Apple isn't forcing OEMs to include their bundled software.
This reads very much like the EU vs. MS for the exact same reasons.
back
3 comments
But isn't the deal that you get it for free if you include the software? i.e. there's an exchange of value there?
I suspect the problem is that there's no "I'll pay you, but not include the software" option for Android, but couldn't it be applied to any FLOSS as in "there's no option to pay you, but not contribute back" in the case of the GPL or even "there's not an option to not buy a Mac with MacOS", or something like that?
EDIT: If the problem is using Android's dominant position to bundle Google Search, then I get the similarities to the MS lawsuit, the difference being that people actually want to use it, which is why I think Google should be confident about including a "Bing Search" or "Google Search" option, as 99.99% of people would go with Google, since in Google's case, Search is actually a product people want to use when compared to the alternatives, whereas Explorer wasn't in the MS case.
But couldn't this then also be extended to Chrome and Search on the desktop? i.e. Google used its dominant position in search to push Chrome, (try visiting google.com with Safari or Firefox, notice the top-right Chrome banner?) and once they got to a dominant position with Chrome, they used it to further the dominance of Search, by it being default in Chrome etc.
Microsoft's case was about Microsoft threatening OEMs to not sell Windows to them if they dared preinstall Netscape. The purpose was to keep a high barrier to entry for competing OS's, as they controlled the Win32 API but not the Java applets API.
I don't think the Bing Search option would be sufficient to ward off anti-trust claims, unless you made Bing search the default or did something crazy like make phones flip a coin and then decide which search to default to.
Microsoft never made Google the default search on Windows. Just offered the option.
In current Windows 10 Bing is the only provider for Cortana, which is enabled by default, both for the conversational interface as well as all shell search features.
Additionally, forcing a company to effectively hide, (many users never change the defaults), its own product by making the competing one the default, goes way beyond what a government body should be able to compel a company to do, in my opinion.
This from Google's Blog in 2009 against IE/Microsoft. The irony is beautiful.
https://publicpolicy.googleblog.com/2009/02/browsers-powered...
I thoroughly enjoying reading Google's 2009 blog "The Meaning of Open". This was the company I was a fan of, back then, and it's so easy to see how different of a company it is today.
"To understand our position in more detail, it helps to start with the assertion that open systems win."
https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html
Apple simply doesn't allow OEMs on their platform at all. This does not seem like a better approach.
That depends on what your goals are. I think you could argue that Google's Android licensing approach produces inferior products.
..and superior products by the same argument.
In theory, Android should be superior. But like in the Windows ecosystem, promise is often ruined by third party hardware vendors (and carriers).