6 ms·

It's exactly how it works. If some behaviour is anti-competitive, it is the role of the government to correct it. > In this case I'm not sure why Google would

by palata 2y ago

It's exactly how it works. If some behaviour is anti-competitive, it is the role of the government to correct it. > In this case I'm not sure why Google would pull Organic Maps. Exactly. Someone competent should decide whether that is an anti-competitive move or not. Noting that a "mistake" may be anti-competitive and may deserve a fine. That someone is a government.

_heimdall 2y ago
I may have just misunderstood the GP. I read it as wanting the government to directly work on defining and enforcing Google's terms of service rather than this being an anticompetitive concern.
phyzix5761 2y ago
But its Google's marketplace... not The Marketplace
- palata 2y ago
  Not sure what your point is...
  - phyzix5761 2y ago
    My point is why should the government regulate a private marketplace? If its not working for you go sell your stuff somewhere else. Google pays to keep the Play Store lights on. They should have every right to decide who sells on their platform. People saying that Google shouldn't be allowed to decide who can or can't sell on their platform is like saying someone should have every right to sell their wares from your front porch; even though you're the owner of the property, you pay for living there, and don't want them selling their stuff on your land. The public marketplace is a different story. If Google prevents you from selling somewhere else then the government needs to get involved because this is anti competitive behavior.
    - wkat4242 2y ago
      But Google has a de facto Monopoly on android. For monopolies there's different rules. Very similar to how Microsoft and Google have been hit before eg with the browser and search selection screens. The free market doesn't really work if there's only one player.
      - phyzix5761 2y ago
        What monopoly? Android belongs to them. They spent billions of dollars building it. A monopoly would be if they owned the only means of creating and running a cellphone operating system and prevented others from doing the same. Goes back to my analogy of a random person selling stuff on my porch. I paid for this house and I pay the taxes on the land. If I don't want you selling your stuff here then you need to get out.
        palata 2y ago
        > What monopoly? Android belongs to them. They spent billions of dollars building it. It's funny because you seem to use the last two sentences to explain how it is not a monopoly, where it is actually usually a precondition to getting into a monopoly position. > A monopoly would be if they owned the only means of creating and running a cellphone operating system and prevented others from doing the same. This reminds me of this french movie (OSS 117) where the main character genuinely doesn't understand what a dictatorship is. And he says: "A dictatorship is when people are communists, cold, with gray hats and zippered shoes."
    - palata 2y ago
      Right. I guess we just fundamentally disagree on what "anti-competitive" means. The problem in this case is not that Google should be forced to "sell" stuff they don't want to sell. The problem is that Google takes advantage of the fact that they are in practice the only marketplace to sell their own goods (here Google Maps or Waze) and prevent competitors from reaching an audience (here Organic Maps). And your comparison is very limited anyway, because Google is not selling stuff on their front porch. They are distributing software to billions of devices. It's a very different situation.

by palata 2y ago

_heimdall 2y ago

I may have just misunderstood the GP. I read it as wanting the government to directly work on defining and enforcing Google's terms of service rather than this being an anticompetitive concern.

phyzix5761 2y ago

But its Google's marketplace... not The Marketplace

palata 2y ago
Not sure what your point is...
- phyzix5761 2y ago
  My point is why should the government regulate a private marketplace? If its not working for you go sell your stuff somewhere else. Google pays to keep the Play Store lights on. They should have every right to decide who sells on their platform. People saying that Google shouldn't be allowed to decide who can or can't sell on their platform is like saying someone should have every right to sell their wares from your front porch; even though you're the owner of the property, you pay for living there, and don't want them selling their stuff on your land. The public marketplace is a different story. If Google prevents you from selling somewhere else then the government needs to get involved because this is anti competitive behavior.
  - wkat4242 2y ago
    But Google has a de facto Monopoly on android. For monopolies there's different rules. Very similar to how Microsoft and Google have been hit before eg with the browser and search selection screens. The free market doesn't really work if there's only one player.
    - phyzix5761 2y ago
      What monopoly? Android belongs to them. They spent billions of dollars building it. A monopoly would be if they owned the only means of creating and running a cellphone operating system and prevented others from doing the same. Goes back to my analogy of a random person selling stuff on my porch. I paid for this house and I pay the taxes on the land. If I don't want you selling your stuff here then you need to get out.
      - palata 2y ago
        > What monopoly? Android belongs to them. They spent billions of dollars building it. It's funny because you seem to use the last two sentences to explain how it is not a monopoly, where it is actually usually a precondition to getting into a monopoly position. > A monopoly would be if they owned the only means of creating and running a cellphone operating system and prevented others from doing the same. This reminds me of this french movie (OSS 117) where the main character genuinely doesn't understand what a dictatorship is. And he says: "A dictatorship is when people are communists, cold, with gray hats and zippered shoes."
  - palata 2y ago
    Right. I guess we just fundamentally disagree on what "anti-competitive" means. The problem in this case is not that Google should be forced to "sell" stuff they don't want to sell. The problem is that Google takes advantage of the fact that they are in practice the only marketplace to sell their own goods (here Google Maps or Waze) and prevent competitors from reaching an audience (here Organic Maps). And your comparison is very limited anyway, because Google is not selling stuff on their front porch. They are distributing software to billions of devices. It's a very different situation.