|
|
|
| Authored by: tknarr on Thursday, July 18 2013 @ 07:49 PM EDT |
FairSearch is exploiting and encouraging some confusion between the Android
operating system, Google services and Google's proprietary app package. It's
likely that the actual truth is that you can use any search provider as the
default if you're making an Android phone, but if you want to get access to
Google's branding and Google's proprietary apps the package deal includes using
Google as the default search provider. And while users could care less about
Android, they want the Google apps and services which are only available
to handset makers as part of the package deal. You'll note that FairSearch
themselves say as much when they say that it's the "must-have apps" that users
want, not Android itself.
As far as the Acer/Alibaba deal, the issue
there wasn't just that they were making a non-Android phone. It was that they
were making a phone running their own non-Android OS but were planning on using
Google's proprietary apps and app store on it without having a license
for Google's software or trademarks. Google's position was that if they were
going to do that they could kiss any support from Google good-bye and Google
would be refusing to renew their license to use Google's proprietary apps and
trademarks even on their Android products. To me that seems eminently
reasonable. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jbb on Thursday, July 18 2013 @ 09:18 PM EDT |
I think you mean well but your post might be confusing to people who don't
follow your links. I was sure confused because your links seemed to contradict
your post. To help others avoid that confusion here is how
the article
continues:
Debunking Time
That’s not true. Not only is
it not true, it’s impossible. It’s impossible because Android code is released
to anyone to do anything that they want with. But if just being impossible isn’t
enough proof, how about proof of Android devices that have dropped Google as the
default search engine?
Since Android is Open Source, even if
Google search were hard-coded into Android (which makes no sense since it is an
app), manufacturers would still be free to modify that code to their hearts'
content. If you get a closed-source phone OS, then sure, a particular search
engine could be hard-coded into it in a way you can't change. Even worse,
having to use that search engine exclusively could be part of the licensing
terms. None of that can happen with Open Source.
As I've said above, it is
not possible to be anti-competitive by releasing Open Source code. I think
Microsoft took a page out of the playbook of political dirty
tricks:
Attack your opponent's greatest
strength.
Since one of the great benefits of Open Source code
is that it can't be anti-competitive, Microsoft launches attack after attack
claiming it is. That's why I classify this technique as a dirty trick.
Attacking your opponent's greatest strength almost invariably involves spreading
lies about it in order to raise confusion and thus tarnish the appearance of
that great strength. You can seldom attack your opponent's greatest strength
by telling the truth about it.
---
In a time of universal deceit --
telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
-- George Orwell
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
