That's fantasy. Google requires you use Google services if you want to have a full Android system. It's just a different means towards the same ends. You've been bamboozled if you think Google isn't trying to direct you towards using their services.
On iOS, you can use Google, Yahoo, or Bing for search, and you can use other ad systems. I'm unfamiliar with Windows Phone 7, but few people are.
Google does "force" you to use Google services, unless you want to have the ghetto version of Android. The only real difference with iOS is that Apple doesn't offer a ghetto version.
The problem is that you invented content that wasn't there. There was no allusion whatsoever that Google was evil for being large or dominant. There was no indication that the poster was tying this into the story in any way at all except that it was about Google.
Feel free to use your imagination to fill in the gaps, but don't pretend like the opponent you are battling is the one you are replying to. You were battling an imaginary version of him.
Even if Android wins, they still have to persuade carriers to keep Google as the default search provider. Gogole has no leverage over carriers because they give away the OS for free.
They don't give the whole OS away for free. You don't get the newest version for free, and they never give away the full version unless you agree to a set of requirements.
Google hopes that it'll just be easier to agree to the terms than replicate the missing parts and bypassing Google altogether. Carriers and handset makers don't really like this, and have been highly motivated to replace Google with their own services, and now Amazon looks to be trying to do just that on their own.
Barriers of entry (what Bill is basically describing) is a concept they teach you in high school economics - which also has absolutely nothing to do with what Google is doing with Android right now.
Android brings people closer to Google, creating a barrier to using Bing instead.
Google already has a massive stranglehold on search. Android on the other hand is a way for them to deliver Google "cloud" services (of which search is only one aspect) so that they can start monetizing and diversifying their non-search income. They are making money through Checkout (via Market), and stuff like Google Apps for Business (via Android's seamless sync with Gmail and Calendar), etc. With the latter, it is a route for Google into the enterprise. I've just seen 3 companies I work with drop their legacy Exchange infrastructure for Google Apps.
I think you vastly overestimate how much money Google makes from their non-ad endeavors. Google may benefit from the income these other services bring in, but the point of this analogy is to show that these things all must serve to protect the castle. If Google were to try to turn one of their moats into another castle, they weaken the defense of that castle while simultaneously creating a new castle which they must defend.
Compare that with Microsoft, which has exactly two castles, Windows and Office. All of their other cottages are distractions for them and have generally been failures by comparison. Their best non-castle is Xbox, and I don't know if that division has yet made a profit. But if it helps protect Windows and Office, losing money may be fine.
What Google is doing is only defense if you subscribe to the best-type-of-defense-is-offence school of war. What Microsoft is doing with it's WP7 strategy OTOH is 100% defence.
To prove my case, look at what come carriers are doing shipping Bing as the default search provider. Google doesn't care one bit as they know the pie's growing, which is exactly what Android is about - baking a new pie.
You can be damned sure Google cares, and they care a *lot*. Ads are the most important thing to Google, and search ads are the most important of ads. They bought Android in order to protect their ads on mobile search and mobile apps. They would not be fine with giving up on either part of that.
You are right that it's about baking a new pie (mobile ads), but that pie is going to bake whether Google gets in on it or not. They very much need to dominate the mobile ad pie.
When they talked about why they created (bought) Android, they said they were afraid of a world where one company limits consumer choice. That was complete bullshit. It was because they were afraid of one company that isn't them controlling the gateway to mobile ads.
The ironic part is Apple never seemed to be interested in getting into Google's turf until Google released Android. Their paranoia likely created the competition that they were worried about. It's still probably for the best, since otherwise they would have been very vulnerable had Apple decided to get into the ad business anyway.
A moderation system and editorial staff would definitely help, but to take a few examples:
- GeoHot: even though Sony was very heavy-handed here, I doubt most people would care, even when presented with all the facts. Geeks, on the other hand, still hold a grudge over the root-kit CDs. - Nestle: I think more people would care if they knew, but not too many. - Nike: this is well-known, and consumers have overwhelmingly voted with their dollars, saying they just don't really care enough. The same goes for the slave labor that makes Wal-Mart possible. We don't like it, but turn a blind eye, probably because there's not much we can do about it. - VISA: some people actually support this. It's insane, but Fox News does have a sizable audience, and they've been trained to think Wikileaks wants to destroy America.
