5 ms·
>By the way that isn't how the law defines monopolies. Monopolies are always about defining the market. Here they went with licensable OS market, purposely lea
by ApolloFortyNine 4y ago
>By the way that isn't how the law defines monopolies.
Monopolies are always about defining the market. Here they went with licensable OS market, purposely leaving out Apple entirely.
>The Court agreed with the Commission's assessment that iPhone maker Apple (AAPL.O) was not in the same market and therefore could not be a competitive constraint against Android.
Kind of reinforcing my point that the EU in this case was watching out for businesses, not users. Your average user when asked to name an Android competitor would likely name Apple.
- teruakohatu 4y ago> Monopolies are always about defining the market. Here they went with licensable OS market, purposely leaving out Apple entirely. I find it bizarre they can slice and dice a market to a point where Android is a monopoly despite the face that competitors can fork Android for free and have done so eg. Huawei's HarmonyOS. Would Google never licensing Android to EU firms have avoided this fine in the first place? I can't imagine they made that much money from EU business' licensing android.
- xyzzyz 4y ago> Would Google never licensing Android to EU firms have avoided this fine in the first place? This particular fine, possibly, but they’d get some other fine then, for something else. The process here is outcome oriented, not about law or fairness.
- white_dragon88 4y ago[dead]