5 ms·
The market they were considering was for OSs that were licensed to hardware manufacturers. And they did that because the abuse they were investigating was in th
by lucozade 4y ago
The market they were considering was for OSs that were licensed to hardware manufacturers. And they did that because the abuse they were investigating was in those license agreements.
They specifically excluded Apple (and Blackberry) as competitors in that market because they don't license to external hardware manufacturers. Google didn't contest that definition.
- izacus 4y agoYes, and that's a myopic exclusion that ignores the fact that we want more manufacturers to license their OS, not less.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- junofan 4y agoThe government is not a great tool for getting what you want.
- Iolaum 4y agoWhile I agree with that, I would welcome a recommendation for a better tool.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- lucozade 4y agoNot sure that makes any sense in the context of this investigation. The only possible difference including Apple would have made is in concluding that Google isn't dominant and thus restricting browsers and search within the license had much less material impact. In other words, it would either have no effect or have the effect of letting Google off for its restrictive practices. And investigating Apple for its licensing agreements with its hardware supplier probably would be a bit pointless. Now, should the EU be investigating the lack of hardware freedom in some ecosystems including Apple's? Sure, sounds eminently sensible. But that's completely different to what the EU was investigating here.