IE that have only side-purposes in doing things like rendering HTML and so forth. The "it's a fundamental part of the OS" ruse has been FUD to justify putting it in the forefront of default apps on Windows. Indeed it's not a fundamental part. No, you can't simply wipe the whole thing, but the whole thing isn't just IE parts. The browser can be eliminated. Other elements serve other functions within the OS. The kernel still runs if you excise the entire thing; other stuff won't be happy. But it can be done. Each OS version has a different set of criteria to change to disable IE functionality so much as another browser can be put in its place successfully. Save for ME, I've done it for each version, not that it was any fun. The COM and DCOM functionality that I think you're referring to can be left inside and still carve away IE as we know it.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[walshy007]

Google, unlike your example, releases a product

Aside from the phones they make, where is this product?

If releasing android as an open source project is a 'product' then so too are any open source projects that are capable of being used commercially by third parties.

Remember Google isn't doing this so they can hold hands with RMS and dance through the tulips, they are doing this because it MAKES THEM MONEY.

Rather, google is doing this so that people have relatively open phones and the phone manufacturers no longer have control of them any more. Google already datamines all of your searches etc anyway, and already had apps on the iphone etc with similar things as to the droid.

Droid doesn't make much if any profit for google, it's rather like salting the earth for 20km around their base to ensure attackers have a much harder time. (in this case those who would actively block google)

You are treating android like it's just another proprietary for sale by a single vendor os... it isn't. My analogy holds. Also, android is separate from the google apps, which is why completely stock android images don't come with the google tools.

In regards to what you spoke of from msft, some people don't like paying 'protection' money. I'd be far more scared of what microsoft can do once you are under their licensing terms than that of a gpl piece of software. All you do is change the problem from 'random douches can sue us because of bullshit software patents (which can happen to ANY piece of software, only ms will foot the bill if you pay protection money) to 'microsoft can rape us by changing licensing agreements at any time and we are not large enough to negotiate better terms'.

Using gpl software and having patent trolls come after you is seen by many as the lesser of two bad situations.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[hairyfeet]

Well that answers THAT question...you're a fanboi. If you HONESTLY think that Google is not making money off of Android search? Well I have this really nice bridge you might be interested in. Frankly there is ZERO point talking with you when you refuse to accept that Google actually makes money. good day.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[walshy007]

If you HONESTLY think that Google is not making money off of Android search?

Please explain how using an android to search google is different than using a web browser on any other platform? So we should now assume that google is responsible for any platform that makes google money? So they are responsible if firefox has a patent suit then? (hell they even pay firefox for defaulting them in the search bar). Are they responsible for lynx since users can use google with it getting them money? Surely you see the idiocy of your arguments.

And I'll leave you to boycott any company that releases OSS code that does not indemnify their users for patent threats... which is practically all OSS. Have fun with closed source proprietary software from large companies only then (hell a fair chunk of them don't even do it).

And yes, I'm such a fanboy for having a pragmatic stance. (sarcasm)

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[CharlyFoxtrot]

I misunderstood then, I agree completely with what you said.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Kalriath]

Yes, Windows reacts poorly if you try to remove Trident - it's fine if you remove Internet Explorer. Just like KDE reacts poorly if you try to remove KHTML - it's fine if you try to remove Konqueror. And OS X reacts poorly if you try to remove WebKit - it's fine if you try to remove Safari.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Kalriath]

"DLL's specifically related to IE" are the rendering engine, Trident. Every modern OS (even Linux) has a rendering engine bolted in that you collapse the UI if you remove. KDE has KHTML. OS X has WebKit. Chrome OS takes it one step further and collapses if the browser is removed. Also, Messenger != Live Messenger. The built in Messenger service is actually a hangover from Novell Netware days, and was included so that you could send "pop up" messages between NT and Netware users.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[exomondo]

There's a theory out there

There's a lot of theories out there.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Imbrondir]

Sorry about slow response, but you leave me more confused.

Perhaps my examples were not the best. Most of the patents seem to attack the web browser. Does this mean you consider any linux distro maker, which is including webkit but not offering protection, an evil coward? (I said webkit, but I'm afraid any browser is infringing on the patents I've seen listed so far.)

For this to work they'd need to charge a license per copy, red hat style. But a free one like Android? Well free without Android Market at least.

Oh and screwdrivers seem to very patentable. Ditto for compilers.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[postbigbang]

The law of transitivity doesn't apply here. You and I as civilians have no means, and little nexus to take Android's defense. Google does, as they're primary contributors to the development and the fact that they have more money than Ford, GM, United Airlines, and FedEx--combined. They can afford the lawyering.

But they don't.

Instead, they leave their OEMs to individually pay Microsoft's patent trolling. And so, Google takes the works of others, advances them, but lets their business partners battle the thugs of hidden patents (remember: the actual patents in questions are unexposed, so that FOSS developers can't code around the problems).

