3 ms·

That's actually the opposite of how it's supposed to work. You're not supposed to be able to use your dominance in one market (cell phone manufacturing) to unf

by treis 6y ago

That's actually the opposite of how it's supposed to work. You're not supposed to be able to use your dominance in one market (cell phone manufacturing) to unfairly compete in another (search).

cblconfederate 6y ago
what dominance?
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  Exclusive control on the one phone each user has.
  - cblconfederate 6y ago
    that's kind of ridiculous, there is no dominant phone maker. Also a lot of ppl have multiple phones/tablets
- treis 6y ago
  Samsung and Apple control 75% of the market in the US.
  - cblconfederate 6y ago
    Apple 40%, samsung 25% , LG 10% in the US Apple 25%, Samsung 34%, Huawei 17%, Xiaomi 10% in Europe Sounds pretty fine for a market with healthy competition. Really hard to call any of them a monopoly. Google® has 94+% of mobile search in both US and EU!
    - romanoderoma 6y ago
      > Apple 25%, Samsung 34%, Huawei 17%, Xiaomi 10% in Europe Apple gets 11 billions/year to use Google as the default search engine The remaining 61% (Samsung+Huawei+Xiaomi) is Android that means Google Xiaomi defaults to Baidu in China, for example, but everywhere else, where the CPC has no direct control over the wires, they use Google because Google money is good even in China
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
thaumasiotes 6y ago
>>> that's evidence of phone manufacturers using their power in one market (phone sales) to extract cash out of another (search/ads). >> That's an example of how competition is supposed to work. Phone makers sell their audience to the highest bidder. > That's actually the opposite of how it's supposed to work. You're not supposed to be able to use your dominance in one market (cell phone manufacturing) to unfairly compete in another (search). If you read the comment in question, there is no suggestion that the cell phone manufacturers are competing in the search market. They're taxing it, or selling to it. So.... what are you trying to say?

by treis 6y ago

That's actually the opposite of how it's supposed to work. You're not supposed to be able to use your dominance in one market (cell phone manufacturing) to unfairly compete in another (search).

cblconfederate 6y ago

what dominance?

srtjstjsj 6y ago
Exclusive control on the one phone each user has.
- cblconfederate 6y ago
  that's kind of ridiculous, there is no dominant phone maker. Also a lot of ppl have multiple phones/tablets
treis 6y ago
Samsung and Apple control 75% of the market in the US.
- cblconfederate 6y ago
  Apple 40%, samsung 25% , LG 10% in the US Apple 25%, Samsung 34%, Huawei 17%, Xiaomi 10% in Europe Sounds pretty fine for a market with healthy competition. Really hard to call any of them a monopoly. Google® has 94+% of mobile search in both US and EU!
  - romanoderoma 6y ago
    > Apple 25%, Samsung 34%, Huawei 17%, Xiaomi 10% in Europe Apple gets 11 billions/year to use Google as the default search engine The remaining 61% (Samsung+Huawei+Xiaomi) is Android that means Google Xiaomi defaults to Baidu in China, for example, but everywhere else, where the CPC has no direct control over the wires, they use Google because Google money is good even in China
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

thaumasiotes 6y ago

>>> that's evidence of phone manufacturers using their power in one market (phone sales) to extract cash out of another (search/ads). >> That's an example of how competition is supposed to work. Phone makers sell their audience to the highest bidder. > That's actually the opposite of how it's supposed to work. You're not supposed to be able to use your dominance in one market (cell phone manufacturing) to unfairly compete in another (search). If you read the comment in question, there is no suggestion that the cell phone manufacturers are competing in the search market. They're taxing it, or selling to it. So.... what are you trying to say?