71–80 of 84 posts
Was it Slashdot that "invented" the nickname Anoynmous Coward? Or did it exist before?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because you can choose a different phone OS, and you can choose a different browser on that OS. Also, both of those things are open source so you can fork them if you want. How do you think it violates antitrust laws? Do you propose that all companies should be required to make all of their features available on all possible variational usage of their service?
Android has 75% market share, it's not like you can avoid it, they have practically a monopoly. As much as people like Apple here, it's nowhere near the same market share as Android. Also you should put quotes around open-source, AOSP does not run on any real device due to a lot of android parts being private + private drivers. It took me one month to run a custom kernel on my Samsung to get the basic hardware workin…
So, their browser on their operating system has features which only work with their search engine. How does this not violate antitrust laws? Product tying, at the least?
the handset vendor (the actual customer of android) can change the search provider to use their own implementation, as evidenced by the many that do exactly that. Additionally, the end user can use any search application they prefer, and many exist. despite a single commit indicating that the google search engine is required for some feature somewhere in the OS, the reality of the situation is that android is not tie…
So, their browser on their operating system has features which only work with their search engine. How does this not violate antitrust laws? Product tying, at the least?
This sort of thing isn't like a speeding ticket where there's a cop just sitting by the side of the road looking for someone to give a ticket to.
The infamous Microsoft/IE case happened because someone, Netscape, was unhappy enough about the event (and had the resources...) to make a compelling enough case to convince a court there was anti-competitive behavior that was causing harm. No one has made such a case for this Cowardly commit, so...
So, their browser on their operating system has features which only work with their search engine. How does this not violate antitrust laws? Product tying, at the least?
"In their Statement of Objections, the European Commission accused Google of the breach of EU antitrust rules in three ways:
- by requiring mobile manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Google Chrome browser and requiring them to set Google Search as default search service on their devices, as a condition to license certain Google proprietary apps;
- by preventing manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices running on competing operating systems based on the Android open source code;
- by giving financial incentives to manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-install Google Search on their devices."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I note that people are referring to Slashdot in the past tense. I don't disagree with the implied statement, but do regret its passing.
I just noticed they deleted old accounts, one of the worst mistakes long-running sites can make.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because you can choose a different phone OS, and you can choose a different browser on that OS. Also, both of those things are open source so you can fork them if you want. How do you think it violates antitrust laws? Do you propose that all companies should be required to make all of their features available on all possible variational usage of their service?
Android has 75% market share, it's not like you can avoid it, they have practically a monopoly. As much as people like Apple here, it's nowhere near the same market share as Android. Also you should put quotes around open-source, AOSP does not run on any real device due to a lot of android parts being private + private drivers. It took me one month to run a custom kernel on my Samsung to get the basic hardware workin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not seeing how those two things are related. Google could have still developed Instant Apps/Google Now without restricting users choice of search engine. And if those users missed out on those features because they use duckduckgo or whatever, so be it. At least it was their choice, right?
DennisAleynikov is saying that Google's forcing everyone to use Google Search generates data that Google uses to make DennisAleynikov's search experience better, which he appreciates. Selfish, but honest.
What an interesting way to go about making an uncomfortable but important decision. This is Google's platform and they should do with it what they want, it's incredible how much search has changed our interaction with our phone. There isn't a day that goes by where I'm not finding everything I need with a quick google search. If google doesn't control the searches end to end on android they would have missed out on s…
Yeah, the EU and the US both had a big investigation of Google and search on the Android platform, but clearly it's amazing that they made this change. Totally lovable totalitarian control.
I'm curious to see legislation attempt to tackle this, obviously more competition is good! What gives me pause is this relentless trend of killing off small startups and competition through strict defaults like only using Safari on iOS and no other browser. Even chrome on iOS is just Safari with a different navbar