Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

We can argue about what is fair forever. Some people at Sun (Oracle) can say it's unfair to take Java language they developed and offer it in Android without paying anything to them. And Steve Jobs can say it's unfair to use ideas from iPhone Apple spent years working on in Android without even asking them.

The original post was about MS & Apple being anti-competitive by using patents. To me, using a dominant position in search/ads market to crush competition everywhere else is no better. This is exactly what Google is doing.

You should ask yourself a question: will you be better off when Google one day dominates web, search, mobile, browser, possibly even desktop OS markets and desktop software and there will be no Apple or Microsoft and everyone will be forced to play the same game as Google? Will it be better off for everyone to make revenue on ads and pay Google a 50% share? I don't think it's going to be very good. This is why I would like both Apple and even MS also be players in the mobile if they offer good products. Competition, not domination by a single company is what actually drives innovation. Whose ideas will Google steal next when Apple is out of mobile business?



I don't think anyone wants a monopolist (a part from the monopolist itself). The most dangerous in the mobile space able to gain (regain?) a monopoly is Apple.

Google seams far less dangerous to me, just build on android (the open source project) and google monopoly can (thoretically) be broken... am I too naive?


You are being naive, by thinking that if Google says it's "open source" it has no leverage with it. "Open source" is a very misleading label Google also uses here. Google owns Android, they make Android - how can anyone break this by modifying it?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: