On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Incognito <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Playing devil's advocate: Given that the apps are owned by google and paid > by google why shouldn't they put their names? Tough luck for everyone else i > guess. I'm not really sure that the argument that google will scare away > good developera is true. It does have an impact. If you are a company trying to raise finances, whether Google is in the space (or potentially will be) is a critical issue. I was pitching an idea to some VCs a few years ago and they shot it down because they said it was too easy for Google to enter the space. No one has yet done anything like I pitched but the threat is enough to kill off potential finances. I don't really want to get into a right/wrong thing with what Google is doing but that is just the way it is. If you are going to enter a space that Google considers part of their core strategy, then you better have a niche that they don't want (or can't) enter. Take the case of the SAS Institute back in 2001. They were a huge mainframe-based company desperately behind the Internet curve. They threw out a bunch of money to lure in companies to develop integration solutions, learned about the area and then shut that program down and did it themselves. Microsoft has also rolled over many, many companies, including open-source groups. They killed off NDocs, a major open-source project, with their announcement of SandCastle. Microsoft is in fact changing, trying to engage the open-source community in a healthy way, but they have a lot of baggage that the community needs to get over. Google is very large and everyone is watching closely how they handle the community. They key here is that if Google is going to steam-roll over the juicy spots of the mobile app space, then Android handset market penetration has to be fairly large to justify continued presence of individual Android app developers and small companies. We see this with Microsoft. Just don't compete in the core areas, and with its large market penetration, developers and small companies can still do very well. Shane > > On Aug 23, 2009, at 1:17 PM, Disconnect <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Not to drift too far off topic here, but vlc isn't windows-native any > more than mplayer is. (NOW windows is a supported/standard platform, > but it started elsewhere and gained popularity before that port.) > > If google wants a level open playing field, let their devs release > apps anonymously. > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Jesper Lundgren<[email protected]> > wrote: > VLC has by far most users on windows ( there is no download for solaris, > and > just recently someone put together a script that made it compile with > reasonable ease on opensolaris...). the point is, sure most users might use > google, but it's impossible to make an application that appeals to everyone > and that leaves room for other developers. It has to be remembered that > googles PR machine is drawing lots of users to the platform, and that will > benefit everyone So if google didn't put out some solid apps to the > platform > it would it would make it look less interesting for the consumer, and there > would be less users for everyone. > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Disconnect <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Er... name a major media player that is native to windows. (Winamp > counts, but only barely - they came in at a time when WMP didn't > handle mp3s, playlists,libraries, etc. And even they lost to iTunes in > the end.) > > Mplayer? Linux. VLC? Solaris (iirc), then linux. Etc. > > Google competing with you on their home turf is a very BAD thing, no > matter how you look at it. (And several of their apps have system > permissions, so they at least can do things you can't - not least of > which is automatic signup by using the google account info instead of > making you fill out another form. I'd need to spend some time with > dismali to see if they're taking unfair advantage otherwise.) > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Jesper Lundgren<[email protected]> > wrote: > with this reasoning there would be no other media player then windows > media > player on windows computers, but clearly that is not the case, and they > even > ship it with windows and their os is not opensource so they can possibly > use > things that other developers can not get access to. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
