31–40 of 107 posts
Lesson learned: just lock down your platform like Apple. Corrupted freedom is apparently worse than totalitarian control.
If Android was locked down, it would be tiny and irrelevant.
The thing that landed Google in hot water was that they licensed Android to multiple vendors and then used anticompetitive shenanigans to control the marketplace. Look at XBox and Windows at Microsoft. XBox is a walled garden and you can't create a game for it without Microsoft's permission and giving Microsoft a cut. There have been zero legal repercussions for this. Windows is licensed to multiple vendors and Micro…
I do not know anti-trust law but I think the difference in business models should be acknowledged.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
No one mentioned side loading here and it seems clear that you pulled the weakest possible interpretation of their point to respond to. Please don't do that.
What other interpretations would be common?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Android was locked down, it would be tiny and irrelevant.
The Nintendo Switch runs a locked-down version of Android that has sold over 100 million units of associated hardware.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Android was locked down, it would be tiny and irrelevant.
The Nintendo Switch runs a locked-down version of Android that has sold over 100 million units of associated hardware.
How does Google, running closed and un-licensable Android with no phone to put it on, compete?
It’s not a question of evidence, but the law. There is no “duty to deal” with other firms. But if you choose to do so, you have to do so fairly.
This is not true. There is no such thing as having to deal “fairly”. You are completely free to make different deals with different customers reason #1367 that HN commenters make horrible lawyers
For example, RRPs are generally considered illegal, you can't force your customers to sale at specified minimum price, and more crucially, you can't do it selectively.
Lesson learned: just lock down your platform like Apple. Corrupted freedom is apparently worse than totalitarian control.
I think a better lesson would be to comply with the law, do not destroy evidence, and to do what you say you are doing. Google sold Android as being open. Once Android succeeded, Google started closing it and making anti-competitive deals. Many of these deals were illegal because Google had a monopoly and abused its monopoly. Please explain why Google's conduct should not be punished? Why should Google be allowed to…
You're in one conversation. Many other people are in a completely different conversation, something like:
Isn't Android more open than tons of closed systems, who will never be punished... and isn't that evidence that the law itself is written poorly?
It’s not a question of evidence, but the law. There is no “duty to deal” with other firms. But if you choose to do so, you have to do so fairly.
This is not true. There is no such thing as having to deal “fairly”. You are completely free to make different deals with different customers reason #1367 that HN commenters make horrible lawyers