x PhoneArena is looking for new authors! To view all available positions, click here.
  • Options
    Close




Google wants court to dismiss antitrust law suit targeting Android

0. phoneArena 11 Jul 2014, 22:30 posted on

On Friday, Google asked a court to dismiss a proposed class-action suit, filed in May by two smartphone users. The pair's suit alleges that Google is unfair in the way that it licenses Android to manufacturers like Samsung. The current process, they say, is unfair to Google's competitors in search and in other services. Google says that the suit should be dismissed because smartphone manufacturers are free to install Android on their devices...

This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here

posted on 11 Jul 2014, 22:35 4

1. arenanew (Posts: 202; Member since: 30 Dec 2013)


ban google

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 19:48 3

63. sgodsell (Posts: 1290; Member since: 16 Mar 2013)


Then you may as well ban Microsoft and Apple.

posted on 11 Jul 2014, 22:38 15

2. fzacek (Posts: 1894; Member since: 26 Jan 2014)


Stupid. The default Google apps are the reason why Android is open-source and free for any manufacturer to use. It's how Google makes money from Android. You can't blame a company for trying to make a profit...

posted on 11 Jul 2014, 22:59 7

4. icyrock1 (Posts: 303; Member since: 25 Mar 2013)


"You can't blame a company for trying to make a profit..."

When they break the law, yes, yes you can.

posted on 11 Jul 2014, 23:36 27

9. VZWuser76 (Posts: 1579; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)


I posted this in another article, but I'll do it again for simplicity sake.

The agreement Google has with manufacturers goes like this. Android can be taken by any company and used however they see fit, as we have seen with Amazon's Kindle tablet & Fire phone, and Nokia's X line. They can fork android however they want, to the point it may even be unrecognizable as being android.

The only catch is Google's services. Google's services are not open and free but proprietary and owned by Google, and is apart from AOSP android.

So if you want to use android you have 2 options. First, you can follow Google's guidelines for THEIR version of android, which allows you to use Google's services including access to the Playstore. By doing so you agree not to fork android beyond a certain point. Skins are allowed, but again only to a certain point. Second, you can take android and change (fork) it to your hearts desire, however doing so means you lose access to Google's services including the Playstore. This hasn't been an issue since both Amazon and Nokia/Microsoft have their own app stores.

That being said, one of the complaints is that the casual user won't take the time to use a different search engine and set it as default (which can be done with little effort). That isn't on Google, that's on the consumer. They have the ability within Google's version of android to replace every Google service with a competing one and set it as default. The whole point of apps is to add functionality and customize the phone the way you want it. The ability is there, and it's up to the customer to do so. If LG had replaced Chrome with Bing, what's to stop the customer from ranting about the same thing? The point is they act like it can't be done, when in fact it's easy and takes almost no time to implement. And if the OEMS are truly bent out of shape over this, they can take android and make it their own, only without Google's services including the Playstore.

The point people seem to be missing in all of this, is that while android is open and free, Google's services including the Playstore are proprietary and not open. Google makes money off android by advertising to the people using their services. If you take that away, then they'll have to recoup the costs, which means charging for android along with their proprietary services. Research ,development, and maintenance for android and their proprietary services costs money. If that's taken away, they either have to charge for their services or shutter it.

While they don't charge for android, Google isn't UNICEF either. Would any of you work for no money? If not then quit your bitchin'.

posted on 11 Jul 2014, 23:59 7

11. fzacek (Posts: 1894; Member since: 26 Jan 2014)


Good post. You hit the nail on the head...

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 00:01 4

14. Napalm_3nema (Posts: 1137; Member since: 14 Jun 2013)


The difference in your argument is the distinction between the agreement between Google and OEMs, and Google and customers.

OEMs have to abide by Google's guidelines to use Android AND Play, or they can use Android without Play services. That's fine, and I'm sure it is beneficial to the OEM to have Play services installed. That covers the manufacturers and Google, but there is a fly in that ointment.

If I buy an Android phone for cash, I own it. My purchase does not constitute an agreement with Google, because I am not their customer, nor do I owe them anything. We (the denizens of this site, for the most part), can then root and strip everything Google from Android. However, the average person cannot do that because Google wants to make sure that stripping them out of the equation is hard or impossible.

Before you say "Apple or Blackberry force you into using their choices," stop and think about that. When you buy their products, you are given explicit consent as the customer, their customer, a major difference between the Google - Buyer relationship.

Finally, this isn't just Google's problem, but they are a victim of their success. If WP should ever become a viable alternative (10%+ marketshare), someone who buys a non-MSFT WP device could accuse the same thing because of how locked in to MSFT services WP devices are. You only get to dictate terms when you are part of the covenant, as either buyer or seller.

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 00:55 7

18. VZWuser76 (Posts: 1579; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)


The only problems I have with your argument is first, when you buy their phone, you're buying it as is. The receipt is your contract with them, just as if you were to root it, you void the warranty. The ones suing seem to believe that if they win the device prices will go down. So let's say Google let's the OEMS strip google services from the devices. Now Google has no revenue stream off of those phones. That would mean Google would have to move to a paid licensing system, or drop android altogether. If they licensed it, the OEM's costs now go up, meaning a higher final price for the consumer.

This is really no different than if someone bought a Ford vehicle and bitched that they wanted Dodge's UConnect system instead of Ford's onboard media center.

I'm not sure I follow about Apple and Blackberry. Are you saying that by purchasing their device, you are agreeing to use their services? If so, that's the same with GOOGLE'S version of android. And by purchasing a device that runs Google's services, you've made the same agreement. If you don't want to have a device that runs Google, there are BB, iOS, WP, and various forked versions of android.

Yes they are currently the market leader, and I assume you are thinking this is analagous to what happened with MS's lawsuit over IE. But the difference between 1st and 2nd place in that case was far greater than in this case.

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 00:33 1

16. 0xFFFF (Posts: 3319; Member since: 16 Apr 2014)


VZWuser76 -- "They have the ability within Google's version of android to replace every Google service with a competing one and set it as default."

This isn't true. One example is how you can't change the backup option to not backup to Google. It's either on or off and Android updates will sometimes turn this option back on, even if the consumer had it off. So Google can steal your data, of course.

Overall, the way Google manages Android phones with Google services on them is terribly biased in favor of them and against the consumer. If I could easily delete all the Google spyware off an Android phone, then I would be much happier with Google as a company. But this is basically a very difficult task, even with root. And without root, it is impossible and basically you are just screwed.

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 01:10 6

20. VZWuser76 (Posts: 1579; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)


So what would you have Google do then? Offer this for free to everyone and have no way to recover their costs? I'd imagine if this would go the plaintiff's way, Google would switch to a paid license system, close it up and make it proprietary like Microsoft has done with WP.

Either way, everyone makes it sound like they have no options but to buy an android phone. If you don't want Google on your phone, get an iPhone, a Windows phone, a Blackberry, or get a forked android phone with a Nokia X or an Amazon Fire phone.

This is no different than wanting Dodge's UConnect system on Ford vehicle or even wanting Dish's Hopper but having service from DirecTV. Can I go into McDonalds and order a Whopper? No, so why is this different?

I never said you could completely remove Google from their handsets without root, I simply said you can replace their services with others, and in most cases set them as default. And when you purchase a phone that comes with Google's version of android on it, why the hell would you be surprised that it has Google's services on it?

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 01:17 1

21. Napalm_3nema (Posts: 1137; Member since: 14 Jun 2013)


To address your previous reply and this one, the difference is, when you buy a Ford, you are consenting, tacitly, to use Ford systems. Excepting the Nexus line, when you buy an Android phone, you are buying a Samsung, LG, etc., not a Google phone. Once Samsung and the other OEMs have fulfilled their contract with Google, the agreement does not also carry over to the customer.

