undefined | Better HN

0 pointsthrowawaykf0212y ago0 comments

This link, which goes into some detail about the Skyhook lawsuit, paints a starkly different picture:

http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-la...

Google may have allowed Verizon and AT&T maps because, of course, they are the ultimate gatekeepers. But they still demand data for their own services and forbade SkyHook completely. The article lays it all out.

In light of that, your point agrees with mine: Google did not allow denying their apps with data, which sounds reasonable for Google. But for Nokia that would be selling phones that improved the service of a direct competitor. Google certainly forbade SkyHook from getting any data, so very likely Nokia faced the same problem, which would have meant they'd be giving Google data without being able to use it themselves.

0 comments

Zigurd12y ago

I have read the available Skyhook litigation documents in detail, and I have worked with multiple location services APIs in Android and other mobile devices. I don't want to argue about every point in detail, but Google isn't demanding location data from other location/mapping/location-services stacks. If you really have you own whole location ecosystem, as Nokia does, Google won't go after you because you could make a good case that is, in fact, anti-competitive in an illegal kind of way. So I do not think "But for Nokia that would be selling phones that improved the service of a direct competitor." is correct. The Skyhook case is about changing the way the Android location APIs work, and those are NOT part of AOSP.

Bottom line, though, if you stepped outside of Google's constraints, like replacing the Android location service internals with Skyhook and keeping the data to yourself, Andy Rubin would personally leave a horse's head in your bed. The article says "Skyhook claims Google uses the threat of incompatibility to act anti-competitively." Which is the less nice way of saying if you don't follow Google's rules, whether or not they are spelled out in any contract, they will make it impossible for you to sell Android-based products with Google's ecosystem. Whether that is actually anti-competitive, is, of course, the subject of that litigation.

One thing Andy Rubin knew is that carriers can be dicks, and being a dick to carriers and their OEM partners, to the point of threatening with losing access to Android products is something he did not feel apologetic about. He learned that at Danger.

It's too bad Skyhook ended up in the middle of that. I have my own stories to tell about OEMs afraid to use interesting technologies because of the AFA, and the way Google used it. Some people think Google's behavior is similar to a case where a mainframe software maker got RICO'ed for bundling.