11 ms·

A better source: > The European Commission has accused Google of abusing its Android market dominance by bundling its search engine and Chrome apps into the op

by hrktb 8y ago

A better source: > The European Commission has accused Google of abusing its Android market dominance by bundling its search engine and Chrome apps into the operating system. Google has also allegedly blocked phone makers from creating devices that run forked versions of Android. https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/18/17580694/google-android-eu-fine-antitrust https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/18/17580694/google-android-e... > How is it any different Apple doesn’t have a dominent search engine to push down the throat of device makers. They also don’t have an iOS consortium nor do work with other makers, so there is no bullying makers into doing what they want “or else”. As others pointed out Apple is not in a majority position in the first place, but this fine is mainly bound to how the search engine and google suitr services come in the picture, and not on android on its own.

repolfx 8y ago
That first claim is clearly wrong though. Firstly, Android doesn't have a monopoly. Apple does fine in Europe and their devices can be bought everywhere. Secondly, there are device makers that didn't cut a deal with Google, notably the Amazon phones and tablets. They weren't that popular with consumers but that's not Google's fault: it just means consumers highly value the additional services Google provides.
- ge0rg 8y ago
  Maybe the problem with the Google deal is that it's exclusive: if you want to make one device that's Google approved and contains the "highly valued" services, you are disallowed by the compliance contract to make other Android devices that are not Google-approved.
  - blub 8y ago
    Yep, that is a big problem. If company A has launched an official Android device, and company B goes to A and asks them to build a totally unrelated Android-based (but not Android proper) device for them, A is not allowed to do that by Google.
    - repolfx 8y ago
      But why would company B go to company A and ask them to make a phone "for them"? It's not hard to become a phone maker these days, judging by the sheer number of Android OEMs that are out there (hundreds, I believe). If there was huge untapped demand for Android sans Google then a new company would appear, they'd download the Android code, they'd go to Shenzen and do a deal with a white label manufacturer, and they'd make such phones. Google wouldn't stop them because they'd be a company that doesn't make any other kinds of phones. We know this is possible because there's one huge market where that's normal, China. Google's services are blocked in China anyway, so there's no point adding their app store or mapping apps. Local firms produce local versions of Android for their own market and it works fine. We also know this because Amazon tried it and they weren't sued or anything. There are also open source spins of Android that have custom app stores like F-Droid. A new phone maker could ship those too.
      - bbeonx 8y ago
        You're missing the forest for the trees. The example was illustrative. In general, when you see an example that explains a complex issue you should assume that it is significantly simplified and therefore will not be realistic.
      - blub 8y ago
        First of all, Android is not only used on phones, but also for other types of embedded devices. It's very normal that a company B would want to go to company A, if A already have a lot of expertise in Android. For instance a POS manufacturer might want to collaborate with Sony or Samsung on an embedded device which uses Android internally (without the GApps & stuff), but Sony and Samsung are forbidden from dealing with B. Even Amazon would be happy to outsource some Android development to e.g. Samsung but they can't.
      - petecox 8y ago
        Jolla have a collaboration with Sony to get Sailfish OS running on their Xperia phones. However, Sailfish is available only as a post market firmware. Being a derivative work of AOSP courtesy of libhybris, it would seem Sony are prevented from factory installing Sailfish on any future Xperia device.
- rusk 8y ago
  > That first claim is clearly wrong though. No it isn't. But your attempt at refutation is. > Android doesn't have a monopoly. Apple does fine in Europe Apple has its segment. Android is pretty much everything else. It is "dominant" in the market. > Secondly, there are device makers that didn't cut a deal with Google The complaint relates specifically to access to google play services.
  - repolfx 8y ago
    But Android isn't a phone maker. It's a component that is usually customised. Now go look at who are making phones on this base: Samsung is the most popular but it doesn't have a monopoly. Is the EU going to fine ARM next for having a monopoly on mobile CPUs?
    - rusk 8y ago
      > Is the EU going to fine ARM next Maybe? Is there something about their business practices that shapes the market to their benefit? If so, and there are enough complaints then maybe not "next" but yeah.
    - pjc50 8y ago
      > Is the EU going to fine ARM next for having a monopoly on mobile CPUs? Have ARM used their dominant position in one market to reduce competition in a different market?
    - claudius 8y ago