Microsoft extracts an undeserved tax; Google could and should stop them, but doesn't. Because they're scared, even cowardly.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[dudpixel]

Its an open software platform. What you're asking for is an open hardware platform to go with it.

The phones you buy direct from Google come the closest to this. And in fact you have all the source code that matters.

Why criticize Google for what other manufacturers do?

Anyway, I think this is all in the realm of "wouldn't it be nice" but Google (and others) are under no obligation to give you the source. Why not be happy for what we DO have, which is more than we've ever had before Android came along (in mainstream anyway)

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[dudpixel]

No, Android is a software platform. Neither the drivers nor the hardware form part of Android.

Android (as in AOSP) is open source (free, as in freedom, if you will). What you do with it is mostly up to you.

Whether or not the hardware is open has nothing to do with Android being open. Nothing.

We can complain all day to Google that the manufacturers close up their hardware but what do you expect Google to do about it?

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[PipsqueakOnAP133]

Google is providing incentives to handset manufacturers to get clearance with Google with regards to what they're allowed to do in order to install some Google apps like the Market and Navigation. So it's not entirely a "do whatever with it for free" situation.

If you want to see Google going shady, how about the Motorola/Skyhook deal?
http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/10/internal-emails-reveal-googles-desperation-over-skyhooks-andro/

At least one big difference

[hamburgler007]

Android is open source.

Re:At least one big difference

[Cwix]

It hasnt been released yet, but they claim to have plans to release it.

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/366604/google-we-ll-open-source-android-3-0-when-its-ready

Re:At least one big difference

[houstonbofh]

Not yet, but after this it may be... It might be the only way to avoid charges of dumping.

Re:At least one big difference

[throbber]

Is it? I've been trying to find a recent source release for Android .....

I think the best you can say is that Android *was* open source.

Re:At least one big difference

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck delusional world do you live in? One where mobile phones disappeared and tablets took over? Android is completely open source, FOR PHONE DEVELOPMENT. Android isn't versioned like the Linux kernel is, where 3.0 > 2.0. Or did you think that 2.x development was abandoned?

Re:At least one big difference

[hamburgler007]

It is fair enough that 3.0 and up has not been open sourced, however the number of devices with honeycomb being sold is very small, and google has stated they intend on releasing the source code. If they don't release the source, I agree it will cease to be open source, however it isn't the only difference from IE. And the insinuation that the anti-competitive practices of Microsoft with respect to IE4 are analogous to Google's business practices with respect to Android are absurd. Aside from the versions of Android on the vast majority of devices being open source, Android entered into the mobile market as the underdog, and they still face serious competition from more than one company.

Re:At least one big difference

[creativeHavoc]

http://groups.google.com/group/android-building/msg/6410b44798c19d61?pli=1 it has been partially released.

Re:At least one big difference

[derGoldstein]

This could actually make a dangerous precedent. If you give out free (as-in-beer) software, you're accused of dumping? So Flash, Acrobat Reader, anti-virus software, Quicktime, Paint.Net, and the Opera browser are all guilty? I really hope that if someone actually makes such a case, it'd be shot down instantly.

Re:At least one big difference

[kaiser423]

Google hasn't released what they've considered "official" sources for Honeycomb, but lots of the code shipping on tablets, etc is out there.

http://support.asus.com/Download.aspx?SLanguage=en&m=Eee+Pad+Transformer+TF101&p=20&s=16

Here's the Honeycomb branch of the Xoom kernel: http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=kernel/tegra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/android-tegra-2.6.36-honeycomb-mr1

and so on. Yea, it's not open source in the bazaar-style development model, but Google puts the sources out in reasonable timeframes.

Re:At least one big difference

[Cougar Town]

Android 2.3.5 is the most recently released (on July 25) by Google, and you can easily obtain the source from AOSP. I'm running it on my phone right now, thanks to CyanogenMod.

If you meant 3.x (Honeycomb), that's really a whole different branch based on Android, and Google has said for a long time that it will be merged back in with the rest as a combined phone/tablet OS (like iOS is), which they call Ice Cream Sandwich. Android 3.x right now is basically a private fork for a few tablets to get them into the market that the iPad currently dominates.

From a business point of view, they're probably using these current tablets and manufactures to work out exactly what an Android tablet OS should be before unleashing a half-assed attempt on the world for any company to grab and implement poorly, making Android look stupid. I don't necessarily agree with holding back the 3.x source, but that's my guess at some possible justification. Better to delay and get it right, than release and look like failures... that might be their reasoning. Working with a controlled set of hardware and companies is a good way to refine your product before general distribution.

So while they may not have released the Honeycomb source code, they certainly are continuing to develop Android as open source (see 2.3.5), and have clearly stated that they will continue to so (Ice Cream Sandwich). I can't really call bullshit until Google breaks their word and doesn't release the Ice Cream Sandwich source (or releases it without the additions from Honeycomb)...

