5 ms·

This doesn't make sense. Google gives away it's OS for free. It's the overwhelming major contributor to Android R&D. What's EU's expectation here? Just give it

This doesn't make sense. Google gives away it's OS for free. It's the overwhelming major contributor to Android R&D. What's EU's expectation here? Just give it away for free without an expectation of profit? This is in contrast to the old Microsoft that required payments of about $40 for their OS license, and they further restricted browser choice etc. Google is nothing like that, the Android framework and underlying OS is fully open source. There exist non Google forks of Android, Amazon being the most famous. Then there's the whole worshipping of Apple - the most evil, monopolistic company on the planet. Apple's only recourse seems to be their ~17% hardware market share. Though, that's not really the lens to use. When considering the 'mobile paid apps' market, their position immediately moves into Monopoly territory, and in that segment that fuck with the developers and consumers in every way possible.

polskibus 8y ago
It's about whether a market strategy makes it hard to compete for others, not if they make money on it or not, esp. if a company operates on multiple verticals - they offset "free" on one vertical with monopoly on the other (ads, search).
- mankash666 8y ago
  No it's not. You cannot wripe away a monopoly's revenue stream in the name of regulation, you can however ensure that the competition isn't harmed in any way. Google should simply offer a choice - install whatever competitor's service, but license Android for $30. Like Microsoft does and gets away with. Would that seem fair to you? Because that chat eventually gets passed on to the end user.
  - jonathanyc 8y ago
    Antitrust law is for protecting competition; I think you’re confusing it with something else. It’s simply not the case that Microsoft “does and gets away with” antitrust violations because of charging money, this is mentioned in the article. Also, I realized I’ve seen you a lot in these sorts of threads posting fanatically pro-Google stuff, what’s with that?
    - mankash666 8y ago
      I'd suggest you keep your personal judgements like 'fanatically' to yourself. HN steers clear of personal attacks
- rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
  Similarly, if Google have billions in the bank, they can easily offer the Google Maps API free to all and kill any competing service (that took years to develop and lots of money to build). Once all the competitors have gone bankrupted or pivoted to find a source of revenue, Google can simply jack up the price of the API and cash in. Sure, Google loses developers' trust with this behavior in the long term, but it has worked so far for the monopoly so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

polskibus 8y ago

It's about whether a market strategy makes it hard to compete for others, not if they make money on it or not, esp. if a company operates on multiple verticals - they offset "free" on one vertical with monopoly on the other (ads, search).

mankash666 8y ago
No it's not. You cannot wripe away a monopoly's revenue stream in the name of regulation, you can however ensure that the competition isn't harmed in any way. Google should simply offer a choice - install whatever competitor's service, but license Android for $30. Like Microsoft does and gets away with. Would that seem fair to you? Because that chat eventually gets passed on to the end user.
- jonathanyc 8y ago
  Antitrust law is for protecting competition; I think you’re confusing it with something else. It’s simply not the case that Microsoft “does and gets away with” antitrust violations because of charging money, this is mentioned in the article. Also, I realized I’ve seen you a lot in these sorts of threads posting fanatically pro-Google stuff, what’s with that?
  - mankash666 8y ago
    I'd suggest you keep your personal judgements like 'fanatically' to yourself. HN steers clear of personal attacks
rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
Similarly, if Google have billions in the bank, they can easily offer the Google Maps API free to all and kill any competing service (that took years to develop and lots of money to build). Once all the competitors have gone bankrupted or pivoted to find a source of revenue, Google can simply jack up the price of the API and cash in. Sure, Google loses developers' trust with this behavior in the long term, but it has worked so far for the monopoly so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