      > Is the EU going to fine ARM next for having a monopoly on mobile CPUs? Having a monopoly or being in a dominant position is not the problem. If ARM starts a pizza business and requires everyone who wants to buy mobile CPUs to also order pizzas exclusively from them, then this would be an equally-fineable abuse of a dominant market position and the EU would almost certainly step in. As it stands, ARM doesn’t force others to buy pizzas exclusively from ARM PIZZA PLACE and hence doesn’t abuse its dominant market position in one market (mobile CPUs) to support its position in another market (pizzas). Google, on the other hand, uses its dominant position in the "licensable mobile operating systems" market to support its position in the "internet search" and "browsers" market together with anticompetitive behaviour forcing its licensees to exclusively use the Google-approved version of Android.
- hrktb 8y ago
  Sorry if it was unclear. The first issue is Google pushing the search engine on mobile devices. For context they also push Google search to iOS devices (Apple gets huge amount of money for that), the same way as they pay firefox to have Google as their default search engine. The issue though, is that for android phones, it's not a "let's make a deal, we will pay you to have Google Search" attitude. You can't make an android device integrated with Google Play app store without also having Google Search in the home screen and as default search engine. What the EU is fining among others, is the business practice of forcing device makers that want to use the Play Store to also bundle the other service (Search).
  - throwawayjava 8y ago
    Which is a kind of silly decision on Google's part, because they have far and away the superior product and also the superior brand. Even if the option was given at setup, nearly everyone choosing to buy an Andriod phone would select google as the default search engine... (I guess you could say that didn't see this coming, but the parallels with MSFT and IE are pretty hard to not see...) The fine is going to hurt a lot more than any remedial action.
    - thefounder 8y ago
      I believe you are wrong. In Russia Yandex has grown a lot after the option was given at setup.
      - gandhium 8y ago
        A lot? It was about ~50% and increased by a couple of percents.
    - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
      Much of their entire dominance as a company hinges on pushing defaults, and their ability to force manufacturers to ship Google apps, on any phone sold in the EU, is a massive blow. The penalty is chump change for Google, but the remedy is what is going to hurt long term, because competitors can finally get in the game.
- pstric 8y ago
  > Android doesn't have a monopoly. Apple does fine in Europe and their devices can be bought everywhere. As an independen device maker, you wouldn't be able to put iOS on your devices. Android has a huge margin over other viable alternatives.
  - dlp211 8y ago
    As an independent phone maker, if this was their concern, they should have backed one of the other dozen or so attempts at a phone OS. No one forced them to choose Android. They also have the option to write their own OS anytime they want.
- r_singh 8y ago
  > Firstly Android doesn't have a monopoly. The EU commission doesn't think so. Their press release* says that 80% of smart mobile devices in Europe, run on Android. * http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm
  - trothamel 8y ago
    Well, there's nothing all that special about the output of a political commission. And the fact that 1 in 5 devices don't run Android would seem to contradict the monopoly accusation.
    - Sylos 8y ago
      Antitrust does not require a monopoly, it just requires enough of a market dominance that hurting the market is feasible for you, and then exploiting this position to actually hurt the market. Basically, all you have to do, is hurt the market in noticeable ways. The sole goal of antitrust laws is keeping the market healthy. They're not fair and have almost no rules attached to them.
  - gowld 8y ago
    So Google could solve this problem by raising the price of its OS, increasing profits and decreasing market share, and leaving a billion with no access to smartphones at all.
    - beerlord 8y ago
      Android is free to license. Google makes money from the Android users who then use Search, Gmail, Maps etc. since they are bundled with the phone.
    - redial 8y ago
      Or, by doing something that is not illegal in the EU: not forcing manufacturers to bundle Google Search if they want to include the Play Store.
- IanCal 8y ago
  > Firstly, Android doesn't have a monopoly. It does have a dominant market position though, and that's what's in the legal stuff that they're being fined under. You do not need a complete monopoly to have a dominant market position. > Secondly, there are device makers that didn't cut a deal with Google, notably the Amazon phones and tablets. They weren't that popular with consumers but that's not Google's fault: it just means consumers highly value the additional services Google provides. More than that though, they effectively stopped device manufactures from selling these (because of exclusivity agreements), and a lack of range isn't going to have helped amazon: > For example, the Commission has found evidence that Google's conduct prevented a number of large manufacturers from developing and selling devices based on Amazon's Android fork called "Fire OS". http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm
r_singh 8y ago
Thanks for this. Anyone who has tried to compile a forked version of AOSP knows that Google makes it extremely hard to do so. Android being an open source OS is nowhere near as easy to install as a regular linux open source OS. I've been trying to get my own android / androidTV box working on popular hardware like rPi and other Amlogic, Allwinner, Mali based boards without much success. Even devices manufacturers have troubles with the same (talking about SBCs here). Android is open source only for name sake. Google's deliberate control over the entire Android ecosystem is undeniable.
