4 ms·

The lesson should be: do not get caught paying off companies to not compete with you when you already have a monopoly because you will get pilloried by a jury.

The lesson should be: do not get caught paying off companies to not compete with you when you already have a monopoly because you will get pilloried by a jury. Because that is what Google just got punished for doing. They paid off companies to not ship third party app stores pre installed, pressured software companies to not make third party app stores, and gave money to companies to not compete with Google play

Dylan16807 3y ago
But if they had made it impossible to install another app store, they wouldn't have gotten punished.
- LordKeren 3y ago
  No, they could have avoided this outcome by not paying other companies to not compete with Google play. They paid off phone manufacturers like Motorola to not preinstall third party app stores and software companies like Riot Games to not produce third party app stores.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    OP is saying they could also have avoided this outcome by not allowing competition at all. That's the route that Apple took and Apple won their case against Epic. Google's plan was to maintain a de facto monopoly on app stores while technically allowing competition. Apple's was to just come out and say that they were the only authorized app store and therefore they can't be anti-competitive because there exists no market for iOS app stores. Google is probably wishing they had taken that route now.
    - LordKeren 3y ago
      I think it’s tough to guess what would have happened if Google had been more proactive about locking down some parts of android earlier. Though I will speculate that android would have seen much less widespread adoption if they had been more restrictive
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    There are multiple ways to avoid an outcome.
- asadotzler 3y ago
  If they had restricted those APIs way back when, Android would have stalled and Tizen or some other platform would have eaten a huge chunk of the market they have today. You can't just change some important historical detail and pretend there would be zero consequences except the ones you care about.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    It depends on when they did it. But I'm more worried about the future here.
  - tavavex 3y ago
    How can you be certain that changing this detail would result in Android failing? Was it really app sideloading and allowing other stores that made Android successful? I think the biggest contributing factor was that it was made by Google (who had the money to both partner with other manufacturers and eventually make their own hardware), in combination with a lack of other options that'd directly compete with iOS (you mentioned Tizen, but it wouldn't come out for another 4 years after Android's release)
    - asadotzler 3y ago
      It's not about what made Android successful, it's about what made OEMs ship Android rather than something else. OEMs were conned by Google with an open platform that was then shut by secret deals with some of them. That cost the others who weren't in on the secret deals and it cost consumers in missed opportunities. Take away that scam, and perhaps Android never would have got the OEM momentum it did.

Dylan16807 3y ago

But if they had made it impossible to install another app store, they wouldn't have gotten punished.

LordKeren 3y ago
No, they could have avoided this outcome by not paying other companies to not compete with Google play. They paid off phone manufacturers like Motorola to not preinstall third party app stores and software companies like Riot Games to not produce third party app stores.
- lolinder 3y ago
  OP is saying they could also have avoided this outcome by not allowing competition at all. That's the route that Apple took and Apple won their case against Epic. Google's plan was to maintain a de facto monopoly on app stores while technically allowing competition. Apple's was to just come out and say that they were the only authorized app store and therefore they can't be anti-competitive because there exists no market for iOS app stores. Google is probably wishing they had taken that route now.
  - LordKeren 3y ago
    I think it’s tough to guess what would have happened if Google had been more proactive about locking down some parts of android earlier. Though I will speculate that android would have seen much less widespread adoption if they had been more restrictive
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  There are multiple ways to avoid an outcome.
asadotzler 3y ago
If they had restricted those APIs way back when, Android would have stalled and Tizen or some other platform would have eaten a huge chunk of the market they have today. You can't just change some important historical detail and pretend there would be zero consequences except the ones you care about.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  It depends on when they did it. But I'm more worried about the future here.
- tavavex 3y ago
  How can you be certain that changing this detail would result in Android failing? Was it really app sideloading and allowing other stores that made Android successful? I think the biggest contributing factor was that it was made by Google (who had the money to both partner with other manufacturers and eventually make their own hardware), in combination with a lack of other options that'd directly compete with iOS (you mentioned Tizen, but it wouldn't come out for another 4 years after Android's release)
  - asadotzler 3y ago
    It's not about what made Android successful, it's about what made OEMs ship Android rather than something else. OEMs were conned by Google with an open platform that was then shut by secret deals with some of them. That cost the others who weren't in on the secret deals and it cost consumers in missed opportunities. Take away that scam, and perhaps Android never would have got the OEM momentum it did.