Google slapped with antitrust suit, accused of stagnating competition with Android MADA contracts

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 79
    maccherrymaccherry Posts: 924member

    It took them clowns this long to figure out what most of us knew already.

    Google gave away the bull**** for a reason. Hello! Anybody home!

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 62 of 79
    ericthehalfbeeericthehalfbee Posts: 4,499member
    zaim2 wrote: »
    Because that Acer device failed compatibility testing:

    What business does Google have performing compatibility testing on AOSP? Or Aliyun? There's no Google services installed nor access to Google Play.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 63 of 79
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,769member
    What business does Google have performing compatibility testing on AOSP? Or Aliyun? There's no Google services installed nor access to Google Play.

    You're right. The only thing getting in the way is that pesky little contract Acer signed as a member of the Open Handset Alliance using Google Android.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 64 of 79
    ericthehalfbeeericthehalfbee Posts: 4,499member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    You're right. The only thing getting in the way is that pesky little contract Acer signed as a member of the Open Handset Alliance using Google Android.
    Yeah, that anti-competitive agreement.

    Perhaps MS should make it so that any OEM that ships a PC with Windows 8 is prevented from making PC's that also ship with Win 7. This is the closest analogy available, and shows how stupid Googles agreement is. Google is essentially preventing companies from selling two lines of devices - one with Google Android and one with AOSP.

    Why should Google care if Acer sells Google devices that are 100% compliant (compatible) and ALSO makes phones for another company (like Aliyun)? Acer isn't putting the Android logo on their Aliyun devices, not is making a device for Sliyunin any way lowering the quality or compatibility if their Android branded devices.

    What's next, telling Foxconn they're not allowed to manufacture phones for Android forks if they also make phones for Google? This is essentially what Acer was doing - acting like a manufacturer. Google stepped out of bounds with Acer.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 65 of 79
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post









    Yes and no. If a manufacturer joins the OHA (which was created with the intent and purpose that there would exist a set of standards or rules) then yes, but any non-member manufacturer can use Android and do with it what they like.



    Amazon and Nokia are not part of the OHA and makes devices with forked versions of Android as their OS and have their own curated app store. There's a British company looking to get into the handset business that is going to use a forked version of Android, and there's a Chinese manufacturer that is using the most popular custom RIM as its OS. So it all depends on what route you want to take.

     

    So what happens if you are an OEM and make handsets under your own name but also contract to make handsets for others?

     

    If you are a member of the OHA you cannot build handsets for a company using a forked version of Android.

     

    This is what happened to Acer.

     

    It is anti-competitive.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 66 of 79
    nagrommenagromme Posts: 2,834member
    I would say Google did achieve their "monopoly" by having truly superior search. They are now propping up other ventures (and search to some extent) by means that do not promote competition.

    But I would think lack of feature differentiation among Android devices would make prices LOWER (because that's one of the few things they can compete with each other on) not higher.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 67 of 79
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    hill60 wrote: »
    So what happens if you are an OEM and make handsets under your own name but also contract to make handsets for others?

    If you are a member of the OHA you cannot build handsets for a company using a forked version of Android.

    This is what happened to Acer.

    It is anti-competitive.

    My understanding is that Acer was about to release a phone under their name but running a OS made by Alibaba which would violate the agreement they made when they joined the OHA.

    They claimed that the OS was different but it allegedly was discovered that it uses Android runtime, framework and tools.

    We don't know exactly what happened, Acer says no, and Google says yes. Obviously Google's say trumped Acer's say.

    Is Google unfair, or was Acer caught trying to pull a fast one?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 68 of 79
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,769member
    Yeah, that anti-competitive agreement..

    What specifically is anti-competitive about it.? Have you read the terms for yourself to identify what you believe is the "unfair" part or just making it up as you go? What does Microsoft's Windows contract require of manufacturers that license it? Do they also require certain Microsoft services be bundled with it?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 69 of 79
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,928member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Not like that at all. They don't have to use Android.