For most things like this, I just don't think people care enough even when something truly awful is going on, let alone would there be a solid consensus on the average corporate bullshit.
Just because they didn't do it well doesn't mean they didn't do it. The presenters on stage made multiple affirmative claims of authenticity, and gave absolutely no hint whatsoever that this was fake.
The problem with such a site is that it would have to be carefully curated to keep a bunch of lame bullshit off of it. Something like this is pretty clear cut, and Microsoft's astroturfing along with the fake "I'm a PC" people are less egregious, but still reasonable examples for such a site. But the idea that the site would be filled with "reams" of examples from MS and Apple betrays a very low standard for what should be included.
Geeks get easily offended by small things that not only don't bother other people, but often things that most other people actually welcome. If a visitor comes to your site and sees a bunch of geek wankery, you're only going to be preaching to the choir, while turning away those you most wish to impress.
This goes beyond "marketing = lies" in the normal sense. Marketing may cherry pick facts, present only the most biased data, and say things that technically don't mean what they sound like, while still being correct, but this isn't that. This is outright fraud. These actors were presented on multiple occasions throughout the keynote as being "real customers" with "real stories". This isn't even, "here's a typical experience of our customer" (which would be a more normal marketing lie).
This reminds me of those "miracle cure wonder potion" traveling scams you see in movies where a plant in the audience pretends to be cured of some malady.
The script was so corny, I kept looking for clues that the presenters on stage were hinting at it being a joke, but each time they came off as claiming this was actual, honest, customers giving their own candid opinions of the Tab.
What a pointless, splitting-hairs argument from the FSF.
That's pretty much the definition of the FSF. They aren't pragmatic, they are idealistic. If a stance was non-hair-splitting, they wouldn't need to make a big deal about it. That's why they use terms like "libre" instead of "free", and "GNU/Linux" instead of "Linux".
The reason for the particular distinction in question is that if there's an official non-free repository, that encourages people to use non-free software. The FSF won't endorse a distro that encourages people to use non-free software. That's an important distinction that you are missing in the following sentence:
So according to the FSF it's all right if users install non-free software from a repo run by a 3rd party, but it's not all right if the non-free repo is hosted by the Linux distro maker/project itself?
They aren't telling you what's all right or not for you to do, they are telling you what they promote. I've never heard Stallman or anyone else speaking on behalf of the FSF make a claim that people should not be able to choose non-free software. Just that he (and they) encourage free software, and discourage non-free software.
People often mischaracterize the FSF as trying to control people. They aren't. They moralize quite a bit, but they won't punish you, beyond simply recommending against your software if it's not free.
One of 8 approved GNU/Linux distributions. None of which matter in the real world.
Outside of servers and as a basis for other systems (like TiVo and Android) and appliances, one could similarly claim that no Linux distro matters 'in the real world'. Although I don't share the FSF's moral stance on software, I do think it's good for them to put out lists like this and endorse software that meets their ideals.
That's not true. They require the distros to not include non-free software (including not having official 'non-free' repositories), but the user can be allowed to install non-free software. In fact, I'm pretty sure that if a distro had the ability to prevent users from installing non-free software, it would logically have to be a non-free system and thus not allowed in the FSF's list.
The FSF has always supported peoples' right to choose non-free software. They have simply been consistent in doing everything they can to discourage it, but never disallowing it.
I dunno, the fact that the names were so strange made it obvious it was open source, that there were so many strange names together alluded to it being a Linux distro, and that the names were presented as though everyone should know what they are pointed towards it being GNU.
By the time you get to the end, where they actually point all of this out, the explanation ends up being redundant, almost like a Zen parable.
It's about why, and that comes down to how much control a company is allowed to assert over their platform, hence my comment in the first place.
Except that "why" you brought up isn't a "why" for the topic at hand.
Just because it is that company's product they cannot assert absolute control over it.
