Google claps down on Android Devs, starting today!!

Post Reply New Topic

Not really, because no one forces you to stick with a certain network.
You can take your phones to other networks, but they have the right to restrict software and phones as well.

It is up to the phone maker and/or OS maker to get their devices and software approved by that carrier.
When Apple was negotiating to get the deal for the iPhone, they went to Verizon first.
Verizon told Apple to give them a say in iOS development, a say in what apps could be released on iOS, and hardware development of the iPhone.
Steve Jobs told Verizon off and went to newly formed AT&T (SBC has just bought AT&T).
AT&T wanted to get back into the cellular game and gave Apple the deal they wanted.
The iPhone was so successful, it gave the other phone makers the leverage to gain freedom from the carriers as well.
Though Android is still not fully free of carriers software demands.

Comcast doesn't provide cell phone service as of yet, they only provide VOIP.
The Cable/ISP market is very anti competitive due to the big 5 controlling ~90% of the market.

The 5 main carriers in the U.S. are:
AT&T (they own numerous regional carriers)
Verizon (they own numerous regional carriers)
Sprint (not available in lesser markets, they own numerous regional carriers)
T-Mobile/Metro PCS (T-mobile hasn't phased out MPCS yet, though they aren't available in lesser markets).
(regionals are here)



What Microsoft did isn't comparable to cell networks.
Microsoft actively leveraged their OS monopoly to get the browser monopoly by actively blocking all other browsers.
They also teamed up with Intel to make Windows exclusive to Intel chips, knocking the other x86 chip makers out of the market.

The U.S. Antri Trust suit cleared most of it up, though the Intel suit isn't done yet.

I don't have the link on hand, though the no fork clause was supposedly born out of the fall out with Amazon and the Fire OS.
I've read plenty about it over the past 3 years.

There is plenty of articles about Google actively trying to reign in the Android OEMs to regain control of the OS.

The reason why Android OEMs want to ditch Android, is out of control and profits.
The Android OEMs struggle just to breakeven for the most part and they aren't able to differentiate themselves from each other due to Google's strict Android policies.
The only Android OEM that makes real profit is Samsung and Samsung makes nearly all the Android hardware profits.

Samsung will be the first Android OEM to completely ditch Android and go to their own OS and ecosystem.
Samsung has been actively been copying all of Androids features and popular apps for their Tizen OS, if the reports are true.
Samsung sees how much Apple makes from hardware and software on iOS and wants to replicate it.
Oh I should note the majority of the Android devices are running on Samsung hardware.

The carriers also want to kill Android because they want their software services to be core the OS instead of Google services.
The carriers literally make more money selling Blackberries and Windows phones, because those companies pay them more to support those phones.
Google doesn't even pay the carriers to support their devices and very little money to support Android.
It is up to the Android OEMs to get carrier support even if it means they have to pay out of pocket for it.

The carriers also make the highest profit margin selling iOS devices, which is why they are willing to go all out to support Apple.

At least half the people in the world think Apple is the most evilest company ever, while the other half like Apple.

I personally prefer Apple's hardware and software ecosystem over the rest due to the optimization and stability
I literally have no major issue using my Apple products, compared to all the Window devices I've gone through over my life.


So in the near future the mobile market will look something like this:

iOS
Windows
BB X (the new Blackberry OS)
Tizen from Samsung
New mobile OS from the major carriers with support from the fledgling Android OEMs
Android but only on a few OEMs
New OS from someone else.

There's always Cyanogenmod, FirefoxOS, and a few other alternatives. I've said this time and again, and I will repeat, I would really like to see a Debian relase a PhoneOS that supports many differant handsets instead of the big players, or on the hardware end, a completely open handset that where the the supported network protocol is packed into a removable chip not unlike a MicroSD card.

Yet Apple does similar with their hardware and software, it wouldn't even be an anti-trust if a smaller company did something similar, if fact they do it all the time.

Anti-trust is a completely backwards approach. If these companies weren't given so much protection against risk in the first place, there wouldn't need these (highly selective) anti-trust cases to try an claw back. The competition would be there, becuase these companies wouldn't be able litigate against each other, on questionable grounds. The would have to compete, rather than avoiding competing.

Firefox OS is pretty awesome considering how much source it shares with the Desktop browser. I bet it's the only option for years to come that really lets devs avoid spending half their salary on testbed hardware. Tizen is mostly just Java & QT, sharing a Linux core with MeeGo & Sailfish which include Android interoperability and Windows Phone has had QT capabilities at least on the Lumia line for its' whole existence as a result of the Nokia lease deal.

Liking my Android phone means liking ONE device with Android. I would buy a OnePlus if I could really afford it but the Moto G is just too well designed for me to feel like filling a pocket with a $600 shiny touchscreen thingy.

I ALMOST got a Moto G... until I was informed that it lacked a MicroSD slot. I like being able to keep a sizable library of music on my phone in decent quality, so being able to use MicroSD is a must for me.

