Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Google vs. the rest: Is it fair?

<< < (2/8) > >>

zridling:
Lashiec: [Google's] lack of a price can seriously damage these companies in little time, possibly putting them out of business. It may be nice to have superb services available for nothing, but man, it obliterates any competition it may have.
--- End quote ---

Google takes advantage of open source code and open development unlike those other companies. Look no further than their Linux-based Android "OS" this week for Verizon. That phone is seriously cool, and unlike the proprietary iPhone, its software isn't locked down. But that same open source model that Google uses provides: open formats, which lend to reliability; low-cost, because development is shared; and since the code is available to all, security problems are easier to snuff out. Finally, since Google doesn't have to wait on other things to release at the same time, they get benefit of faster deployment. Those competing companies just have to find another way to make money -- usually on the service, not the [traditionally] closed/proprietary code.

Tuxman:
Google's "open source model", based on spying innocent people who don't even have a computer (Google Earth, Streetview)? No, srsly...

Eóin:
A warning of things to come ?     :D

Lashiec:
Google takes advantage of open source code and open development unlike those other companies. Look no further than their Linux-based Android "OS" this week for Verizon. That phone is seriously cool, and unlike the proprietary iPhone, its software isn't locked down. But that same open source model that Google uses provides: open formats, which lend to reliability; low-cost, because development is shared; and since the code is available to all, security problems are easier to snuff out. Finally, since Google doesn't have to wait on other things to release at the same time, they get benefit of faster deployment. Those competing companies just have to find another way to make money -- usually on the service, not the [traditionally] closed/proprietary code.
-zridling (October 30, 2009, 09:59 PM)
--- End quote ---

o_O

Google may make extensive use of open source software and/or contribute to many open source projects (either with code or money), which is very commendable, but its business model is not that different from the other companies it's competing with. Yeah, the iPhone is closed, but Apple also makes good money on the App Store, as it does with iTunes. Last time I checked, both are services. And I wonder where Android and Chrome would be without Apple massive contributions to WebKit.

Besides, Android-based phones are locked down. It's much easier to "jailbreak" them, and the consequences of doing that are close to zero compared to the iPhone, but for most users it will be exactly the same thing. What it counts is what companies can do with Android, and the plans they offer.

Regarding Google Maps Navigator, Google is actually not making any money on the service, the app doesn't even have ads. They're simply using information Google acquired thanks to the funding they obtained from other very profitable ventures, and for now they're not recovering anything on that investment, at least not directly with the services that provide access to those maps and everything else.

But look at their competitors. TomTom devices are based on Linux, they even were involved in a patent controversy with Microsoft over the use of FAT filesystems in those devices. Garmin is a member of the Open Handset Alliance, which is led by the very same Google. Both are selling devices and software which provide you with an extremely useful service that costs millions to maintain and keep up to date. You may say that both companies should expand their products and services offerings, particularly TomTom which almost is a one-trick pony, but don't tell me they should suck it up and move over because Google has arrived, and its business model is better, when it's not, at least for all the companies involved. The end user is another story.

Dormouse:
These companies killed off the PC based map software businesses (like MS' Autoroute) that were there before them; now it looks as if they are under threat themselves from technological developments. When smartphones get to the stage that they can do what their devices do, their hardware business will stop because very few will want to buy 2 devices when 1 will do. And that is whether or not Google get involved.

I understand that a lot of people dislike Google. But at the same time, Google have continued to be innovative (unlike MS) and have stuck to a model of business that is free to the end user.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page