4 ms·

> Building and maintaining android costs money. ... Clearly the situation is that the android business model is supported by Google's terms. The alternative is

> Building and maintaining android costs money. ... Clearly the situation is that the android business model is supported by Google's terms. The alternative is something maintained by whom? It's not the EU's responsibility to come up with a new business model for Android that isn't illegal. Just because the business model they chose is illegal doesn't mean that we have throw out the baby with the bathwater. > As someone who worked in abuse: if you provide an app store that doesn't have governance, it'll be full of spyware/malware and finding the app you actually want, well good luck. So yeah, the app store service is run by Google and it wouldn't make any sense for that to be open source. I think you're conflating two separate issues. Google Play services include much more than just the Play Store and could very well be open source or at least have publicly accessible APIs licensed on non-anticompetitive terms. The Play Store can keep out malware without requiring phone makers to swear undivided loyalty and submission to Google.

Karishma1234 8y ago
> It's not the EU's responsibility to come up with a new business model for Android that isn't illegal. Actually it is. A regulatory body is supposed to give maximum freedom to business to help them come up with cheaper and better products while not violating other people's rights. EU is equivalent of the white cop shooting an unarmed black kid and then have audacity to call himself the defender of law and justice. But Google is simply pointing out that the people who will end up paying the $5B fine is not Google shareholders by the EU users. As a person who owns Google shares I think Google must modify their playstore policies to charge EU android users and extra fee to pay for this $5B fine.
- russdpale 8y ago
  A regulatory body is supposed to give maximum freedom to business to help them come up with cheaper and better products Uh, what? No. Just no.
- lovich 8y ago
  >A regulatory body is supposed to give maximum freedom to business to help them come up with cheaper and better products while not violating other people's rights. Where did you manage to come up with that definition of regulatory bodies? Their job is to regulate actors under their jurisdiction based on goals set for them by their respective legislature. They don't all have an overarching goal of improving businesses. Some are(were) explicitly opposed to business interests like the EPA
  - simula67 8y ago
    Should these goals be constrained at all ? For example, can a regulatory body ban sales of all cigarettes because the son of the chairperson of the body died of lung cancer ? Why not appoint heads of regulatory bodies as kings ?

Karishma1234 8y ago

> It's not the EU's responsibility to come up with a new business model for Android that isn't illegal. Actually it is. A regulatory body is supposed to give maximum freedom to business to help them come up with cheaper and better products while not violating other people's rights. EU is equivalent of the white cop shooting an unarmed black kid and then have audacity to call himself the defender of law and justice. But Google is simply pointing out that the people who will end up paying the $5B fine is not Google shareholders by the EU users. As a person who owns Google shares I think Google must modify their playstore policies to charge EU android users and extra fee to pay for this $5B fine.

russdpale 8y ago
A regulatory body is supposed to give maximum freedom to business to help them come up with cheaper and better products Uh, what? No. Just no.
lovich 8y ago
>A regulatory body is supposed to give maximum freedom to business to help them come up with cheaper and better products while not violating other people's rights. Where did you manage to come up with that definition of regulatory bodies? Their job is to regulate actors under their jurisdiction based on goals set for them by their respective legislature. They don't all have an overarching goal of improving businesses. Some are(were) explicitly opposed to business interests like the EPA
- simula67 8y ago
  Should these goals be constrained at all ? For example, can a regulatory body ban sales of all cigarettes because the son of the chairperson of the body died of lung cancer ? Why not appoint heads of regulatory bodies as kings ?