4 ms·

"no one is forcing them to use the Google app store either." Again, not a valid rebuttal. Just because someone doesn't have to use your product (and in this ca

"no one is forcing them to use the Google app store either." Again, not a valid rebuttal. Just because someone doesn't have to use your product (and in this case, I would flat out disagree with your statement) does not mean you get to gouge them on the terms.

dogma1138 8y ago
Ah yes because if the OEMs gouge Google on terms it's just fine. There are plenty of alternatives, the largest markets don't use Google, you can't cry that this is anti-competitive when it's clearly not the case since there is plenty of competition. Google invested billions in Android it can do whatever it likes with it, you don't like it? don't use it, the alternative is for Google to either charge a feed to use Android which would be perfectly fine or to close it off to OEMs completely which again would be completely fine in this context and it would also avert the fine in both cases. All this fine would do is A) force google to find ways to not pay it and they would likely not pay a single euro-cent in the long run, B) close the Android ecosystem even further down to the point where no other alternatives would be even possible.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  No, that is just flat out not true. Not having Google Play Services on a device in the US or the EU is a non-starter. It would never take off, and it would not have a chance in the market. So no, there is not plenty of competition for that. As such, Google is not allowed to abuse their monopoly position in that area to extract extra concessions from OEMs. If Google was not licensing it out, then sure, they could do whatever they wanted. But they are, and as such, they are not allowed to add anti-competitive terms to their contract. If they don't like it, they don't have to sell their services in jurisdictions with functioning regulators.

4 ms·

"no one is forcing them to use the Google app store either." Again, not a valid rebuttal. Just because someone doesn't have to use your product (and in this ca

by s73v3r_ 8y ago

dogma1138 8y ago
Ah yes because if the OEMs gouge Google on terms it's just fine. There are plenty of alternatives, the largest markets don't use Google, you can't cry that this is anti-competitive when it's clearly not the case since there is plenty of competition. Google invested billions in Android it can do whatever it likes with it, you don't like it? don't use it, the alternative is for Google to either charge a feed to use Android which would be perfectly fine or to close it off to OEMs completely which again would be completely fine in this context and it would also avert the fine in both cases. All this fine would do is A) force google to find ways to not pay it and they would likely not pay a single euro-cent in the long run, B) close the Android ecosystem even further down to the point where no other alternatives would be even possible.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  No, that is just flat out not true. Not having Google Play Services on a device in the US or the EU is a non-starter. It would never take off, and it would not have a chance in the market. So no, there is not plenty of competition for that. As such, Google is not allowed to abuse their monopoly position in that area to extract extra concessions from OEMs. If Google was not licensing it out, then sure, they could do whatever they wanted. But they are, and as such, they are not allowed to add anti-competitive terms to their contract. If they don't like it, they don't have to sell their services in jurisdictions with functioning regulators.