Android has created more choice, not less
blog.google
Android has created more choice, not less
1–10 of 15 posts
Re: Android has created more choice, not less
#2Sundar Pichai is missing the point: a monopolist is not allowed to abuse its position to enforce products and severly reduce choice.
Sundar appears not to remember that Microsoft was fined many years ago since it forced Internet Explorer with its Operating System.
Also Google must obey the law. So stop crying, pay the fine and think carefully before abusing your power again.
Re: Android has created more choice, not less
#3Stop complaining like a crybaby when you are found guilty, or you will look like Microsoft in the 90s
Re: Android has created more choice, not less
#4Give the EU what it really really wants. In response to the three charges [1], if you apply the business formula of the other player (Apple) in the market, implications on choice and freedom really do unfurl. So here is the counter to the three chargers:
Charge 1: requiring manufacturers to pre-install Google search - Do what Apple does, accept payment from 3rd parties on being the search provider. MSFT pays billions for the privilege of being a search engine to Apple.
Charge 2: preventing smartphone manufacturers from running competing systems that had not been approved by Google - Amazon ships hundreds of millions of Android devices that use non of Google's services. Not only is this charge disingenuous, but technically inaccurate. Unlike iOS, Android allows side-loading apps, which has NOTHING to do with the play store. I wonder if they like the way Apple cock blocks choice in apps. by rejecting competing services and apps from the app store, purposefully withholding iOS safari from W3C approved standards to drive developers to the app-store, and disallowing sideloading. Is that freedom?
Charge 3: Google was found to have denied consumers choice by paying manufacturers and mobile phone operators to pre-install Google Search - Much like MSFT paying for Bing on iOS. Sham charge.
In conclusion, what the EU really wants is an Apple model . Google should stop licensing Android to manufacturers in the EU (like Apple), make it closed source (like apple), kill sideloading apps (like apple), with-hold browser compatibility on W3C standards (like Apple), and slap a minimum price tag of $1200 on Pixel phones
What a sham
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jul/18/google-face...
Re: Android has created more choice, not less
#5Monopolists always have this response. Bell said similar things before their breakup - that their scale allowed them to provide a standard of service and price point otherwise impossible. History has repeatedly shown that its not true.
Re: Android has created more choice, not less
#6That GIF is incredibly misleading. It's not about hiding the app from home screen, it's about uninstalling it and not having it run in the background.
Re: Android has created more choice, not less
#7Give the EU what it really really wants. In response to the three charges [1], if you apply the business formula of the other player (Apple) in the market, implications on choice and freedom really do unfurl. So here is the counter to the three chargers: Charge 1: requiring manufacturers to pre-install Google search - Do what Apple does, accept payment from 3rd parties on being the search provider. MSFT pays billions…
The EU is no big fan of Apple either. If iOS had the dominant market share [0], presumably the EU would be coming for them for many of the reasons you listed.
[0] iOS is at about 24% currently in Europe, considerably less than the ~50% in the US: http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe & http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-stat...
Re: Android has created more choice, not less
#8That GIF is incredibly misleading. It's not about hiding the app from home screen, it's about uninstalling it and not having it run in the background.
However, you can actually disable pre installed apps in Android, with some exceptions (AFAIK, none of the Google services apps are in those exceptions).
Disabling an app is almost the same as uninstalling (the app can't be open, does not run in background, etc.), however since they are pre installed applications they are still present in /system partition (not a problem since /system is not available for users data anyway).
Re: Android has created more choice, not less
#9Give the EU what it really really wants. In response to the three charges [1], if you apply the business formula of the other player (Apple) in the market, implications on choice and freedom really do unfurl. So here is the counter to the three chargers: Charge 1: requiring manufacturers to pre-install Google search - Do what Apple does, accept payment from 3rd parties on being the search provider. MSFT pays billions…
The issue here
> Amazon ships hundreds of millions of Android devices that use non of Google's services.
isn't that they cannot do it, it's that if they do ship their own device stripped of Google softwares, they cannot ship other devices they made themselves that are certified.
It's either one or the other. For Amazon it's a choice they can live with. Not so much for the average phone manufacturers, as choosing not to ship devices with Google apps would severely limit their marketshare.
This is the major issue, manufacturers should be able to do both if they want without blacklisting themselves from Google.
Re: Android has created more choice, not less
#10Give the EU what it really really wants. In response to the three charges [1], if you apply the business formula of the other player (Apple) in the market, implications on choice and freedom really do unfurl. So here is the counter to the three chargers: Charge 1: requiring manufacturers to pre-install Google search - Do what Apple does, accept payment from 3rd parties on being the search provider. MSFT pays billions…
MSFT pays billions for the privilege of being a search engine to Apple.
Google pays Apple to be the default search engine....
http://www.businessinsider.com/google-paid-apple-3-billion-r...
preventing smartphone manufacturers from running competing systems that had not been approved by Google - Amazon ships hundreds of millions of Android devices that use non of Google's services.
A manufacturer can’t both ship Android devices that have Google Play Services and Android devices that don’t. Amazon doesn’t make any devices with Google palsy Services.
by rejecting competing services and apps from the app store,
For every service that Apple offers, their is s competing third party service in the App Store and for most, they are treated equally.