|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 25 2012 @ 07:34 AM EDT |
I wouldn't respond like that. I'd respond like this:
There's more to economic viability than devouring your customers, eating their
friends, and then starving because you have no-one to sell to.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Hear! Hear! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 26 2012 @ 09:31 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 25 2012 @ 05:01 PM EDT |
> Google doesn't make a dime licensing Android.
True, but that's not because it's FOSS, and it's not because Google
operates Android in an "uneconomically viable way".
I don't believe that Google's founders woke up one morning and asked
themselves what great good they could do with their piles of cash. Android
was created so that device makers would have a cheap way of delivering
target markets to Google's advertisers. Some of that is done by
embedding Google's, and Google's partner's, apps in the device build.
Which does not meet with approval from all here:
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/article.php%3fstory=2012070213044413#c989562
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 25 2012 @ 07:31 PM EDT |
| n/t [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 26 2012 @ 01:07 PM EDT |
From a business perspective, Android was a completely
necessary development that Google would have put _much more_
cost into. Google's business is advertising. That business
is worth about 40 B yearly. Google's vulnerability is to
everyone in the pipeline between your eyeballs and their
servers. They've put a lot of resources into addressing
this.
(1) Browser: Chrome
(2) OS: Chromium / Android: Stock (mobile)/ Google TV(TV) /
Nexus Q (Music/TV/gaming?)
(2a) Widely used applications: Google Apps / Gmail / Google
+ / Database / TV: Youtube / Games: Native Client)
(3) Internet connection: Google Fiber
(4) DNS: Notice that Google runs its own DNS?
Overall, Google has significantly advanced projects in every
avenue I can think of for software-based disintermediation.
The main point is that, compared to a 40B budget, software
development is not that expensive - so giving away free or
nearly free XYZ is sensible - particularly since it helps
their search business by forcing their competition to burn
cash on development not related to search. (being
significantly better than free isn't easy)
Google Fiber seems to be a similar, more hardware-based
response - and is moving somewhat slower. It probably can't
be free - but artificial scarcity for network access hurts
Google's other businesses - so - if Google can build out a
network and charge enough to pay maintenance - I suspect
they will.) Based on their Kansas city pricing - their
fiber network will be extremely viable for people who watch
cable TV. (120 USD monthly for a better service - quite
comparable to Comcast...)
I'm not saying that Google isn't a 'good' company. They
really do seem to 'do no evil' - and even do good sometimes.
OTOH, it is probably realistic to believe that there's a
real business purpose behind Android. From observation,
there's usually a viable business purpose behind Google's
major initiatives.
However, bear in mind that building something with a viable
business model in mind is often more productive than
producing something for free. (For instance, you can hire
people to do ongoing support - FOSS projects seem to do
really well at building widely used applications, but have
trouble continually coming up with device drivers...)
--Erwin[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