Re:At least one big difference

[jmauro]

You cannot be convicted of dumping if you charge more than the marginal cost of a product. In this case, the marginal cost to make another copy of the software is effectively $0.00. "Selling" it for free is a perfectly rational and legal thing to do.

Re:At least one big difference

[F.Ultra]

Have you requested your phone manufacturer for the source to the version of Android that they installed for you? Because that is the only obligation they have in regards to have it open source. If you are asking for the source to a version you are not even using (most likely since we are talking about 3.0 here) then they have no obligation what so ever to give you the source.

Re:At least one big difference

[Cougar Town]

Most of Android is released under the Apache 2.0 license, which does not require anyone to provide source, yet it is an open source license. Google is also not required to release the source to any parts they own the rights to and in fact they can release this under whatever license they choose, including a closed one. Manufacturers may not even be allowed to release any source under whatever license they have obtained any non-open code from Google under, and may choose not to release any Apache-licensed code.

Being able to request source from the vendor is a requirement of the GPL, not the Apache license. As far as I know, Google has released the source to any GPL components, such as Linux kernel patches (see kaiser423's comment above).

Re:At least one big difference

[Alex Zepeda]

Go through the CyanogenMod git repositories. Tell me how many binary blobs are being used to build the ROM for your phone. Then go through the CyanogenMod source itself and tell me how closely it mirrors the AOSP source. Not even in terms of superficial changes to add the CM goodness but in terms of actually getting it to work with various hardware. Android is free as in beer.

Re:At least one big difference

[Cougar Town]

I don't disagree at all... however, those binaries don't come from Google, but from the phone manufacturers (at least to my understanding, please correct me if I'm wrong). This isn't much different than the binary nvidia drivers I use in Linux for my video card... although yes, there are open source alternatives (and different hardware) in that case, but using the binaries doesn't make the Linux distribution itself any less open source.

Also, there were pure Android Gingerbread builds available for phones such as the Nexus One, straight from AOSP, before any binary drivers were actually released... I didn't run any of those builds, as I understand there was some reduced functionality (which makes sense if a driver was missing)... but Android itself was still built and running from its pure open source release. I believe the reduced functionality was worked around by people like Cyanogen creating shims that could make use of the Froyo binary drivers in Gingerbread, though.

I guess what I'm saying is that you're completely correct, but I don't feel a company separate from Google choosing not to release their drivers for their proprietary hardware as open source means that Android itself is not still open source. I believe other Linux variants, such as OpenWrt for routers, have done similar things with Broadcom chipsets as well.

Again, please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this... this is just my understanding from my following of ASOP, CyanogenMod, xda-developers forums, and other sources. I'm certainly not claiming to be any kind of authority on the subject.

Re:At least one big difference

[Svartalf]

Actually, it is, so long as you're talking about everything BUT Honeycomb. I'm not really happy about that...but pretty much only the tablets are not intrinsically FOSS (I couldn't have CM7 on my Nook and my Droid if it wasn't largely open sourced...)

Re:At least one big difference

[CharlyFoxtrot]

It's open source but
- if you want the latest version on your device you will have to agree to Google's terms
- if you want the brand recognition and all the Google apps that make up the core user experience you will have to license
- if you want that license you will have to certify and comply to specifications Google can change at anytime at will.
- once the latest version is released they might release the now current one's sources. If, you know, they feel like it.

If MS came up with a scheme like this and called it "open source" they would be laughed out of town.

Re:At least one big difference

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Android is Linux in the same way OSX is mach. That's a pretty useless statement.

Re:At least one big difference

[Alex Zepeda]

But Android is more than just Google, right? Indeed Wiki claims that Android is the OHA's flagship product. The Open Handset Alliance includes Broadcom, Qualcomm, Motorola, and HTC. Their bits to this "open" project are far less than open. Hell, Motorola and HTC are notorious for locking their Android phones down. Thus, these "third parties" are really not. They're first party to Android.

Tell me though, how much would you like using your smartphone without hardware accelerated graphics, accurate GPS, working bluetooth, etc?

As far as being Google's responsibility, the piece broke bluetooth on the LG Optimus One line was a GPL'd program (the binary blob loader... sigh) authored by Broadcom (a member of the OHA) and distributed by Google (the leader of the OHA). As far as I can tell, all parties to the OHA, Google included, do the bare minimum.

Re:At least one big difference

[Cougar Town]

Again, I can't disagree. And ironically, being open is what allows the vendors to be more closed. But that's why I only buy reasonably open phones, like the Nexus devices. And by that I mean one that isn't locked down and is easily modded (binary blobs may still be involved, but the phone doesn't try to prevent me from messing with it). HTC isn't as bad as it could be, but you're definitely spot-on with Motorola. I'll never buy a Motorola device due to how locked down they are.

