3 ms·
But Google doesn't require Android makers to bundle it's apps unless they specifically want to be called a Google device (and thus take advantage of the free ma
by Mikeb85 4y ago
But Google doesn't require Android makers to bundle it's apps unless they specifically want to be called a Google device (and thus take advantage of the free marketing). Plenty of Chinese manufacturers ship without Google bits.
- germandiago 4y agoI see it another way: govts want money. They steal it from the work of people and profitable companies. I came to the cornclusion that beyond that, they do not care. Of course, they need excuses. But their motivation is not the excuses. With war it also happens the same. I do not know who said that, but someone well-known once said: for a war you need two things, one is the real reason and the other is the excuse to make it happen.
- enragedcacti 4y agoI highly recommend you read the original ruling, it is in English and it explains how they view the relationship between the Play Store, Android OEMs, the MADA, and other Google services.
- ocdtrekkie 4y agoI'm confident if people had actually read the MADA and the AFA, Google would enjoy virtually no public support for their behavior. Of course, there's a reason Google considers those documents confidential.
- Mikeb85 4y agoThe real issue is that Indian tech companies want to be able to bundle their crap with Android phones and still take advantage of the Google phone/Android brand. They're welcome to sell forks and bundle all the alternative software they want with whatever store they want, they just can't call it an Android phone or call themselves an Android manufacturer. What Google requires of OEMs has been known for a long time and isn't a secret. And as I already pointed out, companies like Huawei and others successfully sell Android forks with alternative stores and apps.
- enragedcacti 4y ago> What Google requires of OEMs has been known for a long time and isn't a secret. They aren't being fined for keeping secrets. > Huawei and others successfully sell Android forks with alternative stores and apps. If it takes a 1 billion person market with no access to Google services and multiple gigantic partially state-owned companies (Baidu, Huawei, and Tencent at least) to create a competitor that's only viable in that one market, I would argue that it's good evidence India is on the right track here saying that Google has market dominance.
- 2Gkashmiri 4y agoyeah, in india, google HAS monopoly. iphones are TOO expensive for the masses. you can buy 12 moto phones or xiaomi phones instead of a single iphone.
- Mikeb85 4y ago> that Google has market dominance. Having market dominance isn't illegal. Abusing it is. Google only has stipulations that, if you want to call your device a Google or Android device, you need to have the Play store and a few key services. Anyone can fork Android, put in their own app store, all their own apps, whatever. Indian tech companies need to either fork and come up with their own eco-system or play by the rules. Not lobby their corrupt government to try to force Google into allowing their crapware and do their marketing for them...
- programmer_dude 4y agoWhy would you assume the private sector is corruption free? It seems not playing fair is a fundamental rule of the business game.