2 ms·
> Google's not a charity and made the choices they made to get to where they are. That's my point. They chose the option where everyone wins the most, especial
by Aunche 8y ago
> Google's not a charity and made the choices they made to get to where they are.
That's my point. They chose the option where everyone wins the most, especially themselves. The alternatives would have set the smartphone industry back several years as Google would struggle to make phones and phone manufactures would struggle to make a halfway-decent operating system. Google's policies are "anti-competitive" in the same sense that charging money for their operating system or enforcing copyright is "anti-competitive." In one case, you're forcing companies to pay for your product. In the other case, you're forcing the companies to follow a set of rules to use your product.
- shady-lady 8y ago> phone manufactures would struggle to make a halfway-decent operating system They'd have bought from one of the other mobile OS vendors(Symbian, MS) or made their own (Nokia w/Maemo). It could be argued that Google distributing Android for free(so as to ensure the continued dominance/inclusion of Google Search) did set the smartphone industry back. Who the hell wants to compete against free? Even more so when that "free" is coming from a XXX billion dollar company. Which is maybe why MS gave up on mobile OS, or Symbian no longer exists or Maemo. > you're forcing the companies to follow a set of rules to use your product ...and Europe found those rules broke the existing law.