4 ms·
If you're swayed by that logic, should perhaps Google be forced to charge users for web search, and Android, and their other "free" offerings that put smaller c
by gojomo 12y ago
If you're swayed by that logic, should perhaps Google be forced to charge users for web search, and Android, and their other "free" offerings that put smaller competitors at a disadvantage?
- captn3m0 12y agoThe difference here is that of "service" and "utility". Google can offer its services for free. However, it should not be allowed to partner with a utility to make its services free, if that makes sense.
- adventured 12y agoYou won't get a response to that, for the same reason you won't get a response to: should all Linux vendors be forced to charge prices comparable to Windows, because otherwise they're dumping? And of course OpenOffice should be made illegal under that same logic.
- pmontra 12y agoThey also give you the source code. That makes the whole issue so different that I won't use Linux and OO as an analogy for this Indian case.
- simonh 12y agoGoogle being add supported doesn't directly raise the cost of competing services. Conversely Facebook making a deal to make accessing itse service free on a paid network has the direct consequence of making the cost of using competing services go up. The cost of free access to Facebook has to be borne by somebody, if not the ISP then the customer has to pay it when they acess non-subsidised sites. Internet.org is not about giving things away for free, it's about a cartel using their combined market power to negotiate subsidies and fix prices in order to distort the market.