Of course not, but they can control the sources of content for it. Why aren't you bitching about Wiis and Xboxes and Kindles? Do you think they are illegal as well?
If you don't understand the connection between this case and the EU case then have a look at the US v MS settlement, MS was not allowed to assert absolute control over *their* platform.
Yes, convicted criminals do often have their rights taken away.
You're nitpicking his words instead of dealing with his actual point. Being a major open source participant is a large part of Google's image, and that image is a large part of why people use them. I'm sure that you yourself have likely made posts about how Android is better than iOS due to openness vs closedness.
Even early on, Google was lauded for using BSD and Linux for their servers. And now Chrome, Android, and WebM get talked up for being open source. This is somewhat ironic given how closed most of those things actually are.
The author of a GPLed program can also release that same program under a different license. As long as the program is completely copyrighted by Google, they can distribute a closed version.
On the other hand, if they are using someone else's code, they must abide by the license that code is distributed to them under. This includes user contributions to their GPLed software.
Forcing apps to be signed to run on the iPhone is dictatorial, but saying you can't have signed apps as per the GPLv3 is also dictatorial, so I personally find both Apple and FSF are dictatorships, with zealous charismatic leaders at the head.
This is inane. Neither are dictatorships any more than your local Safeway is a dictatorship. When you make a product, you set the rules. Dictators forcibly tell *others* what they can and cannot do in an intrusive and unlimited way. You're free to accept or decline Apple's, FSF's, and Safeway's terms.
In fact, I'd argue that Apple and RMS's goals are actually more similar than dissimilar in some respects (on most Apple appliances the software is free, but source disclosure is the missing piece).
I really shouldn't have wasted the word "inane" for the first part.
I said exactly this. That they know what's happening and are presumably fine with it. Elsewhere I state this is a religious debate, but don't begrudge you for not being familiar with my other posts.
My post was specifically referring to the standard claim by BSD license proponents that copies don't matter. I'm sure they don't matter so much to those who prefer the BSD license, but they very much matter when talking about copyright. You can't just claim copies don't matter when discussing the merits of different copyright licenses.
GPL proponents want the copies to be free, BSD license proponents don't seem to care as much. Neither is "right", they are just different.
That's why I used the quotation marks. 'A "monopoly"' is different from 'a monopoly'. Since you clearly need this spelled out: you are supposed to be able to be the sole supplier of your own products, but this isn't a monopoly as defined by antitrust law.
Like i said, you're missing the point the OP was making, it isn't about being the sole supplier of the platform, it is - see the first comment you replied to - about controlling what apps go on that platform.
The person I replied to used the word "monopoly". I didn't just conjure it up out of thin air.
As the sole supplier of their platform, they have the right to dictate the terms of that platform. That's not a monopoly in the anti-trust sense of the term.
I never said anything about whether it's bad or not. Nor did I ever say simply having a monopoly is illegal. I'm not sure where you are getting these straw men from, but they are not from my words.
Hence the 'i think you're missing the point', otherwise i would have refuted something you actually said rather than just pointing you in the direction the OP was going with his/her comment.
I'm refuting both that Apple has a monopoly, and that they are abusing it. It's their platform, it's their rules. My point is that there's nothing inherently illegal about this.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with a lawsuit in California. Your argument is dishonest.
How so? What you think just because they were brought in different jurisdictions that means they have nothing to do with eachother?
Because it means they have nothing to do with each other. EU law is not US law and vice versa. It's not the same court, it's not the same jurisdiction. Whether or not MS has to have a "browser ballot" in the EU has absolutely nothing to do with whether Apple is engaged in anti-trust violations in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
That's fantasy. Google requires you use Google services if you want to have a full Android system. It's just a different means towards the same ends. You've been bamboozled if you think Google isn't trying to direct you towards using their services.
On iOS, you can use Google, Yahoo, or Bing for search, and you can use other ad systems. I'm unfamiliar with Windows Phone 7, but few people are.
Google does "force" you to use Google services, unless you want to have the ghetto version of Android. The only real difference with iOS is that Apple doesn't offer a ghetto version.
