3 ms·

I don't think Google's contractual terms are illegal, though they certainly have a profound impact on any competition that uses Android or builds Android apps.

I don't think Google's contractual terms are illegal, though they certainly have a profound impact on any competition that uses Android or builds Android apps. See this article for a detailed analysis of Google's Mobile App Distribution Agreements (MADA): http://www.benedelman.org/news-021314/ http://www.benedelman.org/news-021314/ Furthermore, from my understanding, for any device to support streaming to Chromecast, it must have Google Play Services, which in turns means complying with MADA. The leaked MADA documents that the public has seen requires you to distribute all of Google's apps in a prominent position on your device, prevents you from forking Android - even on other, completely unrelated devices (prohibiting what Amazon did with Fire OS), requires you to give Google detailed sales information about your devices each month, and more. (Read the article I linked above, and/or review one of the linked MADAs (2).) So from what I've read about the MADA, supporting Chromecast streaming on Amazon devices would require a complete "takeover" of every Android-based device that Amazon sells, replacing FireOS with Google's Android, and forcing Amazon to bundle Google Play Services and all of Google's apps, and giving those apps the prominent position over Amazon's. The MADA would require this for all devices, even ones that wouldn't support Chromecast streaming. In a Recode interview (1), Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos implied that these business terms are the heart of the issue: > "We sell Roku, we sell Xbox, we sell Playstation. We're happy to sell competitive products on Amazon. When we sell those devices, we want our player — our Prime Video player — to be on the device, and we want it to be on the device with acceptable business terms. You can always get the player on the device. The question is, can you get it on there with acceptable business terms? And if you can't, then we don't want to sell it to our customers, because they're going to be buying it thinking they can watch Prime Video, and then they're going to be disappointed and return it." (1) https://www.recode.net/2016/5/31/11826394/amazon-apple-tv-google-chromecast https://www.recode.net/2016/5/31/11826394/amazon-apple-tv-go... (circa 1h:15m in video) (2) http://www.benedelman.org/docs/samsung-mada.pdf http://www.benedelman.org/docs/samsung-mada.pdf - see page labeled 6 of 14

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
Well, it depends on whether or not you believe Google is operating any monopolies. The concept of 'tying' or 'bundling', where you require anyone wanting product A which is a monopoly, to also include product B, is illegal in both the US and most other jurisdictions. If any of the twenty or so mandatory apps the MADA requires constitutes a monopoly, then they are bundling in violation of US antitrust laws.
- bitmapbrother 9y ago
  Can you cite the US antitrust law Google is breaking by bundling their free apps and services with their OS?
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    Tying is codified in both the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Act.
    - bitmapbrother 9y ago
      Google Play Services are free so your accusation doesn't seem to apply to the definition of Tying as it applies to antitrust. Tying (informally, product tying) is the practice of selling one product or service as a mandatory addition to the purchase of a different product or service. In legal terms, a tying sale makes the sale of one good (the tying good) to the de facto customer (or de jure customer) conditional on the purchase of a second distinctive good (the tied good). Tying is often illegal when the products are not naturally related. It is related to but distinct from freebie marketing, a common (and legal) method of giving away (or selling at a substantial discount) one item to ensure a continual flow of sales of another related item. Horizontal tying is the practice of requiring consumers to pay for an unrelated product or service together with the desired one.[1] A hypothetical example would be for Bic to sell its pens only with Bic lighters. (However, a company may offer a limited free item with another purchase as a promotion. Vertical tying is the practice of requiring customers to purchase related products or services together, from the same company.[1] For example, a company might mandate that its automobiles could only be serviced by its own dealers. In an effort to curb this, many jurisdictions require that warranties not be voided by outside servicing; for example, see the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act in the United States. The Wikipedia Tying entry[1] also makes references to both Apple and Microsoft products. Of particular interest was how Microsoft not only ties their own products, but also ties Android OEM's, who they shake down to license their patents, to bundle their Microsoft mobile applications. >Microsoft has also tied its software to the third-party Android mobile operating system, by requiring manufacturers that license patents it claims covers the OS and smartphones to ship Microsoft Office Mobile and Skype applications on the devices. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

Well, it depends on whether or not you believe Google is operating any monopolies. The concept of 'tying' or 'bundling', where you require anyone wanting product A which is a monopoly, to also include product B, is illegal in both the US and most other jurisdictions. If any of the twenty or so mandatory apps the MADA requires constitutes a monopoly, then they are bundling in violation of US antitrust laws.

bitmapbrother 9y ago
Can you cite the US antitrust law Google is breaking by bundling their free apps and services with their OS?
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  Tying is codified in both the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Act.
  - bitmapbrother 9y ago
    Google Play Services are free so your accusation doesn't seem to apply to the definition of Tying as it applies to antitrust. Tying (informally, product tying) is the practice of selling one product or service as a mandatory addition to the purchase of a different product or service. In legal terms, a tying sale makes the sale of one good (the tying good) to the de facto customer (or de jure customer) conditional on the purchase of a second distinctive good (the tied good). Tying is often illegal when the products are not naturally related. It is related to but distinct from freebie marketing, a common (and legal) method of giving away (or selling at a substantial discount) one item to ensure a continual flow of sales of another related item. Horizontal tying is the practice of requiring consumers to pay for an unrelated product or service together with the desired one.[1] A hypothetical example would be for Bic to sell its pens only with Bic lighters. (However, a company may offer a limited free item with another purchase as a promotion. Vertical tying is the practice of requiring customers to purchase related products or services together, from the same company.[1] For example, a company might mandate that its automobiles could only be serviced by its own dealers. In an effort to curb this, many jurisdictions require that warranties not be voided by outside servicing; for example, see the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act in the United States. The Wikipedia Tying entry[1] also makes references to both Apple and Microsoft products. Of particular interest was how Microsoft not only ties their own products, but also ties Android OEM's, who they shake down to license their patents, to bundle their Microsoft mobile applications. >Microsoft has also tied its software to the third-party Android mobile operating system, by requiring manufacturers that license patents it claims covers the OS and smartphones to ship Microsoft Office Mobile and Skype applications on the devices. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)