2 ms·
I'm of the opinion that even if you don't think Google has been evil with Google Apps / Android licensing so far, there's ample legal room for them to do so. F
by ethbro 12y ago
I'm of the opinion that even if you don't think Google has been evil with Google Apps / Android licensing so far, there's ample legal room for them to do so.
For example, having prevented anyone from developing high quality mapping alternatives by freely (with license agreement) offering Google Maps to OEMs, they decide that in order to install Maps on Android your device must now do the following:
- include additional tracking information and report same to Google
- include a facility to prevent the user from uninstalling or disabling this tracking functionality
... if you do not agree to this then, we're sorry, you'll have to find another mapping provider. Or ship a mobile device without a mapping solution.
Have they deliberately distorted the market in a way that's beneficial for them in the long term by destroying competition? You'd better bet your ass. They've just done it more insidiously than 90s Microsoft. After all, how evil can something that's given away freely (as in beer) be?
- Oletros 12y ago> having prevented anyone from developing high quality mapping alternatives by freely (with license agreement) offering Google Maps to OEMs, Do you have any proof of this? > - include additional tracking information and report same to Google > - include a facility to prevent the user from uninstalling or disabling this tracking functionality Any source for this?
- ethbro 12y agoI believe you missed the legal hypothetical wording of my post. Although your first question doesn't really need an answer as I'd expect it to be self-evident. E.g. this Google blog post on the matter: http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-free-antitrust-issue.html http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-free-antit... "It is true that if a company has a dominant product, it may run afoul of antitrust laws if it "ties" that product to another -- for instance, by requiring customers who buy that product to buy another product as well. When a company provides products for free on a stand-alone basis, however, it's not requiring anyone to buy anything. It may take business away from other companies trying to charge users for similar products, but that's hardly an antitrust issue." Which is to say they (surprise!) concluded in 2009 that there can't be anti-trust concerns because anti-trust laws don't cover free products, and Google is giving the things in question away for free. Which to me is a clever way of saying "anti-trust laws weren't designed in a digital age where the per-unit production costs of a product (ex-development and up-front costs) can feasibly be zero".
- Oletros 12y agoYap, I missed completely, sorry
- ethbro 12y agoSorry, as Dylan pointed out, tense shifts make for poor signals of intent. Should have made that more explicit for easier comment consumption. Lesson learned!
- Dylan16807 12y agoTo be fair it was quite hard to tell that the second half of your post was still inside the hypothetical.
- lsaferite 12y agoSo, you want to punish them for pre-crime?