The problem is that you invented content that wasn't there. There was no allusion whatsoever that Google was evil for being large or dominant. There was no indication that the poster was tying this into the story in any way at all except that it was about Google.
Feel free to use your imagination to fill in the gaps, but don't pretend like the opponent you are battling is the one you are replying to. You were battling an imaginary version of him.
Your "offtopic" conclusion seems far more likely. It's a lot simpler than reading so much into his post that wasn't there.
Even if Android wins, they still have to persuade carriers to keep Google as the default search provider. Gogole has no leverage over carriers because they give away the OS for free.
They don't give the whole OS away for free. You don't get the newest version for free, and they never give away the full version unless you agree to a set of requirements.
Google hopes that it'll just be easier to agree to the terms than replicate the missing parts and bypassing Google altogether. Carriers and handset makers don't really like this, and have been highly motivated to replace Google with their own services, and now Amazon looks to be trying to do just that on their own.
Major software company? Google is an advertising and search company, that makes some software to drive up ad impressions.
RedHat is a bigger software company than Google, and they and Canonical are *far* less "evil" (a silly term) than Google.
Where did he say anything about Google being evil because they are big? This is called a straw man.
Barriers of entry (what Bill is basically describing) is a concept they teach you in high school economics - which also has absolutely nothing to do with what Google is doing with Android right now.
Android brings people closer to Google, creating a barrier to using Bing instead.
Google already has a massive stranglehold on search. Android on the other hand is a way for them to deliver Google "cloud" services (of which search is only one aspect) so that they can start monetizing and diversifying their non-search income. They are making money through Checkout (via Market), and stuff like Google Apps for Business (via Android's seamless sync with Gmail and Calendar), etc. With the latter, it is a route for Google into the enterprise. I've just seen 3 companies I work with drop their legacy Exchange infrastructure for Google Apps.
I think you vastly overestimate how much money Google makes from their non-ad endeavors. Google may benefit from the income these other services bring in, but the point of this analogy is to show that these things all must serve to protect the castle. If Google were to try to turn one of their moats into another castle, they weaken the defense of that castle while simultaneously creating a new castle which they must defend.
Compare that with Microsoft, which has exactly two castles, Windows and Office. All of their other cottages are distractions for them and have generally been failures by comparison. Their best non-castle is Xbox, and I don't know if that division has yet made a profit. But if it helps protect Windows and Office, losing money may be fine.
What Google is doing is only defense if you subscribe to the best-type-of-defense-is-offence school of war. What Microsoft is doing with it's WP7 strategy OTOH is 100% defence.
To prove my case, look at what come carriers are doing shipping Bing as the default search provider. Google doesn't care one bit as they know the pie's growing, which is exactly what Android is about - baking a new pie.
You can be damned sure Google cares, and they care a *lot*. Ads are the most important thing to Google, and search ads are the most important of ads. They bought Android in order to protect their ads on mobile search and mobile apps. They would not be fine with giving up on either part of that.
You are right that it's about baking a new pie (mobile ads), but that pie is going to bake whether Google gets in on it or not. They very much need to dominate the mobile ad pie.
When they talked about why they created (bought) Android, they said they were afraid of a world where one company limits consumer choice. That was complete bullshit. It was because they were afraid of one company that isn't them controlling the gateway to mobile ads.
The ironic part is Apple never seemed to be interested in getting into Google's turf until Google released Android. Their paranoia likely created the competition that they were worried about. It's still probably for the best, since otherwise they would have been very vulnerable had Apple decided to get into the ad business anyway.
A moderation system and editorial staff would definitely help, but to take a few examples:
- GeoHot: even though Sony was very heavy-handed here, I doubt most people would care, even when presented with all the facts. Geeks, on the other hand, still hold a grudge over the root-kit CDs.
- Nestle: I think more people would care if they knew, but not too many.
- Nike: this is well-known, and consumers have overwhelmingly voted with their dollars, saying they just don't really care enough. The same goes for the slave labor that makes Wal-Mart possible. We don't like it, but turn a blind eye, probably because there's not much we can do about it.