As for replacement, you can use other services, but Google's will still run in the background. You cannot remove them. This is the Windows/Internet Explorer thing, all over again.

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 01:34 6

23. VZWuser76 (Posts: 1579; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)


It seems what you are saying is that when buying a Dodge car your are agreeing to use UConnect, but when buying a Galaxy S5, you're not agreeing to use Google? When you buy one of these phones you are buying a phone with GOOGLE'S VERSION of android on it. The salesmen tell you during the sales process that you'll need a Google account to activate the phone. Hell, most people consider forked versions of Android as not true Android because they don't have Google services on them. For better or worse, Android is perceived as an OS that runs Google's services.

What I would like to know is what you think Google should do in this matter. You keep explaining why they're in the wrong, but haven't said how they should resolve the issue. Should they follow MS and Apple's examples and run a closed OS on a paid license setup?

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 02:05

25. androiphone20 (Posts: 1472; Member since: 10 Jul 2013)


In part, this can bear some close resemblance to the YouTube/Google+ integration type issue that tries to force people to do more Google. It leans more to the Microsoft/Internet Explorer case that tried to stifle competition by using their software arm against Netscape.

You want a solution? How about unbundling Google Now? the default search engine, and allowing a prompt for the user like "Do you want to make DuckDuckGo your default search engine?" Hard to get down your throat? well, I get because Google already dug too deep by implementing tighter integrations that make it difficult for others to compete. We can 't live in a world where one company leads the charge in every little thing

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 02:38 7

26. VZWuser76 (Posts: 1579; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)


But, as I said, there goes their revenue stream if you take that away. So either they close off the OS and charge to license it, or shutter android.

But just like no one's forcing people to buy phones with Google's version of android, no one's forcing the OEMS to use Google's version of android. They could do as Amazon and Nokia have done and fork their own version of android.

What you people apparently want is the benefits of the Playstore, but not having Google on their phone. Well fine, let them separate the Playstore out of the agreement. Of course there goes any free apps, because of the revenue loss they'll have to recoup their costs somehow. Google currently is waiving charging for their work and taking revenue from advertising. What you're asking us for them to provide their benefits while at the same time losing their revenue stream. Again, would you work for no compensation? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 17:00

59. 8logic (Posts: 131; Member since: 05 Mar 2012)


But when you buy a Samsung and LG, you consent to using Android by Google because samsung and LG has agreement with Google to use their set of apps.

If you buy a Ford, you are buying the agreement Ford has with their suppliers.

If you buy a pc from any manufacturer, chances are, Explorer is install

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 14:50 1

56. tedkord (Posts: 4944; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)


So you turn it off and install a third party backup app. Where within iOS do you have an option to backup your phone without iTunes? Where in WP? (Though in not sure about WP)

posted on 13 Jul 2014, 01:01 1

77. JunkCreek (Posts: 404; Member since: 13 Jul 2012)


have u tried android with no google service? it had a kind of cwm installed on recovery mode. u can back up all datas in ur phone to restore later as long as u had enough storage on ur sdcard.

it had no google play store, no gmail, no hangout, no maps, no youtube, no google at all. even of you install google service on your own, it can hardly just install and run.

for example, i bought chinese tablet with no google in it. after i manually install google play, it said, i need google service, go to the play and install google service with no luck, so i cant use youtube and some online games that needs google service installed.

so, u really had to choose: 1. agree to google disclaimer, got g bloatware but with some benefit and some "inconvenient" or 2. no g bloated ware, but with some imconvenient i mentioned above.

so, if u dont like g service, choose other manufacture/vendor that dont use g service, like amazon and nokia. if u want g service along, it had agreement with it.

no services is free.

posted on 13 Jul 2014, 07:37

81. WahyuWisnu (Posts: 1001; Member since: 29 May 2014)


No services is free!!!!
RIGHT!!!
I really hope all the nay-sayer in here, to understand this. Google is not charity organization.

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 02:48 5

27. WahyuWisnu (Posts: 1001; Member since: 29 May 2014)


GOOD POST!!

