> Meanwhile, the EU is trying to somewhat cut off Google's monopoly on Android, by telling them they can't force manufacturers to use their software. Now, people in Asia are complaining that they can't access Google's stuff.
These don't seem that...opposite to me. They both fundamentally are the same complaint: there is a lack of _choice_ to be had.
Yes, they are attacking different sides of that lack of choice in different regions, but they're both fundamentally saying we should have the option, but not be required to do this thing.
But it's also not Google's fault if there's no option. It's hard to get a new mobile OS to gain traction. Microsoft tried. Samsung tried. Firefox is trying. Even Huawei has been developing a Plan B for a few years apparently. If none of these guys succeed, how is that Google's fault? Google isn't doing what Microsoft did with IE against Netscape. Companies are free to install other operating systems on their phones or make their own operating systems. Momentum is hard to shift, is Google the villain for winning?
> But it's also not Google's fault if there's no option.
I'm still shocked Microsoft couldn't get its act together and stick it out with their mobile platform. One of the main things which absolutely killed their platform was how they handled their app store. Had they managed it better by making it easier to build apps for their platform like Android has, they would've been able to stick around longer.
Shame really and makes other players hesitant to come into an industry when you have a behemoth like Microsoft fail so badly.
December 10th of this year was their sunset date for support.
It's been a long time since I did development for Android, and a ling time since I made an app for Windows Mobile, so this is a bit outdated-
In my experience, it was actually easier to develop for Windows Mobile than it was for Android, because on Android you had to update constantly just to retain the features that you had. Windows Mobile, especially for someone who's worked with UWP previously, was much easier to work with.
I too wish that Microsoft hadn't sunset it so quickly.
It's unclear any decision they made mattered at all. Building a Windows mobile app made no real sense and even the largest app developers had trouble justifying the investment. Also, I don't think Microsoft stood to gain all that much even if they were able to gain a foothold in the market.
>> I can't seem to wrap my head around people blaming [Comcast] for building [services] that other people can't improve on
Or that again but replace with Microsoft and IE6 (in its heyday) and you'll realize what that "can't improve on" actually means.
Other OSes can't compete because they lack the push to critical mass needed to build a solid app ecosystem, not because they are inherently inferior. It's a vicious circle where you need apps to get big and need to be big to get apps. If on top of that Google piles on the requirement that any manufacturer is either with or against Google, so they have to swear off any other OS in order to have access to Google services, you get some really insurmountable odds.
I think there's a difference between: saying "Google makes products that people are unable to improve upon" and saying that Google "can't force manufacturers to use their software".
Those just seem...like totally different statements to me. Yes, Google has done an amazing job building a great software platform. No, despite the fact that Google is the best, they are not allowed to use that market dominance to assert undue control over the rest of the ecosystem.
I guess I just don't see anyone blaming Google for making amazing products. People were blaming Google for using the immense leverage that their near-monopoly position put them in (because they made amazing products).
I'm not sure what it is that you think Microsoft did with IE but Google is doing pretty much the same, in the sense that their app ecosystem is all-or-nothing. And even worse in the sense that it's tied to the cloud account - back then, you didn't need a Microsoft account to use Windows.
These don't seem that...opposite to me. They both fundamentally are the same complaint: there is a lack of _choice_ to be had.
Yes, they are attacking different sides of that lack of choice in different regions, but they're both fundamentally saying we should have the option, but not be required to do this thing.