- VISA: some people actually support this. It's insane, but Fox News does have a sizable audience, and they've been trained to think Wikileaks wants to destroy America.
For most things like this, I just don't think people care enough even when something truly awful is going on, let alone would there be a solid consensus on the average corporate bullshit.
Just because they didn't do it well doesn't mean they didn't do it. The presenters on stage made multiple affirmative claims of authenticity, and gave absolutely no hint whatsoever that this was fake.
The problem with such a site is that it would have to be carefully curated to keep a bunch of lame bullshit off of it. Something like this is pretty clear cut, and Microsoft's astroturfing along with the fake "I'm a PC" people are less egregious, but still reasonable examples for such a site. But the idea that the site would be filled with "reams" of examples from MS and Apple betrays a very low standard for what should be included.
Geeks get easily offended by small things that not only don't bother other people, but often things that most other people actually welcome. If a visitor comes to your site and sees a bunch of geek wankery, you're only going to be preaching to the choir, while turning away those you most wish to impress.
Marketing = lies. Is anyone really surprised?
This goes beyond "marketing = lies" in the normal sense. Marketing may cherry pick facts, present only the most biased data, and say things that technically don't mean what they sound like, while still being correct, but this isn't that. This is outright fraud. These actors were presented on multiple occasions throughout the keynote as being "real customers" with "real stories". This isn't even, "here's a typical experience of our customer" (which would be a more normal marketing lie).
This reminds me of those "miracle cure wonder potion" traveling scams you see in movies where a plant in the audience pretends to be cured of some malady.
The script was so corny, I kept looking for clues that the presenters on stage were hinting at it being a joke, but each time they came off as claiming this was actual, honest, customers giving their own candid opinions of the Tab.
What a pointless, splitting-hairs argument from the FSF.
That's pretty much the definition of the FSF. They aren't pragmatic, they are idealistic. If a stance was non-hair-splitting, they wouldn't need to make a big deal about it. That's why they use terms like "libre" instead of "free", and "GNU/Linux" instead of "Linux".
The reason for the particular distinction in question is that if there's an official non-free repository, that encourages people to use non-free software. The FSF won't endorse a distro that encourages people to use non-free software. That's an important distinction that you are missing in the following sentence:
So according to the FSF it's all right if users install non-free software from a repo run by a 3rd party, but it's not all right if the non-free repo is hosted by the Linux distro maker/project itself?
They aren't telling you what's all right or not for you to do, they are telling you what they promote. I've never heard Stallman or anyone else speaking on behalf of the FSF make a claim that people should not be able to choose non-free software. Just that he (and they) encourage free software, and discourage non-free software.
People often mischaracterize the FSF as trying to control people. They aren't. They moralize quite a bit, but they won't punish you, beyond simply recommending against your software if it's not free.
One of 8 approved GNU/Linux distributions. None of which matter in the real world.
Outside of servers and as a basis for other systems (like TiVo and Android) and appliances, one could similarly claim that no Linux distro matters 'in the real world'. Although I don't share the FSF's moral stance on software, I do think it's good for them to put out lists like this and endorse software that meets their ideals.
Apparently, in order to be an approved FREE software OS, you need to prevent users from using non-free software. FREE from choice. The ultimate FREEdom.
That's not true. They require the distros to not include non-free software (including not having official 'non-free' repositories), but the user can be allowed to install non-free software. In fact, I'm pretty sure that if a distro had the ability to prevent users from installing non-free software, it would logically have to be a non-free system and thus not allowed in the FSF's list.
The FSF has always supported peoples' right to choose non-free software. They have simply been consistent in doing everything they can to discourage it, but never disallowing it.
I dunno, the fact that the names were so strange made it obvious it was open source, that there were so many strange names together alluded to it being a Linux distro, and that the names were presented as though everyone should know what they are pointed towards it being GNU.
By the time you get to the end, where they actually point all of this out, the explanation ends up being redundant, almost like a Zen parable.
Its real name wasn't odd enough, so mentioning 'Mozilla' had to suffice.
