Comment by bad_user | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bad_user | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> But the store is a proprietary and effectively closed app ecosystem completely under Google's control, thus the issue of monopoly exploitation.

Having a monopoly isn't illegal. Using that monopoly to gain an advantage in newer markets is. And the problem with this argument is that you're getting this backwards: when Android 1.0 shipped, Google already had a foothold with Search, Gmail and Maps. The whole purpose of Android was for Google to have a mobile platform to not get locked out of the mobile market. They aren't making money from licensing it and Android wouldn't exist if they couldn't use it for distribution of their apps and services. And the same conditions applied then, as in you want the Android Marketplace (now Google Play) then you have to also ship Google's apps, with HTC Dream (the very first Android phone) shipping with Search, Gmail, Talk, Maps, YouTube, Calendar and Contacts. Did they miss anything important in version 1.0?

> The only part of the Android ecosystem that in any way really violates user freedoms

The "violations" on user freedoms that you're thinking of are subjective issues, not lawful ones. Android is the only mobile OS that allows for Firefox and for third-party app stores without jailbreaking it. Which means that users have the freedom to install and use any alternative they want, a freedom that's not available for the other mainstream mobile operating systems.

The violations are that SAMSUNG can not ship devices with Kindle-Android.

You can only ship non-Google-droid devices if none of your devices use the Play Store, and you can only ship Play Store devices if none of your devices are non-Google-droid devices.

That’s what the EU complains about, and that’s what is worthy of several billion in punishment.

The article has this to say:

"EU antitrust regulators said that by requiring mobile phone manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and the Google Chrome browser to get access to other Google apps, the U.S. company was harming consumers by stifling competition."

I don't see Samsung and Kindle-Android mentioned. Also, assuming these are contractual obligations that Samsung agreed to, how can it be illegal? Don't they have people that read contracts? Or is this an issue of having your cake and eating it too?

> worthy several billion in punishment

That's stretching it. Why are they guilty and why should the fine be so big?

It’s not in the article – but in the actual complaint from the European Commission.

An example where this happened is http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/09/google-blocked-acers-...

> EU antitrust regulators said that by requiring mobile phone manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and the Google Chrome browser to get access to other Google apps, the U.S. company was harming consumers by stifling competition.

The real question is, why is it bad for Google to require Google Search and Google Chrome if you want Google Play, but OK for Apple to require their App Store if you want iOS?

Obviously you have the positions reversed then, but it's still the same sort of tying, and I'm pretty sure those are the correct positions for Google too. You aren't pushing Google apps on people who want the Play Store, you're pushing the Play Store on people who want Google apps.

Apple is not licencing iOS to OEMs. They are also very far away from a monopoly.

> Apple is not licencing iOS to OEMs.

In other words they're also tying iOS to their hardware and vice versa. This is supposed to make it less of an antitrust issue?

> They are also very far away from a monopoly.

They sure look like a monopoly to an iOS app developer or iOS app customer who wants app store competition to drive down app store margins.

And Tesla has a monopoly on making Teslas. Your definition of "monopoly" is inaccurate.

Android is 85% of the smartphone market. iOS is 13% of the smartphone market. Android is a monopoly, iOS is not.

If the objection is the alleged difficulty in installing competing app stores, why isn't the relevant market the market for apps, rather than the market for phones?

So then AT&T wasn't a monopoly in 1979 because they had only a small percentage of the telecommunications market, is that what you're saying? If you don't want to buy your telephone handset from AT&T then you had lots of choices -- just move into the service area of British Telecom or the Deutsche Bundespost or dozens of others.

Antitrust law is concerned with unlawful contracts, collusion, and cartels. It's meant to ensure that businesses compete by acting independently.

Apple is acting independently. They've built differentiating features (like custom software) which you can only get by buying Apple's products. Apple hopes that customers will use their products because they're better than the competition. That is exactly what antitrust law is meant to encourage.

Google is not acting independently. They've built differentiating features, but licensed them under terms that prevent competition. Google hopes that customers will use their products because OEMs are contractually forbidden from selling competing products. That is what antitrust law is designed to prevent.

> Antitrust law is concerned with unlawful contracts, collusion, and cartels. It's meant to ensure that businesses compete by acting independently.

Then how do I have a stack of history books that say the government broke up the 20th century AT&T monopoly under the antitrust laws? And Standard Oil and U.S. Steel before that?

You seem to be implying that if Google did exactly what they're doing now except that they made their own hardware and refused to license Android to third parties then there would be less of an antitrust problem, even though then there would unambiguously be less competition than there is now.

How would there be less competition in that scenario? If Android would be restricted to Google Hardware the market would look way more diverse with Samsung/HTC rocking their own solutions and Nokia/Windows still having market share.

The same if Android licensers were more free to provide their own solutions (see what Amazon did with the Fire brand) instead of forced to bundle Googles services on every device.

As a form of consumer protection I can see why that is desirable.

I think if a company wanted to create a strong branding, for which it would be known that the experience is distinctly NOT android (even if it's based on android) then that is more acceptable.

'Android phone' implies that the google play store and apps are on the device.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com