Google gave their OS away to everyone to use, but then forced everyone that did to include all of their products and services and make them non-removable. That’s the part that is anti-competitive and abusive.
Apple don’t let anyone use their OS. They aren’t required to. As such, they’re not forcing other companies to include Apple services if they want to use iOS.
How can one be considered abusive and the other not, if companies are free to choose not to use android, just like companies can’t use Apple’s OS? Both have the same result, the company not using the OS. Google’s position is more permissive than Apples, yet Apple’s isn’t considered abusive.
I still strongly disagree. “No, you can’t use this at all” is more abusive than “ok, we’ll let you use this if you agree to something else”. If you didn’t agree with the terms, you are no worse off than the other choice. Android is the “only choice” exactly because Apple won’t share.
The issue only exists because Google are letting others use their operating system, but are abusing their market position where they own 90% of the market, to force their services which makes other products unable to compete. Samsung for example have their own messaging app, but aren’t allowed to not have Google’s messaging app installed. They have their own calendar app, but Google forced them to have Google calendar.
That is abusing their market position and is textbook anti-competitive behaviour.
Apple made their own product, for themselves and no one else. That’s not abusing anything.
If Google stopped letting others use Android, and they could only use AOSP, then they wouldn’t be being anti-competitive because they’re not forcing their services on those using Android. This really isn’t hard to understand.
If you let others use your product and you are the market leader, you can’t abuse your market leader position to be anti-competitive or you’ll get fined.
Google can’t stop others using AOSP, and you know what? Yes, I would actually like it if Google would stop letting others use their Android versions, because then we might actually get some competition and out of this duopoly.
Google also used anti-competitive measures to prevent windows phone from being successful, but that seemed to be let go cause people hate Microsoft and actively didn’t want another mobile OS for some bizarre reason.
Europe sucks ass and makes everything worse and more expensive. Now Google will have to show every human 3200 additional ads to make up for that money lost. And if anyone wants to tell me Europe doesn’t suck ass, tell me about the people you’re killing by banning AC and about how you can be locked up for certain types of speech or if you try to defend yourself against an attacker. I’ve lived there twice, never going back. Yes Europe likes Apple more than Google and they targeted them intentionally because they love collecting huge fines/revenue from things they are biased against. But ultimately they’re only making Google worse, not making anyone’s experiences better.
You don’t understand what you’re talking about.
Google gave their OS away to everyone to use, but then forced everyone that did to include all of their products and services and make them non-removable. That’s the part that is anti-competitive and abusive.
Apple don’t let anyone use their OS. They aren’t required to. As such, they’re not forcing other companies to include Apple services if they want to use iOS.
Understand?
How can one be considered abusive and the other not, if companies are free to choose not to use android, just like companies can’t use Apple’s OS? Both have the same result, the company not using the OS. Google’s position is more permissive than Apples, yet Apple’s isn’t considered abusive.
One is abusing their market position, the other isn’t.
Android is basically the only choice for phone OS’s, and they are abusing that fact by forcing their services on every phone.
I still strongly disagree. “No, you can’t use this at all” is more abusive than “ok, we’ll let you use this if you agree to something else”. If you didn’t agree with the terms, you are no worse off than the other choice. Android is the “only choice” exactly because Apple won’t share.
You’re wrong then.
The issue only exists because Google are letting others use their operating system, but are abusing their market position where they own 90% of the market, to force their services which makes other products unable to compete. Samsung for example have their own messaging app, but aren’t allowed to not have Google’s messaging app installed. They have their own calendar app, but Google forced them to have Google calendar.
That is abusing their market position and is textbook anti-competitive behaviour.
Apple made their own product, for themselves and no one else. That’s not abusing anything.
I think Bradley means that Apple should also be forced to open up their OS to other manufacturers?
Even suggesting that they should be forced to let others use it is absurd.
So if Google said that companies can no longer use Android, you would be satisfied?
Way to miss the point.
If Google stopped letting others use Android, and they could only use AOSP, then they wouldn’t be being anti-competitive because they’re not forcing their services on those using Android. This really isn’t hard to understand.
If you let others use your product and you are the market leader, you can’t abuse your market leader position to be anti-competitive or you’ll get fined.
Google can’t stop others using AOSP, and you know what? Yes, I would actually like it if Google would stop letting others use their Android versions, because then we might actually get some competition and out of this duopoly.
Google also used anti-competitive measures to prevent windows phone from being successful, but that seemed to be let go cause people hate Microsoft and actively didn’t want another mobile OS for some bizarre reason.
Europe sucks ass and makes everything worse and more expensive. Now Google will have to show every human 3200 additional ads to make up for that money lost. And if anyone wants to tell me Europe doesn’t suck ass, tell me about the people you’re killing by banning AC and about how you can be locked up for certain types of speech or if you try to defend yourself against an attacker. I’ve lived there twice, never going back. Yes Europe likes Apple more than Google and they targeted them intentionally because they love collecting huge fines/revenue from things they are biased against. But ultimately they’re only making Google worse, not making anyone’s experiences better.