I guess microsoft really want to screw google very badly that it find a way to brain wash people by spreading this kind of FUD. I see the scrogle campaign, and I know microsoft, and that's my sole reason that I won't buy any WP phone.

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 04:17 2

30. nasznjoka (Posts: 345; Member since: 05 Oct 2012)


me neither! They're desperate! Those google services they claim are what? Can I use my gmail account on a nokia x? can search by google on their WP crup? The answer is no because they have the services in house why would they set the default ones to be of the competition? Only Apple does that because that is not their area but if they could they would. This is nonsense if you think google is stealing your data then every one else is doing the same esp THE DESPERATE MICROSOFT! But you'dn't know!

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 09:45 2

40. elitewolverine (Posts: 1731; Member since: 28 Oct 2013)


Yes you are right, however if you do not use Google Services, you are banned from saying ANDROID. Google owns the word Android.

So you can ASOP all you want, but as soon as you market the word Android on your device, which EVERY manufacture wants because of brand recognition you have to use Google.

This is the same thing MS was facing with their IE/MediaPlayer lawsuit days.

Only thing is, now since its google, people are bowing to them in almighty fashion.

Personally I don't care and think both the MS lawsuit of the 90's and now this are derp.

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 10:06 2

46. VZWuser76 (Posts: 1579; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)


The source code for Google is what's open source. Not the Android name, not Google's services, not the Playstore. As I said in other posts here, MS was accused of banning software like Netscape Navigator coming preloaded on PCs running Windows OS. Google hasn't done anything like that. That is the difference I see between the cases.

The rank and search issue is something else entirely. This suit deals with Google forcing OEMS to include Google search on their devices, and overcharging for their devices. I guarantee you if they didn't have their services on there, the phones would cost more than they currently do. If you want access to the Playstore, you have to take all Google's services in a bundle with it. But they aren't keeping the customer from changing it themselves, and AFAIK, they're not stopping OEMS from including other search engines on their devices.

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 21:45

69. WahyuWisnu (Posts: 1001; Member since: 29 May 2014)


VZWuser, you got it wrong. Google let nokia/microsoft use the name android, see post #68

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 14:32 1

53. Liveitup (Posts: 1343; Member since: 07 Jan 2014)


Yep the Android fanboys never see the irony in their comments. Google in the present is the MS of the 90's.

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 21:46

70. WahyuWisnu (Posts: 1001; Member since: 29 May 2014)


LOL.
MS in 2014 is MS in the 90's, Google still the same do no evil.
MS in 2013 is MS in the 90's, Google still the same do no evil.
MS in 2012 is MS in the 90's, Google still the same do no evil.
MS in 2011 is MS in the 90's, Google still the same do no evil.
MS in 2010 is MS in the 90's, Google still the same do no evil.
MS in 2009 is MS in the 90's, Google still the same do no evil.
MS in 2008 is MS in the 90's, Google still the same do no evil.
MS in 2007 is MS in the 90's, Google still the same do no evil.
MS in 2006 is MS in the 90's, Google still the same do no evil.
MS in 2005 is MS in the 90's, Google still the same do no evil.
MS in 2004 is MS in the 90's, Google still the same do no evil.
MS in 2003 is MS in the 90's, Google still the same do no evil.
MS in 2002 is MS in the 90's, Google still the same do no evil.
MS in 2001 is MS in the 90's, Google still the same do no evil.
MS in 2000 is MS in the 90's, Google still the same do no evil.

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 21:44

68. WahyuWisnu (Posts: 1001; Member since: 29 May 2014)


No, wrong!! The android name is NOT banned. Nokia/Microsoft SOLD the Nokia X in Indonesia as NOKIA ANDROID PHONE!!

