6 ms·

It is quite simple really, Apple has in no way the market share that a Google has. The impact of their anti-competitive decisions are vairy low. The problem is

It is quite simple really, Apple has in no way the market share that a Google has. The impact of their anti-competitive decisions are vairy low. The problem is also not having big marketshare but having it AND doing things that may be anti-competitive. European companies have also brought before court for the same reasons. Btw Apple had also been brought to court for not applying European laws especially regarding warranty's which they lost.

bad_user 10y ago
You're trying to make some sense of this, but no, there is no sense and it isn't simple either. For one because Google's Android does not qualify as a monopoly and the mere existence of Apple's iOS which has 20% of the European market is testament to that. But also because having a monopoly isn't illegal and I'm quite curious what anti-trust charges they are going to bring, because as the parent says, Android has been the most flexible mainstream mobile OS, more than iOS or Windows Phone. Android is the only one on top of which Firefox was possible, the only one admitting third-party installation sources and app stores and the only one that can have a CyanogenMod. Android is actually the only one that can be forked and Amazon has successfully forked Android. And the reason for why it doesn't make sense is because Google charges no licence money for Android and they've been quite forthcoming about the reason why Android exists, right from the start, its existence being all about Google having a mobile platform to distribute their apps and services. Phone makers don't even have to agree to this, though no Google agreement means no Google Play, terms that again, have been there from the start. And in fact Apple and Microsoft have both used their existing position in desktop operating systems, an easily provable oligarchy, to push their mobile OSs and lock users in. > European companies have also brought before court for the same reasons Oh, come on, you know that ain't true. They are targeting Google specifically because they don't want to share their Search & News revenue with a dying mass-media industry. And I'm saying this as an European.
- Rangi42 10y ago
  If cornering 80% of the market is so terrible, the EU should make it illegal to sell the Nth Android phone that pushes past 79%, and/or make it illegal for the customer to buy such a phone. The absurdity of such a proposed law should make it obvious that Google is doing nothing wrong by selling popular devices with a certain operating system.
  - manyhats 10y ago
    Consider other historical antitrust battles. It's often not about dominance in one niche, but leveraging that dominance into other areas and limiting innovation there. By your assertion, you would be happy to have had IE tightly integrated into Windows since the early 00s and make it extremely difficult for typical users to install another browser. Competing browsers would also be at a technical disadvantage to IE since they don't control the underlying OS. After all, Windows is popular, why shouldn't they...
    - SpaceX_Tech 10y ago
      You make a very good point and I certainly don't think that IE being tightly coupled to the underlying OS would be good for browser competition. At the same time couldn't I argue that a company such as Apple having so much power over their suppliers due to their market position, and profitability, is also not good for overall competition? It's certainly going to be difficult if not impossible for a new entrant in the smartphone world to out compete an incumbent like Apple when negotiating contracts with Foxconn. As I said in my other comment in this thread, I'm having a hard time understanding why certain behaviors get labeled anticompetitive while other behaviors, that ultimately may be just as detrimental to competition, don't. I admittedly don't have a very deep understanding of these issues and I am perfectly willing to admit I might be completely wrong but I would love to hear your and other readers' thoughts.
- glenndebacker 10y ago
  > For one because Google's Android does not qualify as a monopoly They have over 70% of marketshare in the top 5 european countries. They may be technically not a monopoly, with those percentages their actions have a bigger impact and can certainly disturb a market. > And the reason for why it doesn't make sense is because Google charges no licence money for Android If I'm remember correctly that was also the argument some used regarding the Internet explorer case or Windows Media player. It was given away free. Again it isn't about having a big market share, the price of the fact that an OS is flexible. It's about using your position to potentially disrupt a market. Then again is also not because the EU is making a case that Google will be automatically found guilty or it won't be possible to defend themself. > Oh, come on, you know that ain't true. They are targeting Google specifically because they don't want to share their Search & News revenue with a dying mass-media industry. And I'm saying this as an European. European cartels, anti competitive behaviour etc have received the same scrutiny in the past. I think the highest fine is still the 990 million euro's Kone, Otis, Schindler and ThyssenKrupp received and they are European. The reason why I'm stating this because I'm sick of tired hearing in these kind of discussions that Google only gets targeted because they are American while that is certainly not the case.

