Google paid $8B to make its apps default on Samsung phones
Google’s reported $8 billion payment to make its apps the default on Samsung phones is prompting questions about how much of Google’s dominance comes from product quality versus paid distribution. Commenters debate whether such deals should be considered anti-competitive, noting they disadvantage smaller players, entrench existing giants, and may never fully translate into consumer benefits. The thread also touches on locked bootloaders, bloatware, privacy concerns, and the shrinking set of attractive Android handset options as reasons some users turn to custom ROMs or even switch to iOS.
Impact of Google–Samsung Payments
- Some argue a competitive phone market means such payments should partly lower handset prices, but others think cash mostly goes to shareholders via buybacks/dividends.
- Concern that only giants like Samsung/Apple can extract large “default” rents, squeezing out mid-tier and niche vendors.
- Multiple commenters see the deal as anti-competitive and call for it to be illegal or heavily fined; others frame fines as just another business cost.
Defaults, Antitrust, and User Choice
- Debate whether Google would benefit if all default-payment deals were banned.
- One view: OEMs hold Google hostage (“pay or we set another default”), so bans might help Google.
- Counterview: bans would push OEMs (esp. Samsung) to favor their own apps instead.
- EU-style “choice screens” are discussed; they improve competition but raise UX issues (who gets listed, how many options).
- Many users neither understand nor change defaults, so default status is seen as extremely powerful.
Google Strategy, Search, and Innovation
- Some think the billions would be better spent improving products or competing harder; others argue this “last mile” access is what protects a huge ad/search business.
- Mixed views on Google’s innovation: one side cites declining search quality and fear of upsetting the “search cash cow”; the other lists Chrome, Android, Maps, Gmail, YouTube, etc. as major successes.
- Concern that payments help entrench current search paradigms and delay alternatives like assistants or LLM-based interfaces.
Android OEM Landscape
- Several see Samsung as effectively the only Android vendor that truly rivals iPhone; others highlight Pixels, OnePlus, Asus, Motorola, and Chinese phones plus custom ROMs.
- Complaints that many Android brands cut updates short, ship spyware/bloat, or have poor hardware/support; this pushes some users to Apple.
- Discussion of update policies: Samsung’s multi-year support is improving; Google now offers up to 7 years on newer Pixels; Apple’s long full-OS support is still seen as a benchmark.
Samsung Software, Bloat, and Privacy
- Sharp disagreement on Samsung apps: some call them “shovelware” used as bargaining leverage; others say Samsung Notes, Calendar, Gallery, and Browser are clearly better than Google’s.
- Bloat, locked bootloaders, and Knox are frequent complaints; some note bootloader unlocks are possible on certain models/regions, others say US devices are effectively locked.
- Privacy concerns surface around Samsung’s data-sharing practices, including references to policies mentioning sale/sharing of online activity and even message/email content signals.
Open Source and Alternatives
- Advocacy for GNU/Linux and *BSD as privacy-respecting, though others note major corporations dominate much Linux development and desktop UX often lags.
- Some users run LineageOS or PixelExperience on Samsung/Xiaomi to get de-Googled Android, but acknowledge flashing ROMs is non-trivial and often not feasible on current-flagship US phones.
Structural and Normative Critiques
- Commenters connect this behavior to broader monopoly cycles (IBM → Microsoft → Google → possibly Apple next).
- Skepticism that antitrust can keep up; fines usually trail markets by decades and rarely exceed the gains.
- A few call for public, “infrastructure-like” digital services (mail, messaging, storage, social) to reduce dependence on mega-corps.