Here is the link:
http://www.oke.com/id/nokia/186-nokia-x.html
look at the OS description... ANDROID NOKIA

and here:
http://www.globalteleshop.com/product.php?id_product=732
look at the OS.... Android 4.1.2

and here is AIRED TV ADS (on youtube)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq1Up9VLpcU
it's in indonesian language, but at around the end it say ANDROID.

posted on 14 Jul 2014, 07:17

88. elitewolverine (Posts: 1731; Member since: 28 Oct 2013)


Using 3rd party sources is moronic. You really don't know what the difference is between Oke.com and Nokia.

http://conversations.nokia.com/2014/02/24/nokia-x-family/

http://www.nokia.com/global/products/phone/nokia-x/

From above website, (Android is a trademark of Google Inc.)

OS:
Software platform & User Interface
Operating system: Nokia X software platform
Software release: Nokia X software platform 1.0
Software updates: Firmware Over-the-Air (FOTA)

What is that Nokia is not marketing it as Android OS? Oh i wonder why? because they cant

posted on 14 Jul 2014, 07:33

89. WahyuWisnu (Posts: 1001; Member since: 29 May 2014)


OKE.com is one of the largest nokia distributor in Indonesia.

Furthermore, nokia Indonesia PUT AN ADS ON TV (not oke.com, but nokia) saying it's ANDROID. they have several ads, and one of them is "want android, you can get nokia x". Google didn't sue nokia for that's ads.

I know you want to discredit google very badly, and I could say that you were blind. Google might own the trademark of android, but it did not sue nokia for saying nokia x is android.

posted on 14 Jul 2014, 08:53

91. elitewolverine (Posts: 1731; Member since: 28 Oct 2013)


Again you are failing to understand. Even links to Nokia, even links to not calling it Android OS, but instead Nokia X software platform. You still do not get it.

Is OKE.com owned by nokia?

Did Nokia Indonesia, say, Android OS or the ability to run Android Apps?

There is a HUGE difference.

Links to the ads where Nokia Indonesia has stated Android OS and not android apps.

posted on 14 Jul 2014, 09:59

92. WahyuWisnu (Posts: 1001; Member since: 29 May 2014)


elitewolverine, I'm getting tired to answer your question.

In Indonesia, Nokia sold the Nokia X and advertise it as ANDROID PHONE. PERIOD!!! Maybe in nokia.com it said Nokia X software platform. BUT NOKIA PUT ADVERTISEMENT IN TV & PRINTED MAGAZINE & BILLBOARD SAYING Nokia X is android. PERIOD!!! They don't say Nokia X software platform, as Nokia X software platform won't bring any sales, because Nokia reputation has been tarnished by the WP product (lumia). but Nokia Android will bring sales. That's why nokia put ads in Indonesia as Android OS 4.2.2 Jely bean.

Nokia has 4 distributor in Indonesia. OKE, GlobalTeleshop, SentraPonsel & Eraphone. All Nokia phone only sold THROUGH this distributor.

I already give the youtube link above. Search my post above. I know I dissapoint you because I can't post any picture of the ads in newspaper and billboard. But you can search the net if you want.

The 2 link I gave you (global & oke) is already enough. all material in globalteleshop & oke (the NOKIA CERTIFIED DISTRIBUTOR) is from nokia. The brosure, the spec in globalteleshop & oke were directly copied from nokia indonesia.

I give you one more link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSdL_c-oRzE
THE LAUNCHING of Nokia X in Indonesia
In the video it say (1:06)
"William Hamilton Whyte, the president director of nokia indonesia said nokia x is the best combination of Nokia, Micosoft, and android"

posted on 13 Jul 2014, 01:55

78. JunkCreek (Posts: 404; Member since: 13 Jul 2012)


the funny part in that ms ie lawsuit was: how people download any other web browser without ie installed first? in 2000, there are only 3 browsers: netscape, ie and opera. without those guys, there are no chance to download anything. wake up.

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 12:43 1

51. marbovo (Posts: 655; Member since: 16 May 2013)


This make me remember when Microsoft got sued, because internet explorer comes preinstalled on windows, the user could change their browser when they wanted, but the fact is that most of users don't care.. and thats good for who does that(MS and Google)

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 00:01 1

13. fzacek (Posts: 1894; Member since: 26 Jan 2014)


How exactly did Google break the law?