And I would not like using my phone without those capabilities at all. For the same reason I prefer to use nvidia's binary driver with my video card in Linux. I'm still not really seeing anything that's different from any other open source project with a very liberal BSD-based license. If I take the Apache web server, for instance, and create some great, but closed, product from it (as the Apache license allows) and cleverly achieve large market penetration with my closed product... I don't feel that makes the original Apache web server any less open, and the source to it is still available for anyone else to do what they want with it. This is how I view the Android OS.

My original point was that Android 2.3.5 is the most recent release, and is open source. The fact that it's open source is what allowed Cyanogen to create a usable OS based around it, even if that means using some binaries. If it wasn't available at all, he wouldn't even be able to do that (of course I guess a pure binary distribution could be modded and hacked and whatever, possibly illegally). Android as a whole may be more than Google, but I'm specifically talking about Android the OS that is the basis of all the rest of that, since the original question was about a release of Android from Google, and not about the plethora of other companies and devices involved in everything Android.

Re:At least one big difference

[Alex Zepeda]

The Android OS *is* more than Google. Look at the various support bits that Google includes from Broadcom and Qualcomm, as well as other members of the OHA. The copyrights on the AOSP stuff belong to Google as well as other companies. The difference between Android and other products based on BSD (like Juniper's JUNOS or NetApp's devices) is that only the former claims to be open.

Oh, sure, you could go to CAF and dig up some half-baked Qualcomm stuff that's BSD licensed (and for some reason not included in the mainstream AOSP tree??) and still far lower quality than the code Qualcomm provides their customers. That's still not open, it's still hastily slapped together, and none of it (not even the Google stuff) is (well) documented. It's free as in beer. Period.

Now if you'd like to move beyond the incomplete hardware support that Google offers and on to the closed development model we could do that. Or how about the Google apps? For something that's been touted as being free as speech... there's that pesky core functionality provided by things like the Google Market app that are not only closed source but not free at all — last I heard Google sent a C&D to the CyanogenMod guys for redistributing the Market app. And you certainly can't download the Google market app from Google anywhere.

Unless there's some other marketplace that will integrate with Android OS in the same way I'd say that's a pretty big not-free piece right there. Unless apps are just another minor detail? Sure, you can sideload things via Amazon's market (or manually)... but that's really taking the second class citizen thing a bit far.

Android is entertaining because it's free as in beer. It's not free as in speech and it's not open.

Giving away, not bundling

[Superken7]

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.

Re:Giving away, not bundling

[unrtst]

Chrome is an entirely different case, and you would have a very valid point if they had a majority position they could abuse. MS abused their (near) monopoly position in more ways than just including IE, but that was certainly one of them.

Also, you CAN replace the default browser on Android with another browser. There was never a case for removing the HTML rendering engine that Windows used internally for stuff like their help system and file browser... the problem had multiple parts which made it bad:
* you couldn't remove IE the browser
* It was forced on the user by abuse of their monopoly position in OS's
* they made it difficult to switch default browsers
* some OS tasks still rely on the IE browser (ex. windows upgrade)

I don't know if you can remove the browser component from Android, but the rest of those points do not exist on Android. And, you get free-as-in-speech browser and OS as well, so you can remove or modify it yourself (and handset manufacturers do modify it - something Microsoft did not allow distributors to do to Windows).

Re:Giving away, not bundling

[jthill]

There's reasons monopolization of the market is felony. Giving away free products isn't one of the bad parts.

Gee, another Microsoft shill

[HBI]

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.

Re:Gee, another Microsoft shill

[Haedrian]

"win super site . com"
"Supersite for Windows"

Come now, this website sounds very reputable and not at all biased on the side of Microsoft.

Re:Gee, another Microsoft shill

[91degrees]

Someone disagreeing with you in favour of Microsoft does not make them a Microsoft shill. He could actually be arguing based on the arguments he makes. Or taking a devils adovcate position.

Even if he is, what difference does it make if he argument is valid? If Microsoft shill points out, for example, that Photoshop is available for Windows and not Linux, then it's still a valid reason for using Windows over Linux.

Re:Gee, another Microsoft shill

[trickyD1ck]

At least one can expect people who are motivated by money to be rational. Unlike people who are motivated by an ideology (e.g., the FSF cult).

Re:Gee, another Microsoft shill

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm actually surprised that some slashdot readers still follow links to TrollMaster Thurrot site...
I mean there's astroturfers and then there's this guy, not only is he a microsoft chill, but he doesn't even care about what he publishes, as long as it generates traffic.

"Free?"

[BeaverCleaver]

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.

Re:"Free?"

[SolemnLord]

I may be way off-beam here but I think Android is open source and IE isn't.

You think very wrong.

Re:"Free?"

[geekoid]

No, he is correct, it is open:

http://groups.google.com/group/android-building/browse_thread/thread/6a3b3a1c225a11f5/6410b44798c19d61?pli=1

try to stay up to date.

Re:"Free?"