bad_user 10y ago

You're trying to make some sense of this, but no, there is no sense and it isn't simple either. For one because Google's Android does not qualify as a monopoly and the mere existence of Apple's iOS which has 20% of the European market is testament to that. But also because having a monopoly isn't illegal and I'm quite curious what anti-trust charges they are going to bring, because as the parent says, Android has been the most flexible mainstream mobile OS, more than iOS or Windows Phone. Android is the only one on top of which Firefox was possible, the only one admitting third-party installation sources and app stores and the only one that can have a CyanogenMod. Android is actually the only one that can be forked and Amazon has successfully forked Android. And the reason for why it doesn't make sense is because Google charges no licence money for Android and they've been quite forthcoming about the reason why Android exists, right from the start, its existence being all about Google having a mobile platform to distribute their apps and services. Phone makers don't even have to agree to this, though no Google agreement means no Google Play, terms that again, have been there from the start. And in fact Apple and Microsoft have both used their existing position in desktop operating systems, an easily provable oligarchy, to push their mobile OSs and lock users in. > European companies have also brought before court for the same reasons Oh, come on, you know that ain't true. They are targeting Google specifically because they don't want to share their Search & News revenue with a dying mass-media industry. And I'm saying this as an European.

Rangi42 10y ago
If cornering 80% of the market is so terrible, the EU should make it illegal to sell the Nth Android phone that pushes past 79%, and/or make it illegal for the customer to buy such a phone. The absurdity of such a proposed law should make it obvious that Google is doing nothing wrong by selling popular devices with a certain operating system.
- manyhats 10y ago
  Consider other historical antitrust battles. It's often not about dominance in one niche, but leveraging that dominance into other areas and limiting innovation there. By your assertion, you would be happy to have had IE tightly integrated into Windows since the early 00s and make it extremely difficult for typical users to install another browser. Competing browsers would also be at a technical disadvantage to IE since they don't control the underlying OS. After all, Windows is popular, why shouldn't they...
  - SpaceX_Tech 10y ago
    You make a very good point and I certainly don't think that IE being tightly coupled to the underlying OS would be good for browser competition. At the same time couldn't I argue that a company such as Apple having so much power over their suppliers due to their market position, and profitability, is also not good for overall competition? It's certainly going to be difficult if not impossible for a new entrant in the smartphone world to out compete an incumbent like Apple when negotiating contracts with Foxconn. As I said in my other comment in this thread, I'm having a hard time understanding why certain behaviors get labeled anticompetitive while other behaviors, that ultimately may be just as detrimental to competition, don't. I admittedly don't have a very deep understanding of these issues and I am perfectly willing to admit I might be completely wrong but I would love to hear your and other readers' thoughts.
glenndebacker 10y ago
> For one because Google's Android does not qualify as a monopoly They have over 70% of marketshare in the top 5 european countries. They may be technically not a monopoly, with those percentages their actions have a bigger impact and can certainly disturb a market. > And the reason for why it doesn't make sense is because Google charges no licence money for Android If I'm remember correctly that was also the argument some used regarding the Internet explorer case or Windows Media player. It was given away free. Again it isn't about having a big market share, the price of the fact that an OS is flexible. It's about using your position to potentially disrupt a market. Then again is also not because the EU is making a case that Google will be automatically found guilty or it won't be possible to defend themself. > Oh, come on, you know that ain't true. They are targeting Google specifically because they don't want to share their Search & News revenue with a dying mass-media industry. And I'm saying this as an European. European cartels, anti competitive behaviour etc have received the same scrutiny in the past. I think the highest fine is still the 990 million euro's Kone, Otis, Schindler and ThyssenKrupp received and they are European. The reason why I'm stating this because I'm sick of tired hearing in these kind of discussions that Google only gets targeted because they are American while that is certainly not the case.