FOSS Patents posted about Google's once-secret, restrictive Android license agreements with Samsung and HTC published, discussing about Google's Mobile Application Distribution Agreement (MADA) signed by Samsung and HTC, and the reasoning behind this. This article talks about the statement of Android being an open source platform, but with the strategic market control by Google. Last week I discussed Google's public statements after acquiring Motorola, questioning about their true intention behind the statement of "striving for market competition". It described Android as a moat around the Google castle, which I personally like the analogy a lot.
Android comes with components that are available as free open source software licensing terms, as well as the close-d-source commercial software like Google Mail and Google Map etc. The mobile devices manufacturer signs MADA if they would like their customers to use Google commercial software and call it an Android device. OEMs either get all the apps from Google or none, so it's an obvious choice for the manufactures if they rather want to delegate mobile software to Google.
As a software developer myself, I would try to avoid incrementing switching cost when it comes to software choice. Surely enough, Google is a web/software giant that makes great products freely accessible. But also I would like to have as many selections as possible, not to just be lock-in by Google's awesome but not-so-awesome software products. Or maybe, we should train people to think differently when it comes to software product selection. Free software is not always the best solution, paying for a well designed software and using it with no disturbing ads is equally good.
I think you make a good point that although Google provides strong and "awesome" products, it is very constraining to have the ultimatum of all Google products or none at all. Especially your mention of switching costs. Yet, free products that aren't the best product does hinder use
ReplyDelete