[TheRaven64]

The free as in speech part is irrelevant. A company is generally not allowed to sell something at below the cost of production in order to drive its competition our of a market. Doing so is called dumping, and lots of companies have got into trouble for doing it in the past. Typically, the aim of dumping is to raise the price once there is less competition, but I don't think that's a required part of the definition. The difficulty is defining what the wholesale price of software should be. If Google makes money from the apps that are preinstalled on Android, then it's difficult to argue that they're selling it at below cost - they're selling it at a profit, they're just selling it to different people. Google is selling Android to advertisers, Microsoft is selling Windows Phone 7 to ODMs and Apple is selling iOS to hipsters. It's like claiming that TV is anticompetitive behaviour with respect to something like Netflix, because TV channels give away movies.

Re:"Free?"

[itchythebear]

Actually the "free as in speech" part is very relevant, mainly because it addresses:

A company is generally not allowed to sell something at below the cost of production in order to drive its competition our of a market.

By open sourcing Android, Google has made the development cost of a mobile operating system free for anyone (including Microsoft). Last I checked, $0.00(the price Google is charging) isn't less than $0.00(the amount of money it takes a competitor to develop a mobile operating system equal to Android).

Re:"Free?"

[teh31337one]

Google also sell android to the ODMs. They pay for GAPPS

Re:"Free?"

[sydneyfong]

Yeah right. Andy Rubin and his team are actually monks who live on spiritual food than physical bread. They're celibate, so there's no family to feed, and live in the forests thus avoiding rent. They develop Android by ssh-over-telepathic links.

With such a zero cost team, who can compete with the 1337ness of Android?

Re:"Free?"

[itchythebear]

With such a zero cost team, who can compete with the 1337ness of Android?

Microsoft could! Forget about Andy Rubin monks, Steve Balmer is just a sweatier version of the Buddha. I think it's safe to assume he's celibate as well (maybe not by choice though) and he avoids paying rent by just moving into Bill Gates's old houses once they are paid off.

The only reason Microsoft's mobile OS hasn't seen as much success as android is because he uses all of his telepathic powers for hurling chairs instead of software development

Obviously not the same

[hilather]

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.

Re:Obviously not the same

[Haedrian]

Of course you could.

But then you couldn't visit the windows update website to look at the non-compulsory downloads
And certain programs always opened IE, regardless of what your browser was
And you couldn't uninstall it

Re:Obviously not the same

[hilather]

You were never forced to use internet explorer.

But then what would I use after installation to download Firefox?

Re:Obviously not the same

[knarfling]

Yes you were. At one point IE would delete Netscape files if it found a copy of Netscape. This made Netscape unusable. So you could not have both browsers on the same computer. If you installed IE, you were forced to use it.

Re:Obviously not the same

[hairyfeet]

True about WU, false about the other two. the reason other programs used IE was that it was bog simple to call on the Trident engine, which in the days of dialup made it easier to make a smaller installer than carrying their own engine. they also did this for help files, gonna blame MSFT for that one?

Then there was the "U can't uninstall it!" meme which was bullshit, it was just like everything in Windows you needed third party, in this case IERadicator which I used damned near every day in my shop. it made Win9x MUCH faster if you tossed IE and replaced it with Netscape. just leave the MSHTML files so that third parties could use the engine without IE and voila!

While personally I supported MSFT getting busted (And think Intel needs to be seriously busted now) it was NOT IE that gave the smoking gun, it was the fact they were, just like Intel paying OEMs to NOT use the competition. In the case of MSFT it was the way they had the contract worded so you ONLY got the OEM discount if you sold Windows only, in the Intel case it was blatant kickbacks tied to not using AMD or Via.

but everyone makes it out to be an "IE VS Netscape" thing and it wasn't, it was just the Netscape guys screamed the loudest. it was the OEM backroom bullshit that got their balls in a sling and one could argue Netscape slit their own throats when they gave the market to IE by deciding to do a full rewrite followed by putting out the POS that was NS4. if it would have only been NS they probably could have won, it was the OEM backroom deals that got them busted.

Re:Obviously not the same

[sjames]

IF (and only if) Android had a built in an unremovable firewall rule blocking Bing searches, this would be anticompetitive. But they didn't.

Re:Obviously not the same

[Anonymous Coward]

If Google tried to discourage Android OEMs from putting Windows Phone 7 on their phones, then, yes, an antitrust lawsuit would be in order. But they do not seem to be doing that.

Re:Obviously not the same

[m50d]

ftp(1)

Re:Obviously not the same

[hairyfeet]

Are you SERIOUSLY that fucking deluded Lintroll? Can you not read or understand anything written unless it is posted as 'I heart lunix and suck teh cocks LOL!"? because I just fucking said MSFT DESERVED TO BE BUSTED FOR ANTITRUST you stupid RMS blowing lintroll, can't you fucking read? oh well i guess you just love being bitchslapped by some large southern manmeat, so once again i'll show what an absolute failure your OS is Enjoy and try not to drool on Linus's balls when you blow him, I hear he hates that.

