"Google is bent on establishing platform domination unlike anything we've ever seen, even from late-1990s Microsoft."
[citation needed]. I think this is an assumption, and it needs to have some basis. Can somebody explain to me why it would be in Google's
interest to obtain platform dominance?
I find their own reasoning for making Android and Chrome in the first place quite compelling. They're making platforms from which it is easy to use their services and distributing them freely. With that in mind how is creating lock-in in their interests? What motives would they have for creating a lock-in with their platforms? Why would Google want to risk less use of their products from other browsers and platforms? Google makes money from the use of their services, but not from Chrome directly. The only way they're making money on Android "directly" is the Play Store.
The examples mentioned in the blog post are not very strong examples of Google creating lock-in. Of course offline Docs is coming to Chrome (and Chromebooks) first. Google has long announced that Chrome would become Android's default browser (and was criticized when it was not). I don't think they are particularly laudable actions on their own, but I don't think they are evidence of a bigger Google plan to create lock-in.
Also, if it's lock-in, they're handing out the keys. Android and Chrome are open source, and you can easily download all of your data out of most of their services.
This is not a pedantic point - a lot of things that work in Chrome are not available in Chromium, and that gap has been widening.
AOSP is open source, but less and less of what people think of as Android is part of AOSP - a lot of core functionality has been moved into proprietary Play apps and Google services.
> a lot of things that work in Chrome are not available in Chromium, and that gap has been widening
Hpw so? The gap narrowed considerably recently when Google and Foxit open-sourced the PDF plugin. In terms of capabilities, the most visible differences are that Chrome supports a few additional media tags and Flash that Chromium does not, by default.
It doesn't matter whether you can download the source for the devices you buy in the store. Not in the context of this discussion about vendor lock-in. You're using a red herring.
The point is: if you don't like devices on sale with Chrome, Chrome OS or Android, you can download the source code and make it run on your own devices. Google really doesn't mind at all if you do that.
The point is: Google doesn't profit from "selling" Chrome, or profit from "selling" Android. It profits whenever Chrome is used, or it profits whenever Android is used (most of the time at least for both). Similarily, it profits whenever Firefox is used and whenever iOS is used (most of the time for both). Therefore, although Google likes that you use Chrome or Android to access their services, what it wants is just that you use their services regardless what platform you use.
It has no reason for it to desire a complete lock-in because their products are just means to an end, not ends in themselves.
I was referring more to the fact that what Google says ("embrace the open web", "open source wins", etc) don't really mean shit.
Chrome isn't open source, chromium is. What are the extra bits in chrome?
My issue is not that google does what it does, my issue is the religious cult like status so many tech related people give google, in spite of their numerous and repeated attempts to control so many facts of the digital landscape
Plus, if you're on Windows or Mac, the auto-updater for Chrome.
The most significant differences are probably that Chrome has oit-of-the-box support for AAC, H.264, MP3, and Flash that Chromium does not have (by default).
When the whole issue being discussed is about Google's control/power, and the potential for mis-use, and general mis-trust of Google, it seems a little odd to reference a google supplied document about the differences between the open source and commercial versions.
If they are doing nefarious things (e.g. if they shipped something that benefited their own web properties and hurt others) they wouldn't exactly publicise that, now would they?
> my issue is the religious cult like status so many tech related people give google, in spite of their numerous and repeated attempts to control so many facts of the digital landscape
"People are defending Google" => "They are giving Google a religious cult status" really? Come on, keep that attitude away from adult discussion.
So your logic is, that because you feel like they've made your life better, all the publicly available information about where they have done and are doing increasingly "evil" things, is all somehow the dreams of madmen?
Also please remember this quote from the author of Catch-22:
> Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you
I find their own reasoning for making Android and Chrome in the first place quite compelling. They're making platforms from which it is easy to use their services and distributing them freely. With that in mind how is creating lock-in in their interests? What motives would they have for creating a lock-in with their platforms? Why would Google want to risk less use of their products from other browsers and platforms? Google makes money from the use of their services, but not from Chrome directly. The only way they're making money on Android "directly" is the Play Store.
The examples mentioned in the blog post are not very strong examples of Google creating lock-in. Of course offline Docs is coming to Chrome (and Chromebooks) first. Google has long announced that Chrome would become Android's default browser (and was criticized when it was not). I don't think they are particularly laudable actions on their own, but I don't think they are evidence of a bigger Google plan to create lock-in.