3 ms·

No, you're wrong. They are evaluating Android within the context of "licensable mobile operating systems", within which Android has 100% market share. Similar

No, you're wrong. They are evaluating Android within the context of "licensable mobile operating systems", within which Android has 100% market share. Similarly, iOS has 100% market share in the "proprietary mobile operating system" market, and would therefore be subject to the same implications as Google & Android. The reason why the EC decided to go after Android but not iOS I'll leave for the reader to inquire.

s3r3nity 8y ago
That's a very specious argument: you make the mobile OS market so specific such that both Android and iOS have separate monopolies for very different reasons. In reality, antitrust law market definition would more likely resort to looking at a customer choice model: as a consumer, I purchase a phone, which can have a given operating system. My choices are between iOS / Android / other. It's that simple. The "licensable" vs. "proprietary" distinction are distribution models that, from a consumer choice perspective, is irrelevant.
- ucaetano 8y ago
  > That's a very specious argument That isn't an argument, that is literally the market definition used by the EC. > The "licensable" vs. "proprietary" distinction are distribution models that, from a consumer choice perspective, is irrelevant. You are literally wrong, and clearly didn't do you homework: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm "At this stage, the Commission considers that Google is dominant in the markets for general internet search services, licensable smart mobile operating systems and app stores for the Android mobile operating system." Not only the EC used "licensable smart mobile operating systems" but it also used "app stores for the Android mobile operating system". It assumed that Android does not compete with iOS and that the Play store does not compete with the App store.
  - strictnein 8y ago
    Just because they mention "licensable" doesn't imply some other category of concern that would involve "proprietary". You seem very sure of a position that nothing you've linked has highlighted in the slightest. They are concerned because the dominant licensable OS requires proprietary software and services, which is what the document you linked makes very clear.
    - ucaetano 8y ago
      Make it "Apple has 100% market share in unlicensable mobile operating systems". Doesn't change the fact that it has 100% market share in that market, no matter how you call that market. You can't have your cake and eat it too: you can't defend the ECs case on Android and not demand the same on iOS. Well, you can, but then we're not talking about antitrust policy, we're talking about politics and picking winners.

s3r3nity 8y ago

That's a very specious argument: you make the mobile OS market so specific such that both Android and iOS have separate monopolies for very different reasons. In reality, antitrust law market definition would more likely resort to looking at a customer choice model: as a consumer, I purchase a phone, which can have a given operating system. My choices are between iOS / Android / other. It's that simple. The "licensable" vs. "proprietary" distinction are distribution models that, from a consumer choice perspective, is irrelevant.

ucaetano 8y ago
> That's a very specious argument That isn't an argument, that is literally the market definition used by the EC. > The "licensable" vs. "proprietary" distinction are distribution models that, from a consumer choice perspective, is irrelevant. You are literally wrong, and clearly didn't do you homework: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm "At this stage, the Commission considers that Google is dominant in the markets for general internet search services, licensable smart mobile operating systems and app stores for the Android mobile operating system." Not only the EC used "licensable smart mobile operating systems" but it also used "app stores for the Android mobile operating system". It assumed that Android does not compete with iOS and that the Play store does not compete with the App store.
- strictnein 8y ago
  Just because they mention "licensable" doesn't imply some other category of concern that would involve "proprietary". You seem very sure of a position that nothing you've linked has highlighted in the slightest. They are concerned because the dominant licensable OS requires proprietary software and services, which is what the document you linked makes very clear.
  - ucaetano 8y ago
    Make it "Apple has 100% market share in unlicensable mobile operating systems". Doesn't change the fact that it has 100% market share in that market, no matter how you call that market. You can't have your cake and eat it too: you can't defend the ECs case on Android and not demand the same on iOS. Well, you can, but then we're not talking about antitrust policy, we're talking about politics and picking winners.