Isn't it sad, how like a frightened child afraid to look under the bed, you cower at the truth? if your driver model isn't shit then why does Dell have to run their own repos even though we are talking a teeny tiny subset of hardware? Oh right because Linux shits itself and dies if you use the default repos! Man that is some excellent product you got there! you think I can get better QA than the third largest OEM on the planet? What, you expect me to tell paying customers "Go to the forum, kiss some loser ass, and maybe, just maybe, in a few days someone will have mercy and give you a big pile of bullshit that may or may not make your sound work again"?

Bleeding yet douchey? want some more? nice thing about having the truth on your side, you can keep throwing punches all day! How about how a decade old Windows beat the shit out of Linux on netbooks or how ASUS has given up on your bullshit or how about Walmart running away from linux as fast as it can? You got the crazy koolaid drunk enough to say they ALL are paid shills because they won't do your forum dance or CLI horseshit? Meanwhile your "hero" Torvalds the great says Plans? We don't need no steenkin plans!. Why don't you tell them that at work next week, see how quick you get a pink slip? More? How about you actually have the balls to celebrate getting a whole 1% market share while you are actually lower than JavaME and there is a whole website dedicated To your bullshit and excuses .

You see you whiny little delusional mama's boy, I'm your worst fucking nightmare...a retailer that still believes. I believe that the community doesn't have to take Torvalds shit sandwiches, I believe that things can be made better, I believe Linux can be something for more than douchebags like you that will happily take a cock slapping from linus as long as you can say you are sticking to "teh man". I believe that there can be Linux boxes on actual shelves and penguins on boxes.

Terrible

[DanTheStone]

Thank you, Slashdot, for informing me of a website I never, ever, want to read again.

Re:Terrible

[derGoldstein]

Wikipedia isn't that bad...

Re:open source attack

[icannotthinkofaname]

Agreed. I'll believe these claims about Android being anti-competitive when those same accusers also declare intention to sue entities like Canonical, who also give away superior software for free on a regular basis.

^^^THIS^^^

[Scareduck]

Who cares what Google's prime business is? The similarities to the MS antitrust case are nonexistent.

Re:^^^THIS^^^

[HermMunster]

Search is being leveraged to exclude others by Google giving away Android? What are you on? What does Google's search and ad businesses have to do with Android being given away for free?

Are you saying that they can't use their revenue stream from one to fund the others?

Definitely not the same.

[lkcl]

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.

Re:Definitely not the same.

[thegarbz]

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.

...

you literally cannot compare the two.

And even if you could compare the two it is completely irrelevant. Anti-trust law does not take into account where the money comes from only the market factors in its distribution. Just because someone has a product that shits out cash does not mean they're not allowed to build something and give it away for free.

Re:Definitely not the same.

[lkcl]

actually, a case could be made that they are literally "pricing" themselves out of their own market.

as the source code is freely available, there is absolutely nothing stopping any company from taking that free software and modifying it. for example, getting it to, by default, point to a different marketplace. getting it by default to point to a different web search engine. there is actually precedent for this. some companies have in fact set up their own android market places.

Android and rain

[hhedeshian]

Lets make collecting rain illegal. Since rain is free, it's anti-competitive. That way, us water utility companies can make more money.

Re:Android and rain

[CWCheese]

ummm... collecting rain is and has been illegal in a lot of places in the US because of senior water rights holders, these have been law since the 1800's when the western states were settled.

Re:Android and rain

[phoenixwade]

Lets make collecting rain illegal.

It IS, in some western states, illegal to collect rainwater. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/water/4314447

Apples and Oranges

[TWX]

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.

Re:Apples and Oranges

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft used their monopoly power to suppress competition in browsers. Now they are using patents, which are by their very definition monopolies, to suppress competition in mobile OS's. So it is not really apples and oranges, but rather historical apples and modern day apples.

Re:Apples and Oranges

[PCM2]

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.

But it does integrate them rather closely to one another, and it tie them very closely to Android. If I'm not mistaken, Honeycomb tablets require you to sign on with a Google account before you can even use them. I don't know whether 2.x handsets do the same -- certainly all don't. (Mine required you to sign in with a Motorola account.) Once you have a Google account, though, that makes you more likely to use that same account to access Google services on other devices. Said services are money-makers for Google, through advertising and data mining.

That said ... Google has never been accused of having a monopoly on Web-based services, so you can hardly accuse it of abusing a monopoly here. Can you use other search engines with an Android phone? Yes. I remember hearing one of the U.S. telcos was shipping Android phones with search preconfigured for Bing. Do you have to use Gmail, Google Maps, and other services? No...

And yet Google does make it easy. Which ironically seems to prove the opposite of what Thurrot is claiming. Google isn't giving away anything. It makes money off Android by integrating it with its online services. What difference does it make if a company funds its operations one way versus another way? Google's core business happens to be advertising.

Re:Apples and Oranges

[tgd]

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.

