I cannot agree. The main problem is that Google has proprietary Google Play Services and instead of just selling it Google sets additional terms that prevent competition, like preinstalling competitors' search engines, or competitors' software. It is difficult to earn large profits in a competing market; but this is benefecial for consumers and their interests should be put before Google's.
I'm really unsure what your first sentence about the main problem is supposed to mean, it really doesn't make a lot of sense to me as written, so i'm having trouble responding.
Would you mind rephrasing it a bit, and i'd be happy to try to respond?
I can't see why anyone would ever not follow Apple's model. It effectively immunizes them from antitrust concerns due to low market share, but they still make an ungodly amount of money.
I am sorry if I didn't write it clearly. What I wanted to say is that Google required phone manufacturers not to make agreements with Google's competitors (e.g. not to preinstall competitors's apps or search engine as default) as a condition for obtaining a license for Google Play Services or Google Play. And this is bad for competition in mobile software market and bad for consumers. Instead Google should just sell their software to manufacturers without such conditions.
For example, several years ago a Russian software company, Yandex, wanted to make its own build of Android with Yandex browser and Yandex app store. But after they have talked to smartphone vendors, they learned that in order to obtain licenses for Google software the vendors have signed an agreement with Google forbidding them to make phones with alternative ROMs or replace Google software with competitors' software [1].
Ah. So this goes to the question i ask:
If Google had to do as you say (sell the software with no restrictions), why would google ever sell the software in the first place?
Microsoft tried that and was fairly unsuccessful.
Future folks would likely just choose the Apple model - don't sell the software at all.
There are not any future folks who can adopt Apple's model.
The only viable mobile OSes for the foreseeable future are Android and iOS, unless Android can be trust-busted. Even Microsoft couldn't do it. And they really tried.
If Android can be de-bundled, then Samsung can pursue Tizen, because Google will not be allowed to prevent it. They're the only ones with sufficient resources and market share to have a shot.
Edit: Or, ironically, Google—who are the only ones not bound by Android OEM agreements—with Fuchsia.
> why would google ever sell the software in the first place?
To earn money. But of course (without restrictions) there would be more competition, there would be alternative Android builds and, as a result, more software not depending on Google Play Services.
If Google could choose Apple model and be profitable, they would choose it from the start. But there is a big difference. Apple makes their own hardware and is good at it. Google doesn't and maybe they didn't want to take a risk so instead they have chosen to make only the software. Also we should remember that Google came to the smartphone market late when it was already conquered by Apple.
For example, Google has tried to enter laptop market with Chromebooks but without noticeable success.
Even if Google makes Android closed source, it doesn't mean that there would be no open platform. Maybe someone will continue developing Android, or some other OS, maybe someone will make a Linux distribution for smartphones.
