| Okay then, but Google Search is what paid for Android development, so if you can't tie them together, Android needs to seek other sources of funding. The most obvious one is some sort of licensing fee. A licensing fee would be a valid and reasonable outcome. It probably can even work without making Android closed-source, by choosing the licenses accordingly or maybe have some kind of early-access or migration-support agreements (IANAL). The main point is that Google is using a monopoly in one market to retain a monopoly in another market, and this is illegal. As far as I'm reading the press release, Google is not barred from developing and offering Android for free, if they wish so - they are only disallowed to abuse their monopoly. but it also forced browsers to find independent business models It stopped Microsoft from preventing independent business models for browsers; it was just too late already for the commercial browser vendors of the time. And the current EU ruling will hopefully allow other mobile OS developers (or startups) to compete on more equal grounds. Of course we still have the network effect of Google Play, featuring a market dominance over Android apps and Android users. I wouldn't be too surprised to see another future EU ruling requiring Google to unbundle Google Play from all but technical requirements, possibly allowing users to legally get access to Google Play on AOSP-based devices, or using alternative clients. |
I agree with this and it's a good thing, but where does it ends? When can we say this is another market, don't touch it?
Qualcomm is pretty much the standard on cellphone processor. Their processor include a GPU, called Adreno. I want to manufacture GPU for phone. By including it on their processor and not offering it without one, they essentially force their buyer to ignore my offering. Are they trying to illegally retain monopoly over GPU for phones? CPU and GPU are 2 different market (desktop PC prove this pretty clearly).