Playback quality is much more important to me than storage volume. I'm strongly considering a Nokia N1 tablet for its' hardware DAC but at least I've never noticed any hiss, buzz or GSM interference on the Moto. For the bits of my collection I really want to sound clear I use a dedicated PMP from Cowon. I like the G because it's been amazingly tough and since I bought it the grippy battery cover it looks almost brand new.

There is nothing illegal about a company making their own hardware to run their own software exclusively.
It's called bundling in most cases.

Microsoft chose to be a software only company and Bill Gates was hell bent on controlling the PC industry by any means necessary.
Microsoft teamed up with Intel to ensure PC vendors had to buy exclusively from them and the parts they dictated (this came to end in the late 90s).

Microsoft and Intel then told retailers, if they stocked any competing products they would not be allowed to sell Intel and Microsoft products.
They also gave billions to select retailers in order to drive out retailers who refused to stock their products exclusively.
They also gave huge rebates as well massively undercutting the competition as well.

Microsoft then having 90%+ of the OS market blocked any software that competed with Microsoft's own software catalog.
This meant all products that competed with Microsoft Office were blocked from operating on Windows via Windows patching and/or withholding certain aspects of the codes and APIs to make those programs run horrible on Windows so consumers wouldn't like them.

If you made your software for competing OSs, you ran the risk of Microsoft crippling your software via a Windows update (They did this a lot). They also punished retailers for supporting software on competing OSes, sometimes going as far as forcing retailers not stock the software.

Microsoft then went out of it's way to block all web browsers from working on Windows making IE the only browser that would function correctly. They made sure your websites and web apps were incompatible with all other browsers forcing you to code two different versions. If Microsoft caught you making a second version to run on other browsers, there was a good chance Microsoft would cripple your site.

If a business of any real size decided to use non Windows PCs along side their Windows PCs, there was a good chance Microsoft and Intel would make sure the PC vendors wouldn't sell to you to punish you.
Or they literally brick your PCs with a "virus" or an update, forcing you to go all Windows and buying new PCs.

Microsoft and Intel regularly issued updates to brick PCs in order to force people and businesses to buy new PCs in order keep sales growing.

The list goes on and on...

Apple never did any of this.
If you wanted Apple's software and OS, you had to buy their hardware.
They didn't force you to use any of their products or lock you into any of them.
You are free to come and go at your own will with no backlash from Apple.


What Microsoft and Intel did was illegal in the 90s and there is no way to spin it positively...

it's still a dick move, and hasn't been done in any serious fashion by any other computer manufacturer since the 90s(except Apple that is!)IBM would like a word with you.uh, you fail to mention how fractious the pc market was in the 80s-mid90s, it was a mishmash of propriety hardware and components that didn't work with the equipment of other manufacturerssource?where's your source?this hasn't been a problem since windows 98/xpsource?
uh yes they did http://gizmodo.com/303171/apple-says-un ... es-it-mean
http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-pulls-ap ... omplaints/

except for when you want to use your hardware that you bought for your own ends(since apple hardware is ibm-compatible) because of DRM which is everywhere in apple products.

You obviously haven't used a Mac in along while.

You can install any OS you want on a Mac using an Intel Processor, even Linux and Steam OS.
You can even use terminal to modify programs and OS X by typing in lines of code.
I have Windows 8.1 installed on my Mac right now.

There is no DRM on Macs that is any worse than what Microsoft, Valve, Oracle and others do for their OSs.
iTunes DRM is left up to each studio to implement if they do so wish.


Though with your iPhones, iPads, and iPods cannot run another OS unless you code said OS to run the hardware.
You can jail break any Phone, Tablet, PMP to run unapproved programs and OSs.

You can also run OS X on any computer using an X86 64-bit processor via hacking the OS X kernel.
Though you do lose many OS features due to the PC missing certain Apple hardware.
There is a whole website dedicated to it that gives you the tools to do it.

Now do yourself a favor and go read the Anti trust case the U.S. government and many states brought against Microsoft.
The U.S. government is also investigating Intel for anti trust issues.
Also read the EU's on going anti trust suit against Microsoft and Intel.

Apple is also facing anti trust issues as well such as:
Apple is appealing the judgement that stated Apple was guilt for the rise in eBook prices.
Apple is facing an anti trust suit over iTunes and artificially keeping digital movies and music prices too low
Apple is facing an anti trust suit for not supporting all models of iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch in new versions of iOS.
Apple is lastly facing an issue in the EU over it's charging ports on it's devices.

The EU is working in tangent with the U.S. on all the cases listed above.

Lastly IBM doesn't make PCs anymore, they sold their PC line to Lenovo over 5 years ago because they were a niche PC market share since the mid 90s

IBM compatible hasn't been a thing since the late 80s...

Anti-trust is BS. It is completely the wrong approach to competition.

Neither Apple or Microsoft are saints, neither are Google. However there is massive flaw in singling these companies out.

You can't have an approach to competition that is retrospective, and selective as anti-trust. It need to work for all companies big and small. Patent reform, not having questionable legal statuses for businesses, etc.