3 ms·
It's not that at all. It's abuse of dominance, not the dominance itself that's the problem. They're using a dominant position in one market to push services in
by mattmanser 8y ago
It's not that at all. It's abuse of dominance, not the dominance itself that's the problem.
They're using a dominant position in one market to push services in an unrelated market. That's anti-trust 101. And they punish suppliers who don't tow the line.
This is exactly the same as the MS anti-trust case. Swap IE for Google Web Services (Search/Maps/Chrome) and swap Android for Windows.
If ARM started forcing phone companies using their CPUs to only sell to AT&T, that's your analogy. As it is, because ARM don't force unrelated services or products on their customers, it's not analogous.
- ummonk 8y agoThey're using a dominant position in one market to push services in an unrelated market. Note that for the purposes of this ruling, the relevant dominant position isn't in Android, but the Google Play Store.