> Google has nothing to lose by delaying disclosure of an exploit that isnt even in its ecosystem... They do have something to lose, the security of and confidence in Android. Disclosing this bug lets users know about it so they can make sure the vulnerability is closed (like by updating the installer).
It was actually because they required their own browser and search in order to get the Play Store installed, but with this Epic move, I guess the Play Store isn't even necessary.
I think Google should charge for any of their ad supported services and software when they're not allowed to advertise through them. Charge for search, charge for Android, etc. If Google gets fines and can't collect revenue then the users should pay for the services and software.
Amazon made the Fire phone, which included Amazon's app store. Developers could upload their apps to this store as well. Have an Android phone? You can install Amazon's app store. Here's a link: https://www.amazon.com/gp/mas/...
> if a manufacturer of an Android phone wants to offer different search engine options, Google should not interfere with that.
Google doesn't interfere with that.
Manufacturers are free to use Android through the AOSP. Amazon did this - their Fire phones didn't include Google's Play Store or other Google branded software.
If manufacturers want to include Google's suite of apps, they aren't restricted from also including rival apps.
Users are also able to choose different options both for the browser and search engine within the browser. Users want to use Google apps, manufacturers know this, so that's what the manufacturers include. If anything, the EU should be fining the manufacturers for not including other apps, or users for choosing to use Google apps.
The law is being interpreted in a really strange way. Android has a major competitor with iOS. There's also the AOSP, so manufacturers can install Android without Google's branded software.
Manufacturers aren't prohibited from installing their own software, including software which serves the same functions as Google's options, so rival options aren't even chosen by Google - they're chosen by the manufacturers. And that's just the original install... users can choose their own browser, or other apps.
So, there's not a monopoly, and no restriction of choices, so I'm just not seeing the problem here.
> aren't monopolies bad for capitalism, and by extension, bad for a national economy in general?
No, abuse of monopoly power is bad for capitalism. Monopolies are often useful for supplying a service that wouldn't be supplied otherwise, usually because of high barriers to entry.
> All the above-named corporations have de-facto monopolies
Why, because they're big? What is Apple monopolizing? Phones? No. Computers? No. For Google, Bing is a large competitor, and there are other search engines people could switch to the very next time they search. Walmart is a decent competitor for Amazon. Facebook - Google+, SnapChat, WhatsApp, etc. I don't see how any of these companies have exclusive control to anything.
The attachable wireless modules are unique, and it has a 360 degree camera option. It has a 5.7" screen and a smaller body than 5.5" screen Androids and iPhones. No bloatware isn't unique, but it's better than most Android phones. Interesting and functional materials.
I want a price comparison site in my Google results. I do. When I'm looking for a moderate to major purchase, it's convenient and helpful. I don't want to figure out, and keep up to date on, which shopping site has good results for one product or another - I want a unified search that gives me good results.
Google can't possibly manage how apps approved for the Play Store will work, such as from a security perspective, on every possible variation of code from the AOSP.
The official Android means it uses Google's Android trademark, which means it's Google's product - having competitors products using the Android trademark would be confusing to users.
Google freely gives away code that cost them probably in the billions of dollars to create, and they're the bad guy? They've created smartphones that are available to people in all walks of life, and they're the bad guy?
I think Google should charge for any of their ad supported services and software when they're not allowed to advertise through them. Charge for search, charge for Android, etc. If Google gets fines and can't collect revenue then the users should pay for the services and software.
'Helping consumers' in this way is why the EU doesn't have a Google, Microsoft, Amazon, or Facebook. These companies have created a tremendous amount of consumer value, but they couldn't ever grow in an environment like that.
....but let's bash Microsoft because it is so much fun!
Ok! Windows Phone! Clippy! IE! Azure!
But to be fair, it's nice to see MS participating in online forums, even if they need to use paid shills to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
> Google has nothing to lose by delaying disclosure of an exploit that isnt even in its ecosystem...
They do have something to lose, the security of and confidence in Android. Disclosing this bug lets users know about it so they can make sure the vulnerability is closed (like by updating the installer).
It was actually because they required their own browser and search in order to get the Play Store installed, but with this Epic move, I guess the Play Store isn't even necessary.
Or not license Android for sale in the EU, just sell their own phones there directly.
I think Google should charge for any of their ad supported services and software when they're not allowed to advertise through them. Charge for search, charge for Android, etc. If Google gets fines and can't collect revenue then the users should pay for the services and software.
Amazon made the Fire phone, which included Amazon's app store. Developers could upload their apps to this store as well. Have an Android phone? You can install Amazon's app store. Here's a link:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/mas/...
Did I just save Google $2.8B?
