EU committee to probe Google over alleged anticompetitive behavior with Android

[abazigal]

They're not arguing that Google can't put what they want in it. They're arguing that Google is using the free nature of the OS to manipulate the market both in mobile and with their services.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

I thought it was an open secret that the whole purpose behind Android was to serve as a gateway to Google's cloud services, which in turn brings in the advertising revenue for them?

You want something that is free, and with no strings attached? Sorry, the world doesn't work that way.

 

[JHBThree]

I thought it was an open secret that the whole purpose behind Android was to serve as a gateway to Google's cloud services, which in turn brings in the advertising revenue for them?

You want something that is free, and with no strings attached? Sorry, the world doesn't work that way.

That isn't what they're arguing. They know what you posted above. What they're arguing is that Google made moves that purposely (and they believe illegally) promoted their own services above competitors, and made the demands in their contracts with manufacturers.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

 

[abazigal]

That isn't what they're arguing. They know what you posted above. What they're arguing is that Google made moves that purposely (and they believe illegally) promoted their own services above competitors, and made the demands in their contracts with manufacturers.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

Ah, that makes more sense. My reading comprehension is a tad off today. I think I also need to get up to date with what constitutes a monopoly today. It never occured to me that something given out for free could potentially be used for monopolistic ends. Guess I learn something new every day.

Some parts of the article strike me as quirky though.

the regulators' probe will look at whether or not Google was licensing Android to manufacturers "below cost" in an effort to get widespread adoption

Because it is possible to code an OS for cheaper than free, right?

 

[JHBThree]

Ah, that makes more sense. My reading comprehension is a tad off today. I think I also need to get up to date with what constitutes a monopoly today. It never occured to me that something given out for free could potentially be used for monopolistic ends. Guess I learn something new every day.

Some parts of the article strike me as quirky though.


Because it is possible to code an OS for cheaper than free, right?

I took that to mean that they offered it for free specifically to encourage adoption artificially.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

 

[AndrewRC123]

...

 

[Fairclough]

It will blow over. Worst comes to worse is they get a slap on the wrist and has to charge a small amount.
Remember when Microsoft faced the EU for giving software out for "Free" on the windows, the free software was office suits. Apple claimed it was unfair. All which happened was Microsoft bought apple shares in good faith.

 

[JHBThree]

It will blow over. Worst comes to worse is they get a slap on the wrist and has to charge a small amount.
Remember when Microsoft faced the EU for giving software out for "Free" on the windows, the free software was office suits. Apple claimed it was unfair. All which happened was Microsoft bought apple shares in good faith.

I don't think it will. The EU is not as easily pushed around as US regulators are.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2