4 ms·
The reason government is treated differently from companies in that regard is because the government has a natural monopoly in many areas. You cannot choose an
by mytherin 5y ago
The reason government is treated differently from companies in that regard is because the government has a natural monopoly in many areas. You cannot choose an alternative government, you are forced to deal with the one there is.
When companies hold monopoly status (which Google absolutely does), there is also no real, viable alternative to choose from. When publishing on Android, realistically you are forced to deal with Google. They are not any different from a government in that regard.
The only difference between Google and the actual government is that (under the current set of laws) Google can get away with levels of abuse without recourse that the government cannot.
> Of course, DroidScript has the freedom to choose different ad provider altogether, but they didn't.
They could have chosen a different ad provider, but that is clearly not the problem. They could not have chosen a different publisher on Android without sacrificing >95% of their marketshare, and after being banned by Google from the play store it is game over for them.
- CrendKing 5y agoI agree with you. But legally speaking, Google is not monopolizing until they actually lose an antitrust case. So before that happens, if anyone wants to play the game legally, they have to abide to Google's ToS, no matter how absurd it is, no?
- mytherin 5y agoNo, they are not convicted of monopolising until they lose an antitrust case. That doesn't mean they aren't monopolising right now, it just means there hasn't been a verdict set against them for illegal monopolisation. Cases such as these (and discussing cases such as these) will help in mounting evidence against Google for abuse of their monopoly position.