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 07:24 1

37. GeorgeDao123 (Posts: 62; Member since: 20 Aug 2013)


The people sueing Google are hired by Microsoft or Apple. Their phones should be either iPhones without iTunes and App Store, or Lumias without One Drive.

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 09:47 1

41. elitewolverine (Posts: 1731; Member since: 28 Oct 2013)


Difference that you are failing to see, is that Apple doesn't license their OS. When you buy an apple device it was made and produced by apple with no OS licensing.

On the other hand you have HTC who does not have an OS, licensing the Android name, and as a result to use the FREE OS, they have to pay google and then put google on it. Which I see is fine. Others may not see it that way.

And the reason why they are complaining, is not because you are forced to use google to start. Is that google has been caught red handed getting paid to rank and file their search results.

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 15:56 1

58. ojdidit84 (Posts: 378; Member since: 16 Jul 2011)


I really don't get what all the fuss is about Google Services when you can change the default for each service to a 3rd party and never have to use the default again. The same can't at all be said for WP or iOS devices so where are the anti-trust suits coming up against Apple & Microsoft? Whether Android is licensed to different OEM's is irrelevant since change the default apps works the same for every single device.

posted on 11 Jul 2014, 22:49 7

3. StraightEdgeNexus (Posts: 3421; Member since: 14 Feb 2014)


Why the F would anyone want to change Google's default search position. Other search engines are meh.

posted on 11 Jul 2014, 22:59 5

6. icyrock1 (Posts: 303; Member since: 25 Mar 2013)


DuckDuckGo/IxQuick - Privacy
Bing - Porn

posted on 11 Jul 2014, 23:08 1

7. StraightEdgeNexus (Posts: 3421; Member since: 14 Feb 2014)


True that
bing=porn
*cough school girl cough*

posted on 11 Jul 2014, 23:13 2

8. express77 (unregistered)


My bing usage has increased due to that.

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 12:47 1

52. marbovo (Posts: 655; Member since: 16 May 2013)


is that true?

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 09:49

42. elitewolverine (Posts: 1731; Member since: 28 Oct 2013)


Funny, I have put over 50 people through the bing it on and not one person has choosen google. Not only that, the results are all the same. I have yet to find an average user who is doing search's not find a result from bing. Of course I am in the US and do not know how the result of bing in other countries do.

As well, there has been plenty of times, my maps on note 3 will refuse to find a location giving me out of state options instead, and not just on my note 3, but on 5 others as well. Where here drive found it.

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 14:34 1

54. Liveitup (Posts: 1343; Member since: 07 Jan 2014)


Because its called choice idiot. Meh or not people have the right to choose.

posted on 11 Jul 2014, 22:59 6

5. blingblingthing (Posts: 443; Member since: 23 Oct 2012)


If I do a search and find what I want BUT realize the search wasn't in Google....... I navigate to Google and search again.

I wouldn't use any one search engine but Google.

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 00:56 6

19. ihavenoname (Posts: 1442; Member since: 18 Aug 2013)


Bing is for M$ fanboys, malware hunters and hipsters. And for searching porn.

posted on 11 Jul 2014, 23:56 2

10. darkkjedii (Posts: 11950; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)


If they're guilty, nail em to the wall.

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 00:00 2

12. fzacek (Posts: 1894; Member since: 26 Jan 2014)


They aren't guilty of anything...

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 00:09 2

15. Napalm_3nema (Posts: 1137; Member since: 14 Jun 2013)


You must not have been very old in the 90s, when Microsoft ruled the tech world. Google's situation is similar, and the fallout from that cost MSFT hundreds of millions, and maybe even billions, in addition to a truckload of ill will and bad press.

Google isn't selling or giving you Android; Samsung, LG, Moto, etc. have agreements with Google, but we do not. They can include a EULA until the cows come home, but they can't force you to use anything.