- ensiferum 8y ago
  Android is only open in theory, closed in practice.
  - r_singh 8y ago
    AOSP does not include proprietary apps like the Play Store, etc. In order for device manufacturers to get the Play Store on their phone, they have to give in to Google's demands to add the Google search box on the home screen of the phones. Apart from this, Qualcomm doesn't release open source drivers for GPUs etc, making it even harder to use pure AOSP on flagship devices.
    - gowld 8y ago
      Qualcomm blocked Google from using Proprietary Android on its devices! One of the Nexus phones couldn't upgrade the OS to the next version due to Qualcomm drivers.
    - ihsw2 8y ago
      > In order for device manufacturers to get the Play Store on their phone, they have to give in to Google's demands to add the Google search box on the home screen of the phones. What's wrong with this? The Play Store is subsidized by search revenue, it makes sense to tie them together.
- sqdbps 8y ago
  Tell that to Amazon and their Fire devices and to all the Android forks in China.
jillesvangurp 8y ago
Apple doesn't license their OS to OEMs. I'd say them blocking alternative browser engines is controversial though. Also they dislike people using certain libraries, emulator technology, providing the ability to execute downloadable scripts (e.g. flash), etc.
- gowld 8y ago
  iOS has a documented policy of banning apps that complete with their own.
VikingCoder 8y ago
Oh, Apple is a brutal dictatorship that doesn't share anything? That's fine. Oh, Google, you're willing to share almost everything with anyone for free, but you want to put terms on that? Hey, here's a giant fine. I just don't understand the logic of this at all.
- Tepix 8y ago
  It's mostly about having a 80% market share.
  - acct1771 8y ago
    Fine them for the anticompetitive practices, then - not success...
    - zaarn 8y ago
      Fining anti-competitive practices only makes sense when it's successful. The EU laws around this are also worded as such. You can do anti-competitive behavior all you want if you're not a major player because you'll just be shooting yourself in the foot.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- mrweasel 8y ago
  The logic is that you're not allowed to use your position in one marked to gain influence in another. Google knows that most manufacturer needs their devices to ship with the Play Store, because that's where the apps are and smartphone without apps are useless. But they use the Play Store as leverage, forcing manufactures to also ship Chrome, rather than Opera, Firefox or their own browser and that's the bit that is illegal. Imagine that Apple forced telcos to block Spotify, to force users to iTunes, and if they didn't then no iPhones on that carriers network. That being said I don't think Google is using the Play Store to force installations of Chrome or the Google search app, that's just weird. People would install Chrome anyway and they already dominate search, so why bother. I think the reason is technical, but the end result is still illegal.
ummonk 8y ago
They also don’t have an iOS consortium nor do work with other makers, so there is no bullying makers into doing what they want “or else”. That's the issue though. It seems that Google is being punished for being somewhat willing to work with other makers.
- hrktb 8y ago
  That’s an angle. Google is exactly in the same position as Microsoft when they were caught red handed doing shitty stuff with the vendors. The interesting part is both Microsoft and Google prioritized licensing/delivering the OS and associated software, keeping a healthy distance from building hardware. Google tried a bit more with the Nexus/Pixel programs, but even then the target was only for small scale niche devices. What I am driving at is that once android got traction, Google’s position went way up while vendor’s bargaining power went down, even as vendors where the ones taking the risks down the line. That kind of unbalance makes it easier to have abusive contracts and business practices. It starts with good intentions (working symbiothically with the makers at innovative products) but things change, and with success I’d guess different kind of people also come into the organization to push more aggressive practices.
greggman 8y ago
FYI, Microsoft did not have a monopoly on personal computers. It had a monopoly on Intel based computers. See the actual judgement for details. Apple has a monopoly on A9, A10, and A11 based computers.
- redial 8y ago
  > It had a monopoly on Intel based computers. No, it had a monopoly on IBM-Compatible computers, which is a category that includes multiple OEMs that sell compatible machines. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on any market category where more than 1 player (Apple) is involved.
  - greggman 8y ago
    no it didn't. see the actual ruling quote: "The District Court determined that Microsoft had maintained a monopoly in the market for Intel compatible PC operating system" https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253/34/576095/ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253...
    - redial 8y ago
      Ok, Intel-compatible. Apple has no monopoly on any hardware market where they are not the only one. They cannot dictate terms to any other OEM manufacturing A10-compatible computers.
      - greggman 8y ago
        Sure but MS also got in trouble for disallowing browser competition. Apple does this as well via their monopoly.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

