3 ms·
> 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" distinc
by 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 agoJust 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 agoMake 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.