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 00:36 2

17. 0xFFFF (Posts: 3319; Member since: 16 Apr 2014)


Google basically forces you to use their web services all the time. Try going to many websites and you will find the site doesn't work if you disallow a variety of Google domains -- gstatic.com, google.com, googletagmanager.com, etc. and a variety of disguised Google domains. Basically if the consumer wants to use some popular site and have it work, they have no choice.

As a number of security experts have observed, Google is not an advertising company. Rather, Google is a surveillance company. In this intelligence/surveillance context, everything they do makes complete sense.

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 04:24

31. nasznjoka (Posts: 345; Member since: 05 Oct 2012)


And microsoft is..... It's too bad that whatever they do, they do it great .. not desperate moves of the greedy microsoft

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 01:20 2

22. VZWuser76 (Posts: 1579; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)


As I said above, when that suit happened against MS, how many other options did you have? Apple and Linux, and combined did they even have 10% market share back then? Yes android is currently the leader, but their share difference is more like 50/40/10 instead of 90/10, and it's not like you don't have other options. There's iPhone, WP, BB, Amazon's Fire phone, the Nokia X line, and other forked versions of android with no trace of Google on them.

What I want to know is, if you don't want Google on your devices, who's forcing you to use it over the iPhone or Windows Phone?

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 01:42 2

24. VZWuser76 (Posts: 1579; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)


And IIRC, MS was forbidding competing programs like Netscape Navigator from being preloaded on machines running Windows. AFAIK, Google hasn't done anything like that.

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 02:57

28. WahyuWisnu (Posts: 1001; Member since: 29 May 2014)


I was wondering if microsoft ALLOWING WP manufacture to change the default search engine. I believe the WP search engine were hard coded to using bing even when you change the search engine.

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 03:59 1

29. VZWuser76 (Posts: 1579; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)


What I was referring to was the 1990s suit filed against MS on the Windows OS for desktop.

What some people are saying is that because android has the most market share, that they shouldn't require their services come preloaded on android devices other than Nexus or GPE devices. But they don't have that much of a market share lead over Apple. And Apple had the lion share of the mobile market for a number of years, but nothing like this was ever brought against them, so how is that different?

I'm not saying that Google couldn't make the Playstore available without requiring their other services come preloaded, but if they do and lose their advertising revenue, that'll mean licensing android for a fee, eliminating free apps in the Playstore, or both. Otherwise what reason would they have for developing Android and the Playstore? MS licenses their OS for a fee to their hardware partners. Apple doesn't have any partners, so they recover their costs through sale of their devices.

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 08:23 1

39. Napalm_3nema (Posts: 1137; Member since: 14 Jun 2013)


Actually, Apple never had even half of the market. BB was on the way down as Apple crept upward, and Apple passed them, with Android blowing past not long afterward.

The point is, Apple has never held that large a share of mobile phones, but Google has never held ANY meaningful share, yet still forces you to deal with their services. Nexus phones make up less than 1% of all phones in the wild. The fallacy is that Google's Android has meaningful share.

TouchWiz makes up a meaningful share, as does Sense, and LG's Optimus. Google makes the OS, but once it is released into the wild, they have no control over it. That is the nature of Open Source. You are giving it away.

Unless I buy a Nexus, I am buying from an OEM, and my only compact is with that manufacturer. Google wants to have their cake, and eat it too, and that is where they run afoul of the law.

I don't care about how they make money, nor should any other customer. If they wanted guaranteed income off Android, they should have sold the software, and hoped people used their services voluntarily, like they do on the iPhone so they could data mine and sell your data for advertising.

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 09:50 2

43. VZWuser76 (Posts: 1579; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)


I guess I'm a bit shocked. You said you understood what I was talking about in my first post, yet here we are after much of my time has been wasted. So I'll say it again for the cheap seats.