by hrktb 8y ago

repolfx 8y ago

That first claim is clearly wrong though. Firstly, Android doesn't have a monopoly. Apple does fine in Europe and their devices can be bought everywhere. Secondly, there are device makers that didn't cut a deal with Google, notably the Amazon phones and tablets. They weren't that popular with consumers but that's not Google's fault: it just means consumers highly value the additional services Google provides.

ge0rg 8y ago
Maybe the problem with the Google deal is that it's exclusive: if you want to make one device that's Google approved and contains the "highly valued" services, you are disallowed by the compliance contract to make other Android devices that are not Google-approved.
- blub 8y ago
  Yep, that is a big problem. If company A has launched an official Android device, and company B goes to A and asks them to build a totally unrelated Android-based (but not Android proper) device for them, A is not allowed to do that by Google.
  - repolfx 8y ago
    But why would company B go to company A and ask them to make a phone "for them"? It's not hard to become a phone maker these days, judging by the sheer number of Android OEMs that are out there (hundreds, I believe). If there was huge untapped demand for Android sans Google then a new company would appear, they'd download the Android code, they'd go to Shenzen and do a deal with a white label manufacturer, and they'd make such phones. Google wouldn't stop them because they'd be a company that doesn't make any other kinds of phones. We know this is possible because there's one huge market where that's normal, China. Google's services are blocked in China anyway, so there's no point adding their app store or mapping apps. Local firms produce local versions of Android for their own market and it works fine. We also know this because Amazon tried it and they weren't sued or anything. There are also open source spins of Android that have custom app stores like F-Droid. A new phone maker could ship those too.
    - bbeonx 8y ago
      You're missing the forest for the trees. The example was illustrative. In general, when you see an example that explains a complex issue you should assume that it is significantly simplified and therefore will not be realistic.
    - blub 8y ago
      First of all, Android is not only used on phones, but also for other types of embedded devices. It's very normal that a company B would want to go to company A, if A already have a lot of expertise in Android. For instance a POS manufacturer might want to collaborate with Sony or Samsung on an embedded device which uses Android internally (without the GApps & stuff), but Sony and Samsung are forbidden from dealing with B. Even Amazon would be happy to outsource some Android development to e.g. Samsung but they can't.
    - petecox 8y ago
      Jolla have a collaboration with Sony to get Sailfish OS running on their Xperia phones. However, Sailfish is available only as a post market firmware. Being a derivative work of AOSP courtesy of libhybris, it would seem Sony are prevented from factory installing Sailfish on any future Xperia device.
rusk 8y ago
> That first claim is clearly wrong though. No it isn't. But your attempt at refutation is. > Android doesn't have a monopoly. Apple does fine in Europe Apple has its segment. Android is pretty much everything else. It is "dominant" in the market. > Secondly, there are device makers that didn't cut a deal with Google The complaint relates specifically to access to google play services.
- repolfx 8y ago
  But Android isn't a phone maker. It's a component that is usually customised. Now go look at who are making phones on this base: Samsung is the most popular but it doesn't have a monopoly. Is the EU going to fine ARM next for having a monopoly on mobile CPUs?
  - rusk 8y ago
    > Is the EU going to fine ARM next Maybe? Is there something about their business practices that shapes the market to their benefit? If so, and there are enough complaints then maybe not "next" but yeah.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    > Is the EU going to fine ARM next for having a monopoly on mobile CPUs? Have ARM used their dominant position in one market to reduce competition in a different market?
  - claudius 8y ago
    > Is the EU going to fine ARM next for having a monopoly on mobile CPUs? Having a monopoly or being in a dominant position is not the problem. If ARM starts a pizza business and requires everyone who wants to buy mobile CPUs to also order pizzas exclusively from them, then this would be an equally-fineable abuse of a dominant market position and the EU would almost certainly step in. As it stands, ARM doesn’t force others to buy pizzas exclusively from ARM PIZZA PLACE and hence doesn’t abuse its dominant market position in one market (mobile CPUs) to support its position in another market (pizzas). Google, on the other hand, uses its dominant position in the "licensable mobile operating systems" market to support its position in the "internet search" and "browsers" market together with anticompetitive behaviour forcing its licensees to exclusively use the Google-approved version of Android.
hrktb 8y ago