Here's a list of competitors - each are only a click away:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
> if a manufacturer of an Android phone wants to offer different search engine options, Google should not interfere with that.
Google doesn't interfere with that.
Manufacturers are free to use Android through the AOSP. Amazon did this - their Fire phones didn't include Google's Play Store or other Google branded software.
If manufacturers want to include Google's suite of apps, they aren't restricted from also including rival apps.
Users are also able to choose different options both for the browser and search engine within the browser. Users want to use Google apps, manufacturers know this, so that's what the manufacturers include. If anything, the EU should be fining the manufacturers for not including other apps, or users for choosing to use Google apps.
The law is being interpreted in a really strange way. Android has a major competitor with iOS. There's also the AOSP, so manufacturers can install Android without Google's branded software.
Manufacturers aren't prohibited from installing their own software, including software which serves the same functions as Google's options, so rival options aren't even chosen by Google - they're chosen by the manufacturers. And that's just the original install... users can choose their own browser, or other apps.
So, there's not a monopoly, and no restriction of choices, so I'm just not seeing the problem here.
> aren't monopolies bad for capitalism, and by extension, bad for a national economy in general?
No, abuse of monopoly power is bad for capitalism. Monopolies are often useful for supplying a service that wouldn't be supplied otherwise, usually because of high barriers to entry.
> All the above-named corporations have de-facto monopolies
Why, because they're big? What is Apple monopolizing? Phones? No. Computers? No. For Google, Bing is a large competitor, and there are other search engines people could switch to the very next time they search. Walmart is a decent competitor for Amazon. Facebook - Google+, SnapChat, WhatsApp, etc. I don't see how any of these companies have exclusive control to anything.
Here you go (1st link from 2012):
https://www.cnet.com/news/its-...
http://www.businessinsider.com...
Here's a video review of the phone:
https://www.theverge.com/2017/...
The attachable wireless modules are unique, and it has a 360 degree camera option. It has a 5.7" screen and a smaller body than 5.5" screen Androids and iPhones. No bloatware isn't unique, but it's better than most Android phones. Interesting and functional materials.
Their home page highlights these differences:
https://www.essential.com/
More than the current features is the promise of seamless integration with other devices.
https://www.wired.com/story/in...
I'm not buying this iteration of this phone, but I hope enough people do to keep this company alive - it looks like it has a lot of promise.
> Star Trek has always been inclusive. Just ask Ben Sisko or Katherine Janeway
I'm sorry, but until they have a Ferengi on the bridge they can't be considered inclusive.
Yes, they can be easily replaced, which means they shouldn't be fined - with low barriers to entry we don't need market interference.
Good to see slashdot user ids keep growing. Yay astroturfing!
I want a price comparison site in my Google results. I do. When I'm looking for a moderate to major purchase, it's convenient and helpful. I don't want to figure out, and keep up to date on, which shopping site has good results for one product or another - I want a unified search that gives me good results.
Google can't possibly manage how apps approved for the Play Store will work, such as from a security perspective, on every possible variation of code from the AOSP.
The official Android means it uses Google's Android trademark, which means it's Google's product - having competitors products using the Android trademark would be confusing to users.
Google freely gives away code that cost them probably in the billions of dollars to create, and they're the bad guy? They've created smartphones that are available to people in all walks of life, and they're the bad guy?
I think Google should charge for any of their ad supported services and software when they're not allowed to advertise through them. Charge for search, charge for Android, etc. If Google gets fines and can't collect revenue then the users should pay for the services and software.
'Helping consumers' in this way is why the EU doesn't have a Google, Microsoft, Amazon, or Facebook. These companies have created a tremendous amount of consumer value, but they couldn't ever grow in an environment like that.
Here's a great article about why this makes no sense (basically, regulating a market that doesn't need it):
https://www.wired.com/2016/11/...
b, limiting markets.
Google should pull out of the EU altogether to see how that limits their markets.
....but let's bash Microsoft because it is so much fun!
Ok! Windows Phone! Clippy! IE! Azure!
But to be fair, it's nice to see MS participating in online forums, even if they need to use paid shills to do it.
This page has a discussion in the comments about MS being a major contributor, if not the major contributor, for these tests.
More than that...
FTS, it sounds like this was 35 in this pass. I created a Tetris/Arkanoid hybrid over a year ago that was taken down with a DMCA notice...
Q: How can you travel long distances in electric powered vehicles without long recharge breaks?
A: Battery switching stations
Do you have any specific cases where malpractice awards weren't justified? And what percentage of the awards do you think are unjustified?
As a patient, I want my doctors held accountable. I'm not sure how well the current system works. Do you have an alternative to offer?