AOSP Android is open source.
Google's Android is not.
Google makes agreements with OEMs to create devices with Google's Android on them and sell them.
When a person buys one of these devices, they do so knowing that Google is on the device, which is why they have access to the Playstore.
If a person doesn't want Google on their phone, no one is forcing them to buy a F-ing phone with Google's Android on it, buy an iPhone, a BB, or a WP.

And just like when you buy an iPhone you're getting iOS with it, when you buy a Samsung phone, you're getting Google's Android with Samsung's Touchwiz overlay. When you buy an HTC phone you're buying Google's Android with HTC's Sense overlay. Etc. Etc. Any review done on these phones and most any specs mention either that it's Google's Android onboard or mention Google's services.

You make it sound like people are being double crossed and believe that when they're buying a Samsung phone, that they're getting it with the Touchwiz OS, which is Samsung's take on AOSP Android, when in fact they're getting Samsung's take on Google's Android. If someone actually believed that, they're too stupid to own a smartphone. I mean FFS, that is what your actual argument has been this whole time? You're basically defending a person's right to be a moron. I would think if they prepared for a purchase like this, they'd either research it online with reviews and specs, or in person with a salesman. Either way, they would know that having Google on of these devices is a prerequisite.

This BS about a contract would only work if Samsung (or whoever) made a phone for you, and you specifically requested a non Google OS, and the put Google's version on their anyway without your knowledge. That isn't the case here. The software on the device can be known before purchase with the smallest bit of research, and if someone doesn't find that out ahead of time, that's on them. And technically this isn't a contract between you and the OEM, it's a sale. Separately from that they offer a warranty period. And you have a contract with your wireless provider. But when you purchase your phone, you do not sign a legally binding contract with any OEM, you're buying their product, and you're buying it as-is.

I'm done arguing with you on this. I don't know if you're being intentionally thick about this or not, but you're making it out to be more than it is. Just because the OEMS are doing things the way you want, it isn't Google's fault. These companies entered into the agreement willingly, and turn around and offer you the device, take it or leave it.

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 09:55

44. elitewolverine (Posts: 1731; Member since: 28 Oct 2013)


Most people here do not under stand the suit that MS had brought against them in the 90's. And how it directly relates to what google is doing now.

They have had free phones with 2yr contracts for 8 yrs now and a playstore that feeds them what they want for free. As long as consumer doesn't have to pay, and there is little in terms of competition, you get people that don't care.

I personally don't care.

But google makes money off Android, the name Android costs 15$ or so bucks, ASOP is free. Android is not.

The thing is that Android is the name of the game, and you would be derp and hung by the community if you try anything else....like say MS or Amazon.

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 10:18 2

50. VZWuser76 (Posts: 1579; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)


Stop me if I'm wrong, but wasn't MS accused of blocking competing software from being preloaded on PCs with their Windows OS? As I see it, Google isn't blocking any software from being preloaded on an OEM's device are they?

As far as the name, it doesn't matter if they can legally call it android or not. What did every reviewer call the OS on the Nokia X? Nokia's version of Android, Nokia is running a forked version of Android, etc. People realize that a version of android is on the device, even if Nokia can't legally use that term.

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 18:13

62. avalon2105 (Posts: 92; Member since: 12 Jul 2014)


But blocking other options from being pre-loaded is exactly what Google is doing. Have you ever seen an Android phone with Firefox browser pre-installed and Google Chrome disabled somewhere deep inside settings>apps menu?

posted on 12 Jul 2014, 20:01 3

65. VZWuser76 (Posts: 1579; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)


My Droid Incredible (1&2), my Rezound, and my Galaxy S3's default browser is simply called "Internet". It's not Chrome for sure, not much is in the same place between the two. There was an HTC slider phone and IIRC an LG phone awhile back that came with Bing preloaded on them. But why worry about which browser is on there by default? Another app can be set as default very easily, and Chrome can be uninstalled completely if you want. Are you arguing so people won't have to do that? How lazy are these people? What's the point of apps if the customer can't be bothered to install them?

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories