Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 24th Sep 2010 23:20 UTC
Google A few days ago I dove into the lawsuit filed by Skyhook against Google, and came to the conclusion that Skyhook's case - while an entirely plausible sequence of events considering Google is a big company and hence prone to abuse - simply wasn't a very good one. Google's CEO Eric Schmidt has given a rather generic-looking statement on the matter, but however generic it may be, there's a hint in there.
Thread beginning with comment 442670
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Easy to complain
by Ikshaar on Sat 25th Sep 2010 12:56 UTC
Ikshaar
Member since:
2005-07-14

>> I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Google abusing its power

so because Google would not give away the control of their Market and their Google apps, it's an abuse ??

Android OS is the OS - but only the OS... not the whole company intellectual property.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Easy to complain
by Radio on Sat 25th Sep 2010 14:25 in reply to "Easy to complain"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

Let me rephrase this (even if Kroc did it already): having software vendors throwing a hissy fit if an opponent's app is also on the same device is a very bad tendency, and it is getting worse and worse because of the app store model (ab)use by concurrent software vendors. App stores should be independent. After net neutrality, will we have to fight for app store neutrality?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Easy to complain
by Ikshaar on Sat 25th Sep 2010 20:40 in reply to "RE: Easy to complain"
Ikshaar Member since:
2005-07-14

I did not see any statement that Google refused Skyhook's app to be in the Market. How their GPS would be hooked into the OS, I admit I have no clue... the problem might be more there, in the sense that skyhook wanted to replace a service of the OS.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Easy to complain
by Neolander on Sat 25th Sep 2010 21:52 in reply to "RE: Easy to complain"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Let me rephrase this (even if Kroc did it already): having software vendors throwing a hissy fit if an opponent's app is also on the same device is a very bad tendency, and it is getting worse and worse because of the app store model (ab)use by concurrent software vendors. App stores should be independent. After net neutrality, will we have to fight for app store neutrality?

Not sure about that. It's a right of the OS manufacturer to promote some specific apps on its platform, because they integrate well or follow their strategy best.

As long as installation and use of non-promoted apps is not obfuscated (is it possible on Android to create alternative application stores or take an app transferred through USB to the device and run it ?), this looks like a small issue to me.

Would you blame Ubuntu for including F-Spot as a default, as long as one can install Gimp ?

Edited 2010-09-25 21:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3