It's about why, and that comes down to how much control a company is allowed to assert over their platform, hence my comment in the first place.
Except that "why" you brought up isn't a "why" for the topic at hand.
Just because it is that company's product they cannot assert absolute control over it.
Of course not, but they can control the sources of content for it. Why aren't you bitching about Wiis and Xboxes and Kindles? Do you think they are illegal as well?
If you don't understand the connection between this case and the EU case then have a look at the US v MS settlement, MS was not allowed to assert absolute control over *their* platform.
Yes, convicted criminals do often have their rights taken away.
You're nitpicking his words instead of dealing with his actual point. Being a major open source participant is a large part of Google's image, and that image is a large part of why people use them. I'm sure that you yourself have likely made posts about how Android is better than iOS due to openness vs closedness.
Even early on, Google was lauded for using BSD and Linux for their servers. And now Chrome, Android, and WebM get talked up for being open source. This is somewhat ironic given how closed most of those things actually are.
The author of a GPLed program can also release that same program under a different license. As long as the program is completely copyrighted by Google, they can distribute a closed version.
On the other hand, if they are using someone else's code, they must abide by the license that code is distributed to them under. This includes user contributions to their GPLed software.
Forcing apps to be signed to run on the iPhone is dictatorial, but saying you can't have signed apps as per the GPLv3 is also dictatorial, so I personally find both Apple and FSF are dictatorships, with zealous charismatic leaders at the head.
This is inane. Neither are dictatorships any more than your local Safeway is a dictatorship. When you make a product, you set the rules. Dictators forcibly tell *others* what they can and cannot do in an intrusive and unlimited way. You're free to accept or decline Apple's, FSF's, and Safeway's terms.
In fact, I'd argue that Apple and RMS's goals are actually more similar than dissimilar in some respects (on most Apple appliances the software is free, but source disclosure is the missing piece).
I really shouldn't have wasted the word "inane" for the first part.
Confused about what that has to do with whether the GPLv3 is dictatorial.
I don't necessarily disagree with anything you wrote, but I wonder what this has to do with whether the GPL is dictatorial.
There's definitely plenty of crazy to go around, if that's what you're trying to say.
I said exactly this. That they know what's happening and are presumably fine with it. Elsewhere I state this is a religious debate, but don't begrudge you for not being familiar with my other posts.
My post was specifically referring to the standard claim by BSD license proponents that copies don't matter. I'm sure they don't matter so much to those who prefer the BSD license, but they very much matter when talking about copyright. You can't just claim copies don't matter when discussing the merits of different copyright licenses.
GPL proponents want the copies to be free, BSD license proponents don't seem to care as much. Neither is "right", they are just different.
That's why I used the quotation marks. 'A "monopoly"' is different from 'a monopoly'. Since you clearly need this spelled out: you are supposed to be able to be the sole supplier of your own products, but this isn't a monopoly as defined by antitrust law.
Like i said, you're missing the point the OP was making, it isn't about being the sole supplier of the platform, it is - see the first comment you replied to - about controlling what apps go on that platform.
The person I replied to used the word "monopoly". I didn't just conjure it up out of thin air.
As the sole supplier of their platform, they have the right to dictate the terms of that platform. That's not a monopoly in the anti-trust sense of the term.
I never said anything about whether it's bad or not. Nor did I ever say simply having a monopoly is illegal. I'm not sure where you are getting these straw men from, but they are not from my words.
Hence the 'i think you're missing the point', otherwise i would have refuted something you actually said rather than just pointing you in the direction the OP was going with his/her comment.
I'm refuting both that Apple has a monopoly, and that they are abusing it. It's their platform, it's their rules. My point is that there's nothing inherently illegal about this.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with a lawsuit in California. Your argument is dishonest.
How so? What you think just because they were brought in different jurisdictions that means they have nothing to do with eachother?
Because it means they have nothing to do with each other. EU law is not US law and vice versa. It's not the same court, it's not the same jurisdiction. Whether or not MS has to have a "browser ballot" in the EU has absolutely nothing to do with whether Apple is engaged in anti-trust violations in the US.
Thanks for sharing.