Sorry if it was unclear. The first issue is Google pushing the search engine on mobile devices. For context they also push Google search to iOS devices (Apple gets huge amount of money for that), the same way as they pay firefox to have Google as their default search engine. The issue though, is that for android phones, it's not a "let's make a deal, we will pay you to have Google Search" attitude. You can't make an android device integrated with Google Play app store without also having Google Search in the home screen and as default search engine. What the EU is fining among others, is the business practice of forcing device makers that want to use the Play Store to also bundle the other service (Search).
- throwawayjava 8y ago
  Which is a kind of silly decision on Google's part, because they have far and away the superior product and also the superior brand. Even if the option was given at setup, nearly everyone choosing to buy an Andriod phone would select google as the default search engine... (I guess you could say that didn't see this coming, but the parallels with MSFT and IE are pretty hard to not see...) The fine is going to hurt a lot more than any remedial action.
  - thefounder 8y ago
    I believe you are wrong. In Russia Yandex has grown a lot after the option was given at setup.
    - gandhium 8y ago
      A lot? It was about ~50% and increased by a couple of percents.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    Much of their entire dominance as a company hinges on pushing defaults, and their ability to force manufacturers to ship Google apps, on any phone sold in the EU, is a massive blow. The penalty is chump change for Google, but the remedy is what is going to hurt long term, because competitors can finally get in the game.
pstric 8y ago
> Android doesn't have a monopoly. Apple does fine in Europe and their devices can be bought everywhere. As an independen device maker, you wouldn't be able to put iOS on your devices. Android has a huge margin over other viable alternatives.
- dlp211 8y ago
  As an independent phone maker, if this was their concern, they should have backed one of the other dozen or so attempts at a phone OS. No one forced them to choose Android. They also have the option to write their own OS anytime they want.
r_singh 8y ago
> Firstly Android doesn't have a monopoly. The EU commission doesn't think so. Their press release* says that 80% of smart mobile devices in Europe, run on Android. * http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm
- trothamel 8y ago
  Well, there's nothing all that special about the output of a political commission. And the fact that 1 in 5 devices don't run Android would seem to contradict the monopoly accusation.
  - Sylos 8y ago
    Antitrust does not require a monopoly, it just requires enough of a market dominance that hurting the market is feasible for you, and then exploiting this position to actually hurt the market. Basically, all you have to do, is hurt the market in noticeable ways. The sole goal of antitrust laws is keeping the market healthy. They're not fair and have almost no rules attached to them.
- gowld 8y ago
  So Google could solve this problem by raising the price of its OS, increasing profits and decreasing market share, and leaving a billion with no access to smartphones at all.
  - beerlord 8y ago
    Android is free to license. Google makes money from the Android users who then use Search, Gmail, Maps etc. since they are bundled with the phone.
  - redial 8y ago
    Or, by doing something that is not illegal in the EU: not forcing manufacturers to bundle Google Search if they want to include the Play Store.
IanCal 8y ago
> Firstly, Android doesn't have a monopoly. It does have a dominant market position though, and that's what's in the legal stuff that they're being fined under. You do not need a complete monopoly to have a dominant market position. > Secondly, there are device makers that didn't cut a deal with Google, notably the Amazon phones and tablets. They weren't that popular with consumers but that's not Google's fault: it just means consumers highly value the additional services Google provides. More than that though, they effectively stopped device manufactures from selling these (because of exclusivity agreements), and a lack of range isn't going to have helped amazon: > For example, the Commission has found evidence that Google's conduct prevented a number of large manufacturers from developing and selling devices based on Amazon's Android fork called "Fire OS". http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm

r_singh 8y ago

Thanks for this. Anyone who has tried to compile a forked version of AOSP knows that Google makes it extremely hard to do so. Android being an open source OS is nowhere near as easy to install as a regular linux open source OS. I've been trying to get my own android / androidTV box working on popular hardware like rPi and other Amlogic, Allwinner, Mali based boards without much success. Even devices manufacturers have troubles with the same (talking about SBCs here). Android is open source only for name sake. Google's deliberate control over the entire Android ecosystem is undeniable.