    And what would they use instead? Develop their own OSes and ecosystems?

    gatorguy wrote: »
    You're right. The only thing getting in the way is that pesky little contract Acer signed as a member of the Open Handset Alliance using Google Android.

    Didn't this Alliance also demand that phones will be upgradable, Android-wise, for 18 months? How'd that work out.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 70 of 79
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,769member
    jungmark wrote: »
    Didn't this Alliance also demand that phones will be upgradable, Android-wise, for 18 months? How'd that work out.

    LOL. . . I don't know whether it was a contract term but in any event not well at all.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 71 of 79
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    jungmark wrote: »
    And what would they use instead? Develop their own OSes and ecosystems?

    That option was and is always available, but I personally don't think that anyone else could build a successful OS and ecosystem.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 72 of 79
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,928member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    That option was and is always available, but I personally don't think that anyone else could build a successful OS and ecosystem.

    Of course it's available but that's not the point. PC makers could have made their own PC OS. The fact is Android is on majority of "smart phones" will 100s of millions in the install base. It isn't viable for A phone manu to create a new OS to sell in its own phones. Basically they have to use Android.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 73 of 79
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    jungmark wrote: »
    Of course it's available but that's not the point. PC makers could have made their own PC OS. The fact is Android is on majority of "smart phones" will 100s of millions in the install base. It isn't viable for A phone manu to create a new OS to sell in its own phones. Basically they have to use Android.

    Why use a OS that's a complete and utter failure? Is it not better to fail on your own merits than someone else's?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 74 of 79
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,928member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Why use a OS that's a complete and utter failure? Is it not better to fail on your own merits than someone else's?

    Laziness. That's why Android partners, except Sammy, are screwed.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 75 of 79
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    jungmark wrote: »
    Of course it's available but that's not the point. PC makers could have made their own PC OS. The fact is Android is on majority of "smart phones" will 100s of millions in the install base. It isn't viable for A phone manu to create a new OS to sell in its own phones. Basically they have to use Android.

    I'd beg to differ. I think they are run by myopic, short term thinkers. They don't see the benefit in through millions a quarter at a project that may never be needed or bear fruit but if the PC OEMs had done that they might not be in the position they are now. Google, a new company compared to almost all of them has a mobile and desktop OS available. They could have done the same had they chosen to. Say what you want about Google's ethics or lack thereof but at least they look past their next quarterly earnings.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 76 of 79
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,769member
    solipsismx wrote: »

    Not just Google either. The lawsuit wants Apple and Genentech buses blocked too as well as any other techs making use of the bus stops
    http://www.siliconvalley.com/news/ci_25679769/group-sues-san-francisco-stop-tech-company-shuttles

    Seems very short-sighted. Would they really prefer several thousand vehicles rather than a few hundred busses?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 77 of 79
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    My understanding is that Acer was about to release a phone under their name but running a OS made by Alibaba which would violate the agreement they made when they joined the OHA.

     

    The Aliyun name for Aliyun.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 78 of 79
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,769member
    Consider it from this perspective:
    • You are a manufacturer and want to enter the smart phone marketplace
    • You need an OS to run on the phone
    • The only viable choice of OSes is Android with a dominant market share
    • In order to use Android on your phones, Google the Android provider, requires you to offer other Google apps using Google services to the exclusion of competing apps and services

    This is called an illegal tie-in. There are lots of antitrust case precedents striking down attempted illegal tie-in
    The Federal judge assigned the case dismissed it yesterday, citing lack of evidence there was any harm.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 79 of 79
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Not just Google either. The lawsuit wants Apple and Genentech buses blocked too as well as any other techs making use of the bus stops
    http://www.siliconvalley.com/news/ci_25679769/group-sues-san-francisco-stop-tech-company-shuttles

    Seems very short-sighted. Would they really prefer several thousand vehicles rather than a few hundred busses?

    Those activists are all imbeciles. Bus stops are not private property, they are publicly funded and nothing prevents anyone from waiting at a stop to jump on any bus or vehicle they want. Their real issue is they don't want their housing values to change. Well guess what? More highly paid workers, plus a very limited amount of available housing gets you to where they are now.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.