But you can't use any of the "standards-based" HTML5 chrome "apps" in any other HTML5 browser, you can't do half the things on an iPhone with their apps that you can do on Android with their apps, so your examples prove your point by ignoring the actual platform the post was about (phones). Hell, Google gave away Angry Birds to get people to install Chrome. On the flip side, most of Microsoft's mobile apps current work better on the iPhone than WP7. Go figure, huh?

Google and Microsoft are the same thing -- giant companies, doing anything they can to grow their market, with a legal obligation to their shareholders to keep increasing value. Anyone who believes Android being free is for any reason what-so-ever other than increasing market share and driving search is being completely irrational. (And if they are a Google shareholder, I suggest trying to make a legal case against the board of directors and senior management for allowing the company to waste resources like that!)

As a shareholder in both companies (and Apple), I expect all the tech giants are doing their best to drive up my stock's value. Success in one doesn't mean failure in the other, it just means a bigger market and more money for the shareholders.

Re:Apples and Oranges

[TWX]

The main difference is how they're going about achieving their profitability and stock value. Google seems to be interested in achieving profitability by providing a bunch of well-designed, good-functioning services that get use not simply because they're part of a package, but because they're also some of the best tools available. Microsoft seems to make lackluster software that they get people to use by inking nefarious agreements with hardware OEMs, and by bundling things with the intention of driving competition out by people never understanding they have a chance to try something different.

It's the other way around

[bahface]

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.

Aren't they all doing that sort of thing?

[Trufagus]

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.

Re:Aren't they all doing that sort of thing?

[Bitmanhome]

More importantly, Microsoft is using revenue from Windows and Office to fund Bing.

Does this remind you of any famous antitrust case?

[microphage]

"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.

you know, honycomb hit 3.2 already

[Lead Butthead]

and they're still stalling 3.0 source release.

Yes, And...

[Bob9113]

> "'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.

Re:Yes, And...

[Haedrian]

What do you mean yes?

How is Google using its search dominance to unfairly gain entry into mobile market? If I want to use Google's services on a symbian, iPhone, WP or whatever it still works. Google isn't forbidding competing mobile manufacturers from using its service, either.

Its using the MONEY it gains from one to fund the other. Big. Deal. Its one company.

Re:Yes, And...

[Haedrian]

Right, and that's called competition. Its what companies do.

What we're trying to see here is if Google is unfairly using its search position. Which it isn't. Google could have made a fortune making peanuts, its still the same thing.

Is Google Search a monopoly?

[chrb]

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%.

Re:Is Google Search a monopoly?

[chrb]

Dec 1998

Correction: it was Dec 2008 when Windows market share dropped below 90% for the first time...

Re:Is Google Search a monopoly?

[PCM2]

Actually the proposal seems to rest on more than that. Internet Explorer is "free" in the sense that every consumer who installs Windows gets a working copy of it for no additional charge. Android is "free" only in the sense that mobile carriers are free to use it, if they wish. I don't recall ever being able to walk into a mobile phone store, plunk down $50 for prepaid service, and walk away with my choice of any Android phone for no additional charge. Last I heard, mobile phone vendors used the Android OS to build mobile phones, which they then sold for hundreds of dollars in a highly competitive marketplace. The parallel to Microsoft, the exclusive provider of IE, giving it directly to end consumers to use for free, hardly seems accurate.

Re:Is Google Search a monopoly?

[sixminuteabs]

Who the hell is modding this informative? Google's search share in just about every market on earth is > 90%. The US is one of the few outliers in having ONLY 63%. Stop cherrypicking data. In my house, we have 2 Macbooks. Does Apple have a monopoly on the desktop?

Unlikely

[Mr. Underbridge]

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.

Re:Unlikely

[Dwonis]

Actually, it's not a new legal theory. It's a failed legal theory. See Wallace v IBM.

'anticompetitive'

[roman_mir]

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.

Its not an unfair comparison entirely.

[pjr.cc]

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.

Re:Exactly

[thegarbz]

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.

Not Bundled

[immakiku]

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.

Nonsense

[tknd]

It would only be anti-competitive if Google search was bundled and the ONLY search option provided. But that isn't the case as illustrated with Verizon Samsung Fascinate.

The phone does not use Google as its default search. And it doesn't utilize Yahoo! either. No, the Fascinate search engine defaults to Bing. Bing is used for the homescreen widget. It is defaulted to in the browser. It is present across the device... and there's no way to choose a different search engine. Like, you know -- Google. When we pressed Verizon reps about this, they let us know in no uncertain terms that the stock engine is Bing without a second choice.

Shill

[srh2o]

Paul Thurott is an unabashed shill. Nothing to see here move along

Re:Shill

[kirkb]

True. I visit (and troll) Paul's sites frequently. Whenever it's a "slow news week", he'll attract pageviews by posting an inflammatory anti- MS or Apple or Google story.

A man's gotta pay the bills, I suppose. Lord knows his Windows Phone 7 book ain't selling.

Google's rivals are free to match Google's price..

[John Hasler]

...and also give Android away free.

Android Price

[umask077]

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.

total bs..

[strobe74]

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 not American

[tepples]

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.

Re:Canonical is not American

[Klync]

Actually, Canonical is registered in the Isle of Man, a Crown Dependency off the British coast. It's a tax and legal haven from the civilized world, although its head of state is still the Queen of England. This has always been one of the things that's bugged me most about Shuttleworth's operation.

Does Android un-install competitor products?

[knarfling]

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?

Re:Does Android un-install competitor products?

[knarfling]

Okay, I was slightly mistaken. If you installed Netscape first and then installed IE, IE would delete Netscape files making Netscape unusable. The effect was the same.

Re:Does Android un-install competitor products?

[flimflammer]

No, it didn't.

Re:MS's anti-trust lawsuit was bull

[rrossman2]

But they required their browser be located on the desktop and no one else's or the OEMs didn't get the extra $$ from Microsoft.

Re:Internet Explorer

[TheRaven64]

IE6 was the version of IE released after the browser wars. IE 2 was useless - it came on my NT4 CD and crashed on startup on a clean install. IE3 was okay. I had it and Netscape installed, and usually preferred IE3. IE4 was bad, but not quite as bad as Netscape Communicator 4, which was just plain horrible. IE5 was what IE4 should have been, and Netscape was dead at this point. IE6 cleaned up IE5 a bit. And then we had a long wait for Mozilla to get into a useable state.

Wallace v IBM

[Pop69]

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.

Re:Wallace v IBM

[bmo]

Bad linky.

Real linky.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_v._International_Business_Machines_Corp._et_al.

--
BMO

Re:Wallace v IBM

[bmo]

Hnnngggggg.....

There is a period at the end of that. Make sure to include the period.

Stupid slashcode.

--
BMO

A reform IS needed

[mkdx]

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....

Re:open source attack

[93 Escort Wagon]

Agreed. I'll believe these claims about Android being anti-competitive when those same accusers also declare intention to sue entities like Canonical, who also give away superior software for free on a regular basis.

Well, given the huge percentage of the desktop computer market Ubuntu's managed to corner, that should happen any day now. /sarcasm

Bing too!

[kirkb]

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.

very different

[JSombra]

"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.

Paul Thurrott.

[simmonsjeffreya]

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.

Patents, Schmatents

[soloport]

Why won't Google just use the Force?

You're talking about "every second version?"

[symbolset]

Then that would be yes, it's their fault. Who's fault could it be?

Re:MS's anti-trust lawsuit was bull

[symbolset]

I can't wait until Windows Mobile gets some traction. "Verizon and HTC recommend Windows Phone 12!" on every page.

Been here before

[renegadesx]

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?

When Windows sucked multiple body parts

[tepples]

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.

LOL!!

[Zamphatta]

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?

That's fine. Have a Heinlein quote.

[symbolset]

"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.

Ouch. Just ouch.

[aiken_d]

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.

OMG Android is Free?

[pookemon]

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...

free Android with every Google search

[Locutus]

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

The lie is so easy to detect it shows the shill

[SmallFurryCreature]

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.

Re:The lie is so easy to detect it shows the shill

[nimid]

Where do you think MS gets the money from to fund WM7?

Malicious Android patent royalty payments?

Re:The lie is so easy to detect it shows the shill

[X3J11]

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.

This gave me a much needed chuckle - thank you. I'm halfway tempted to steal that for my .sig.

Re:The lie is so easy to detect it shows the shill

[intheshelter]

Your argument is so ridiculously flawed I don't know where to begin. Apple did not use profits from the iPod to build and give away iPhones and iPads. What an utter load of bull!

As much as I think Thurrott is a paid schill for MS, this particular article is pretty darned accurate.

Troll

[trojjan]

I'm surprised the article isn't tagged troll.

And ?

[unity100]

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.

Logically flawed...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

So unbelievably stupid

[Alistair Hutton]

This is the stupidest "debate" in the world and once again, because it is an asine argument that favours Apple, we find Daring Fireball driving the discussion.

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.

Did I read a different article or what?

[xtieburn]

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.]

Ahhh, the irony undoubtedly stings

[intheshelter]

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.

Maybe Wal-Mart would be a better comparison

[mdervin2001]

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?

winsupersite.com?

[Syberz]

A pro-Microsoft, anti-Google article on a website called winsupersite.com (Super Site for Windows), yeah... no bias there.

Free!!??

[DarthVain]

It's these Android commies that are ruining our capitalist paradise!

Giving stuff away

[coding_sheep]

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.

there are precedents other than Microsoft

[RatherBeAnonymous]

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.

wrong way round...

[PriceChild]

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...

Re:Another GOOGLE employee sockpuppet

[DanTheStone]

Try harder. I have no external bias toward Google, although I do use some of their stuff. I'm anti-patent, not pro-Google.