ensiferum 8y ago
Android is only open in theory, closed in practice.
- r_singh 8y ago
  AOSP does not include proprietary apps like the Play Store, etc. In order for device manufacturers to get the Play Store on their phone, they have to give in to Google's demands to add the Google search box on the home screen of the phones. Apart from this, Qualcomm doesn't release open source drivers for GPUs etc, making it even harder to use pure AOSP on flagship devices.
  - gowld 8y ago
    Qualcomm blocked Google from using Proprietary Android on its devices! One of the Nexus phones couldn't upgrade the OS to the next version due to Qualcomm drivers.
  - ihsw2 8y ago
    > In order for device manufacturers to get the Play Store on their phone, they have to give in to Google's demands to add the Google search box on the home screen of the phones. What's wrong with this? The Play Store is subsidized by search revenue, it makes sense to tie them together.
sqdbps 8y ago
Tell that to Amazon and their Fire devices and to all the Android forks in China.

jillesvangurp 8y ago

Apple doesn't license their OS to OEMs. I'd say them blocking alternative browser engines is controversial though. Also they dislike people using certain libraries, emulator technology, providing the ability to execute downloadable scripts (e.g. flash), etc.

gowld 8y ago
iOS has a documented policy of banning apps that complete with their own.

VikingCoder 8y ago

Oh, Apple is a brutal dictatorship that doesn't share anything? That's fine. Oh, Google, you're willing to share almost everything with anyone for free, but you want to put terms on that? Hey, here's a giant fine. I just don't understand the logic of this at all.

Tepix 8y ago
It's mostly about having a 80% market share.
- acct1771 8y ago
  Fine them for the anticompetitive practices, then - not success...
  - zaarn 8y ago
    Fining anti-competitive practices only makes sense when it's successful. The EU laws around this are also worded as such. You can do anti-competitive behavior all you want if you're not a major player because you'll just be shooting yourself in the foot.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
mrweasel 8y ago
The logic is that you're not allowed to use your position in one marked to gain influence in another. Google knows that most manufacturer needs their devices to ship with the Play Store, because that's where the apps are and smartphone without apps are useless. But they use the Play Store as leverage, forcing manufactures to also ship Chrome, rather than Opera, Firefox or their own browser and that's the bit that is illegal. Imagine that Apple forced telcos to block Spotify, to force users to iTunes, and if they didn't then no iPhones on that carriers network. That being said I don't think Google is using the Play Store to force installations of Chrome or the Google search app, that's just weird. People would install Chrome anyway and they already dominate search, so why bother. I think the reason is technical, but the end result is still illegal.

ummonk 8y ago

They also don’t have an iOS consortium nor do work with other makers, so there is no bullying makers into doing what they want “or else”. That's the issue though. It seems that Google is being punished for being somewhat willing to work with other makers.

hrktb 8y ago
That’s an angle. Google is exactly in the same position as Microsoft when they were caught red handed doing shitty stuff with the vendors. The interesting part is both Microsoft and Google prioritized licensing/delivering the OS and associated software, keeping a healthy distance from building hardware. Google tried a bit more with the Nexus/Pixel programs, but even then the target was only for small scale niche devices. What I am driving at is that once android got traction, Google’s position went way up while vendor’s bargaining power went down, even as vendors where the ones taking the risks down the line. That kind of unbalance makes it easier to have abusive contracts and business practices. It starts with good intentions (working symbiothically with the makers at innovative products) but things change, and with success I’d guess different kind of people also come into the organization to push more aggressive practices.

greggman 8y ago

FYI, Microsoft did not have a monopoly on personal computers. It had a monopoly on Intel based computers. See the actual judgement for details. Apple has a monopoly on A9, A10, and A11 based computers.

redial 8y ago
> It had a monopoly on Intel based computers. No, it had a monopoly on IBM-Compatible computers, which is a category that includes multiple OEMs that sell compatible machines. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on any market category where more than 1 player (Apple) is involved.
- greggman 8y ago
  no it didn't. see the actual ruling quote: "The District Court determined that Microsoft had maintained a monopoly in the market for Intel compatible PC operating system" https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253/34/576095/ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253...
  - redial 8y ago
    Ok, Intel-compatible. Apple has no monopoly on any hardware market where they are not the only one. They cannot dictate terms to any other OEM manufacturing A10-compatible computers.
    - greggman 8y ago
      Sure but MS also got in trouble for disallowing browser competition. Apple does this as well via their monopoly.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]